Voluntaryism is Morally, Economically, and Socially Better for Society than Statism

Audience, if you have made it to this, the last argument, you are truly noteworthy. My opponent is a very likable person, I actually consider him a friend of mine. His argument, however, has holes entire civilizations have driven through. I shredded his arguments below, but will not force you to read them and don't even want you to read them because I like Evan. In its briefest form, my response proves that all of his statements mention the chocolate chips, and forgets the cookie. Oh, and usually his chocolate chips are so small, you wouldn't be able to find them in the dough. That's it, read below if you wish. You can feel fine just voting based upon this paragraph. You have 27 citations, probably 40 references, I read all of them, but cannot respond to all of them due to the format. Fear. I think this is the driver behind your argument, as well as the references you cite. So here are your citations so far, including how they gauge in comparison to their settings. by the way, any citation you have that comes from a governmental agency, or sponsored by the government, or developed as a result of a government program or initiative, you are basically conceding to my side of the argument. 1. http://www.hawaii.edu... University of Hawaii, Last sentence at the end of the page you referred "This means to foster democratic freedom. " Win Melvinotis 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com... Immaterial to the discussion 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... I'll allow that it is central to the discussion 4. http://www.spiegel.de... Worthy part of the discussion, but still experimental, you have no way of knowing the long term consequences of this program (even if it looks promising) 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... I would make light of the fact that you are referring to a civilization we need radiocarbon dating to check into, but this little tidbit from your reference: What is clear is that Harappan society was not entirely peaceful, with the human skeletal remains demonstrating some of the highest rates of injury (15.5%) found in South Asian prehistory. [10][11] Furthermore, rates of cranio-facial trauma and infection increased through time, demonstrating that the civilization collapsed amid illness and injury. The bioarchaeologists who examined the remains have suggested that the combined evidence for differences in mortuary treatment and epidemiology indicate that some individuals and communities at Harappa were excluded from access to basic resources like health and safety, a basic feature of hierarchical societies world-wide. Yeah, sounds like Harappa was a great place to be. You seem to have an expectation that there should be basic human rights, but you do not seem to understand that even the concept of "rights" comes from whatever set of humans you happen to have been born around and how you are set up in their world. Whoever you are, and when ever you are born, and what you do with your life after that will be based upon whatever society allows you to do. Forever. Is this good? It doesn't matter. Because unless you become an evil super genius bound to eliminate the scourge of humans from the face of the earth, you will always have to deal with humans one way or another. Your definitions are lacking, as mentioned, they highlight the bad while denying or ignoring the enormous amount of good. Voluntaryism: initiation of force is the last resort. there is an infinity of solutions between suggestion and force or aggression that you encounter every day, but deny their existence. When you don't wear your seatbelt, they do not threaten your life, they in fact, by supporting seat belt wear, increase the likelihood of you living longer. "the belief that violence should never be used to manipulate non-violent behaviors." That is a fair statement, but it again ignores the greater context. If you let your dog poop and do not pick it up, no big deal, right? But what if it is near the water source for the town? should the town consider you violent because you do something that risks making hundreds of people sick and making those who are already sick perhaps die? Is your realization that you are doing something that could potentially make someone die important? Or how about just following an ordinance developed by a governing body that says you should pick up your dogs poop? Or in a different scenario, you happen to be one of thousands of people in a city who do not pick up the poop over the winter. So when the snow melts, it pours so much bacteria into the water system that it overcomes the water systems ability to protect the populace, and now that bacteria is in all of the pipes, potentially ruining the system? Are you considered violent? Should the response be violent? Why not just do what you are told, via ordinance or law, rather than initiate retaliation for something you perceive as innocuous. Again, from you: "Statism: The religious belief" --Religion refers to god worship, which is not necessary for a state. So again, your argument is doomed 4 words in this time. It makes it simple to dismiss the entire paragraph, because the premise is unsound. You could easily have said "Statism is like a religious belief" and followed down wherever that path lead, but you wanted to grandstand, so here you are with your premise in your hand looking at a computer screen. Not pretty, and not pertinent to the discussion. "anarchists do not know what is best for everyone" I'll agree with that, but add the question of why would they know what was best for anyone, including themselves? Anarchy does not make anyone smart, and if given free reign, eliminate the structures that allow the populace to educate themselves. Statism is immoral--dealt with that already "Rape cage" From YOUR sources, rape happens in prisons 4.4% overall, leaving 95.6 unraped. From my research, the general populace is at risk of male on male rape (the rarest form of rape) at 3%. That leaves you a 1.4% deficit, and that allows you to call it a rape cage? A little more research and you find out that women in college run a 28% risk of rape, which brought tears to my eyes. But under your schema, sending your daughter to prison instead of college will actually significantly protect her from rape! Would you start calling it the University of Rape Cage? "The worshipers of the state are most dangerous, for history has shown Democide to have killed 360,000,000 people in the last 100 years" Yet the world, dominated by states, has increased in population from 1.5 billion to over 7 billion in that time period. Your number, not including generational totals, represents .0514% of the total current population. Again, you are ignoring the bulk of the evidence, finding your favorite needle in a haystack that is larger by orders of magnitude. "businesses will not be burdened with centralized regulation" Businesses thrive on centralized regulation, as long as it is central to their interests. This is a discussion worthy of another whole debate, which I will also win. "There is nothing the government can do more efficiently than can be done by private means." Except provide a framework for business to be done, protect civil rights (I understand why you do not agree with me on this, but privatization makes it worse, not better.) http://justicebeforecharity.org... and absolutely tons of little things and big things that are either economically unfeasible, or just a flip of a coin who does the work. There are winners in your schema, they look like this:Inline image 1 http://www.nexusofnerd.com... And they will tell anyone that will not submit to them; "Just Walk Away