Voluntarism is Superior to Democracy

Thanks, Garbanza. Re: Person vs. Property Rights I specifically argued why person and property are not independent, and why property rights are a logical extension of personal rights. Ergo, it's not true that I've dropped this point. I agree with it. Since Con does too, she must explain why if one has the right to their person (autonomy) living free from the aggression of others, why one does not also have the right to their property being free from the aggression of others - since they are not independent and logically go together. Con has never justified this inconsistency. Next Con argues that if someone takes actions to directly deprive another of resources (or impoverish them) that it's immoral. What Con fails to explain is why if the actions are voluntary. If I trade someone money for a cookie, I am being deprived of my wealth yet the voluntary exchange provided mutual gains. Similarly, if I choose to work for pay, I am trading my labor for wages. I'm being deprived but simultaneously provided for. Most transactions within a mutual and voluntary exchange are beneficial for both parties. Moreover, if someone happened to have more wealth/resources than me, they would not be inherently immoral or wrong just because their wealth somehow deprived me of things I could have if only they gave them to me. Inequality exists in nature, in humanity and yes in property. That is fair and just. Not everyone is born into the same circumstances, works the same, has the same intellect and skills, or makes the same choices - so people are not entitled to the same wealth and property. Everyone is entitled to live free (and have their property free) from force and violence though. Con mentions voluntarism as having the potential to form monopolies. First and foremost, democracy (or the status quo) has a monopoly on governance, force and law enforcement, so it would seem monopolies can and do exist under her proposition as well. A real monopoly can only exist through violence (government backed initiatives). For example: US patent protections. If I want an iPhone, I have to buy it through Apple - no other supplier can provide it for me. That is a monopoly on the sale of iPhones. In a free market, if Apple wanted to be the sole provider of the iPhone, they would have to keep the technical details a secret - instead of relying on the force of government to perpetuate their legal monopoly. In terms of resources and utilities, professional economist Thomas DiLorenzo explains, "Most so-called public utilities have been granted governmental franchise monopolies because they are thought to be 'natural monopolies.' Put simply, a natural monopoly is said to occur when production technology, such as relatively high fixed costs, causes long-run average total costs to decline as output expands. In such industries, the theory goes, a single producer will eventually be able to produce at a lower cost than any two other producers, thereby creating a 'natural' monopoly. Higher prices will result if more than one producer supplies the market" [1]. So-called natural monopolies don't exist. Only government backed monopolies have existed in history. Political scientist Murray Rothbard notes "The very term ' public utility' is an absurd one. Every good is useful 'to the public,' and almost every good may be considered 'necessary.' Any designation of a few industries as 'public utilities' is completely arbitrary and unjustified" [2]. In other words, once you give the state (or people through democracy) the power to vote away other people's property rights, they can essentially deem almost anything worthwhile enough to put a government monopoly or regulation sticker on - which is problematic and unfair. One example is education. It's posh now to say people have the "right" to education. But we don't have a "right" to anything that requires force against another person. Indeed voluntarism protects against monopolies better than democracy, because force is not allowed. Businesses have to remain competitive through legitimate practice (better prices and service) rather than have the government establish monopolies or oligopolies through law. Con adds that democracy protects people by allowing for the provision of basic necessities through public utilities and social programs. Again, nobody has the right to anything that requires force or theft. If someone is hungry, they have a right to seek food. They have a right to grow, farm, ask, beg or buy food. But they don't have the right to have people with big guns (the government) back up a demand for food by a bunch of people voting away people's property rights to ensure that others have food. Just because humans have basic survival needs doesn't mean other humans are responsible for providing them against their will.It's fallacious for Con to imply that poverty would be ignored without the state. People typically do care about their fellow man and want to help - that's why people vote in favor of social programs rather than against them. If the state were not taking away a significant portion of our wealth through force (taxes), we would have more money as individuals to donate and fund charitable causes and social programs voluntarily. Indeed charity and communal exchange are important in a voluntarist society, and in the last round I explained (using Con's own logic) why people have a tendency to care about others. Re: Air Pollution Con suggests that in a voluntarist society, all forms of pollution would be criminal which is absurd. I never suggested that, and my source from the last round detailing how air pollution rights worked in a voluntarist society did NOT suggest that either. Not all pollution is destructive or observably impacting of another's property. I don't have time to expand on this point (round's almost due) so I'll drop it for the debate and just post a source for Con's personal reference [4]. Re: Children's Rights and Education Extend all of my arguments regarding why education is not a right. You have the right to seek education, but you don't have the right to have one provided for you. With only 5 minutes left to post an argument, I simply don't have time to expand any more on this point now than deferring back to my last round explanation. Hopefully the readers will see I've already addressed most of these concerns. Re: Public Space Under voluntarism, an individual or group of individuals can collectively own space, and have it open to the public. This will allow for parks and other areas. Democracy is problematic in terms of public space. A group of people can vote to have your personal property be eliminated and turned into public space against your will. The government could also prevent you from doing things like gardening on your own property [3]. This stands directly in contrast to Con's point about property rights being a logical extension of personal rights.Re: Democracy Con has zero response to the point that democracy = tyranny of the majority, or bullying through numbers. That's because it is simply true. Of course this does not explain why the populace should be able to legalize things like slavery and genocide through majority vote - something I would like Con to address in the next round. She's dropped every instance of my noting how democracy allows for the legal violation of individual rights. I've argued that the state should exist solely to protect against aggression, not encourage or enforce it. Democracy allows for the legal initiation of force. In regard to most voters being uninformed, ignorant and selfish, Con says this is true of people even under voluntarism. Extend all of my arguments about why voluntarism only allows for mutual trade, voluntary exchange and the non-legal initiation of force, thereby making the stupidity of other people far less relevant to the lives of others. In a democracy, stupid people vote to make decisions about how to handle your money. I've explained this ad nauseum. Under voluntarism, you decide for yourself how to spend your money. It promotes personal accountability and responsibility in addition to fairness. Con appeals to fear and suggests that a very wealthy person under voluntarism could "exploit the majority" for his own gain. Obviously that is true in just about any society, given that still happens under democracy and the status quo. Almost all governments are headed or run by rich and powerful individuals. Democracy allows them to legally exploit you - often with the help of government initiatives - while voluntarism protects against an individual's most basic and fundamental rights. In conclusion, I wrote that on taxes my opponent must justify legal theft or for the forcible seizing of one's earnings or property for no other reason than they have acquired more than others approve of. Con simply responded by saying things like "Personally..." and "I'd rather..." which are entirely moot. I don't care about Con's preferences. In a voluntarist society, she could do exactly as she prefers. What I'm asking is why she thinks her preferences should dictate other people's lives and eradicate their basic rights. Further, if more people had preferences that differed from hers, they could simply vote her preferences to irrelevance. Once again Con said she "doesn't see why" individual rights should be respected or she would "prefer" to pay taxes, but none of those are arguments.[1] https://www.libertariannews.org...[2] http://mises.org...[3] http://napavalleyregister.com...[4] http://www.lewrockwell.com...