Anarchist vs democratic theories of proper governance

I thank Noumena for his rebuttal. I will now present my own (the underlined rebuttal is more specific). I would request that my opponent not post his final round until Saturday evening as I am busy. DELEGATION OF POWER REBUTTAL This will largely be covered in my small-scale vs. large-scale rebuttal. While small-scale decisions are important, representatives in a representative democracy are tasked with making decisions that the people that elected them want them to make. For example, if the community wants a gun-ban, then the representative is supposed to argue for a gun ban. This allows for the people to still have a voice, plus streamlines the decisions for large-scale and small-scale decisions. COERCION VS VOLUNTARYIANSM I cover this in my rebuttal too, but the greater good is being served and the people are voluntarily electing to be part of that state. C1: REBUTTAL: SMALL SCALE VS LARGE SCALE Pro also presupposes that small-scale decisions cannot be made in a representative democracy. Clearly, the United States is a representative democracy, yet there are many levels of government, ranging from federal, to state level, to municipalities. All three of these are still representative democracies. I have not denied the benefits of small-scale decisions, merely shown that should large-scale decisions be made (which they obviously will be), a representative democracy will be far more effective than anarchy. This rebuttal falls. C2: PEACE AND ORDER As laid out in R2, anarchists see problems with initiatory aggression, not with defensive force. Of course, this is all hypothetically wonderful. However, there will always be those more powerful than others. The primary reason why the State is more capable in providing order is because they possess a force dedicated to stopping crime (the police). On the other hand, in an anarchist state your safety is your own concern. If 10 people come knocked down your door and stole all of your material possessions, you have no ability to fight back (10 v 1 gg). The entire society would eventually degenerate into a society full of violence, as there would be no impartial, third party force that would be powerful enough to stop people from committing crimes. Con’s defence isn’t even unique to representative democracy That is true, almost every form of government will be capable of maintaining order, however an anarchist government cannot. A representative democracy is just as good at maintaining order as every other form of government, so the point stands. C3: JUSTICE Con never attempts to show why taxation (force) is justifiable simply because he perceives good to come out of it. Firstly, the people have elected to be a part of the state, essentially consenting to this coercion. There is nothing stopping a person from leaving the state. Secondly, I find that the justification for the fact that coercion is almost never acceptable rather lacking, it is merely based off of Hoppe’s argument. Furthermore, in the argument that Pro provided was “ALMOST” never. I would feel that serving the greater good and voluntarily consenting to this coercion would fall in the category of being acceptable. Regarding services, without this form of coercion it seems unlikely that people would be willing to donate money to create education, roads, and provide healthcare. If people do not want to be coerced, they do not need to be part of that particular government. Eye for an eye I apologize for posting this in the R2, it appears that I was severely mistaken about the anarchist theory of justice until this round. The anarchist view of justice argues that initiatory aggression is never ethically justified and that the proper use of force lies in defending innocents, apply restitution (in civil cases of aggression), or apply retribution or punishment (in cases of more serious aggression). Pro has failed to show how a police force cannot fulfill all of these duties. Furthermore, as I have already shown, the anarchist theory that initiatory aggression is never justified is simply a theory, it cannot be assumed that everybody will follow this theory simply because it is immoral, and it cannot be assumed that people will simply be willing to protect the innocent without the presence of a police force, which as I have shown is characteristic of government. Over to Pro.