Anarchism is incompatible with the principle of individual rights

Before my actual argument, I would like to point out that Con repeatedly breaks the rules he agreed to. In citing Wikipedia and quoting Murray Rothbard – far from the only example – he introduces outside evidence, which was specifically agreed to be invalid. This last would not be so bad had he put this evidence in direct relation to my argument. Alas, he has not, so far as I can see. In particular, so far as I can see, he has not contested my definition of Anarchism („the opposition to any government“). I will therefore assume it is valid. I do not mean to bully him into accepting my definitions over his; if he takes issue with it, and meant to object, he may of course still point out the fundamental discrepancy that I am missing between his Wikipedia-quote and my definition. One mistake I see Con making in his argument over and over again is the following: the burden of proof being equal, it does not suffice for him to contest my points. Rather, he must establish a logically coherent position of his own. Even if all my points were indeed invalid, Con has not even attempted to make an argument for his own position. On this alone, he must lose the debate. I Individual Rights I believe that Con misunderstood my purpose in this paragraph. I did not mean to conclusively define individual rights. Rather, I meant to state the general idea of individual rights. In the subsequent section, I elaborated on the principles which this idea implies (property rights). I.a) Property Rights: Homesteading and Trading Con asserts that I am wrong on property rights. He does not submit his own alternative. If he intended to claim that property rights could be derived from self-ownership, he is still misunderstanding. The purpose of this argument is not simply to state principles, but to follow them logically up to that point where we can establish (or disprove) the legitimacy of a government. Since Con does not elaborate on his claims about self-ownership, he fails to establish any logical links in his argument. This point must therefore, for all relevant purposes, be viewed as dropped. I.b) Violations of Rights Con asserted (unfortunately not here, in the proper place) that the only violation of rights is to be “attacked”. This is self-evident. However, he does not realize that it is precisely the purpose here to define such an attack. I have done so; Con has not. Consequently, this is another dropped point. II The Rights of Third Parties Con mistakes logical necessity for “convenience”. However, he also asserts a right to intervene, flowing logically from the professed source of his theory of rights, though he does not call it a right. We therefore actually do agree on this point. One specific point I'd like to refute: “this is circular because he's saying that rights require rights“ Not so. What I am actually saying is that any coherent concept of rights must include the right to uphold those rights. I cannot see how this is circular reasoning; it is strictly logical necessity. III The Monopoly Once more, Con tries to substitute semantics for argument. He asserts that what I am introducing is a “hypothetical”, and that this is somehow a departure from “principles”. This is a completely unfounded claim. I am not at all making a point about the “real world”. I am showing how the principle of individual rights logically necessitates a “monopolist” who enforces them. On from semantics to the substance of his claims. Con writes: “A conflict between Ann and Bob can be resolved by Craig today, and Danny tomorrow.“ That might well be so, but it would merely mean that either 1) Craig agrees with Danny, and therefore does not intervene, or 2) Craig is physically unable to intervene, but would if he were (or 3) Craig is apathetic and refrains from intervening; this option is obviously irrelevant to the issue at hand.) Before I move on, I would like to point out the irony in Con's introducing this hypothetical. Con next introduces a piece of outside evidence. I would advise him, next time he decides to explicitly break the rules of a debate, to do it properly and at least to include the link in question. Since he does not explain at all how this Icelandic system worked, I can not respond to this point. Another unfounded assertion: “There can still be an underlying objective theory of rights. It doesn't matter if no one follows them because the PRINCIPLE of individual rights remains intact. “ Blatantly wrong. Con is asserting that the “principle” of individual rights is untouched by any violation of them. This is not the question (see “The Fundamental Question of Politics”). If Con is apathetic to violations of individual rights, he cannot claim to be upholding them (and that is what this debate is about.) “Forcing everyone to submit to the interpretation a central authority is itself a violation of individual rights.” And here, finally, is the crux of the matter. This is where Con finally shows his true colors. This is the idea which defines his Anarchist thinking. You will notice that Con asserts this as a fact, thinking that no proof is necessary. He has not proven, nor attempted to prove at all why any interpretation of rights must be wrong simply because some authority enforces it. What matters is not who enforces any given interpretation of rights; but what that interpretation is. I will happily concede that a “central authority” can make mistakes in judging rights (to move into the “by what means” part of “the fundamental question of politics”, I would suggest a government rely as little as possible on such “central authorities”, and instead divide its power up among different branches and a federalist “county-state-federal” etc. system. This, however, is real world application and outside the scope of our debate.) But one's fallibility does not mean that it is illegitimate to uphold one's interpretation of rights of third parties to one's best ability, which is what consistent Anarchism denies. IV) The Government Con seizes upon the vague expression “society”. He fails to realize that my definition of government (“that entity which enforces the rights of third parties and successfully assumes a monopoly on the definition of those rights”) does not rely upon it. To define this society, once more, moves into the territory of real-world application. If a definition had to be given, it would be: a group of people whose physical interactions make it necessary for the same concept of rights to apply to all. How this is determined is difficult and real-world application. Con however unduly expands “society” beyond this, once more relying upon semantics to misrepresent my case. It is obvious that neither Blizzard nor Juggle are governments, since neither of them enforce any individual rights whatsoever; they merely offer a service and enforce their rules applying to that service. Now, a ship on the high seas is a qualitatively very different issue, and in fact serves to illustrate how such a society can be reasonably delimited (to a point). Needless to say, World of Warcraft does neither enforce, nor violate anyone's individual rights. V) Anarchism The question is not whether individuals have an obligation to enforce the rights of third parties (though a good argument could be made for that, I think), but whether they are entitled to do so. Con evades this, but we can only deduce from his opposition to any entity which takes it upon itself to do so, that he is opposed to it. This, then, shows that he is opposed to the principle of individual rights. VI The Fundamental Question of Politics I can only leave by restating that the fundamental question of politics is: (principle:) What should be enforced, and (application) by what means? Con's implicit answer is "nothing should be enforced". That is incompatible with individual rights. I have refrained from any remark (except this one) on the conduct and tone of Con. I hope it will be taken into account by the judges.