Anarchy

Let's move along to my opponent's specific points. I will be arguing from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. I will argue that an anarchist society with a free market can be sustained long term. (P1) I don't quite understand this point I must say. In it my opponent simply argues that in certain situations, some individuals will have "a degree of control" over others. Anarcho-Capitalism and the balance of power Now if I were to take on my opponent's point from an anarcho-capitalist position then my opponent's argument falls apart. He assumes that people with resources will try to dominate those without resources. In an anarcho capitalist society though, people are moved to do things for a profit. It is a basic part of anarcho-capitalism that a society employing that system would be made up of individuals with certain needs and wants. Some of these people will have access to resources that could be used to produce things that those without the resources need. So if I have access to these resources than I am as much at a disadvantage to my would-be customers as they are to me. The would-be customers possess resources(some form of currency) that I want. I have resources that either my would-be customers want or that can be used to make things that my would-be customers want. If I want these customers to buy from me I will need to keep a good reputation with the community as a whole. If I make a reputation of cheating customers and robbing those that have access to less resources then naturally I will lose quite a lot of trade. No one wants to trade with someone who could possibly cheat you. It is therefore in my best interest to keep a good reputation with individuals and groups of individuals whom I trade with and to be fair in my interactions with them. So an individual with access to more resources is not necessarily in a position of power in relation to those with less resources as with more resources comes a profit incentive as an ends which one might use their resources as a means. (P2) Here my opponent argues that anarchy cannot exist as a sustainable system simply because it currently does not exist in the world. But are we to assume that because it hasn't existed yet it cannot exist? My opponent writes: //"This is one form of government system that would inevitably rise out of any group of people that form a society together. This form of government is called Tribal Council. "// If my opponent is to prove this then simply asserting it without warrant will not do. He has not brought any evidence that this must happen. Only claiming that it is the "natural order". Far from providing historical evidence that Tribal Council must arise out of any interaction among individuals, my opponent does, to his credit, bring some reasoning behind his conclusion and I will analyze it here. He writes that tribes of people will necessarily see two things happen. A. -There will naturally be people in the group who are stronger or smarter than others and B. -There will naturally be people who will be willing to submit to the will of these individuals. My opponent claims that this happens in lions and wolves, however should we believe that because some species interact in thi way that all must? My opponent also makes the mistake of not taking into account the concept of property. An anarcho-capitalist society would most likely follow the first possession theory of property. This means that while intelligence and strength are still important factors in social interactions among groups, would not be as important as the factor of who possesses what resources in an anarchic society. Even if my opponent is to theorize that only the strongest and smartest would acquire the most property, which is not too improbable, individuals with more resources would be forced to cooperate in a reasonably fair manner with those who possess less resources as I explained when I refuted my opponent's P1. (P3) My opponent argues that an anarchistic society would not be able to defend itself from foreign invaders. I will briefly summarize his two reasons and then proceed to refute them 1)private defense agencies would not have the resources to sufficiently fend off an attack. In order for them to defend themselves they would need "some form of government structure". I will bring a few objections to this point of my opponent. First, since we are assuming that the world is in an anarchic state, war would necessarily be much less frequent than it is now. Before we look at how often war would be waged theoretically in an anarchist society we must ask why war is so common in the world today? We can clearly see that the largest scale wars are fought in the name of a few things. These two things can be found at the heart of most historical wars. Wars can be fought in the name of things like justice, democracy, freedom or human rights. The other reasons why one would be motivated to wage war are for things like money, land, resources or overall greed. However since we are assuming that according to my opponent's scenario, the world is in an anarchic state we may also assume that the reason for this war or invasion will be for someting like resources or wealth. The difference though between a war waged for wealth launched by a government and a war for the same reaon lauched by a large gang or corporation is in the way that it generates it's finances. Without money or resources one could not wage a fight as my opponent admits. Profit motive and scarcity of conflict The individuals or group of individuals who are planning on attacking this society would need to stand to gain more wealth or resources then they might lose. This in itself would make war and aggression of that nature much more rare than it is today. The reason why government's like the United States can wage war all over the world is because it forcefully takes wealth from it's citizens. This would not be an occurence in an anarchic state as it would be made up of voluntary association of individuals in a free market. A gang of individuals or a corporation would not be able to raise taxes on it's constituents so it must use it's own money to engage in said conflict. This would necessarily keep conflict between parties at a much lower level then they are today. (P4) Who will enforce the rules of an anarchic society? My opponent again forgets to apply what form of anarchism I am arguing for. I am arguing that an anarcho-capitalist society would be sustainable in the log term. This means that people form voluntary associations using a profit incentive. This problem would be taken care of relatively easy with the help of privatized courts and defense agencies. One would pay a defense agency to help in the event that someone attacks them or breaks into their home similar to the way one buys life insurance. With a profit incentive put into place, defense agencies would be motivated to treat situations where they are called by their clients in the fairest way possible. If a person thinks that their defense agency was wrong in their decision not to get the person who they percieved to be at fault, they might go to a privatized court. These courts would also be motivated by a profit incentive to judge cases in the fairest way possible so as to keep a loyal amount of customers. Courts and defense firms would be motivated by profit to keep a good reputation so as to continue associating with their clients. I have adequately shown why an anarcho-capitalist system can be sustained long term based on profit incentive.