Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society

Thank you for submitting your R1, PRO. These are some interesting arguments. It took some time to plan my rebuttals. Rebuttals Point A PRO is arguing that without the existence of government, people will not be able to work together, due to what PRO terms “barriers”. Why is it that a Christian, for example, will have a hard time working with a Dogmatic Atheist? These ideologies are highly opposed, so they serve well as examples here. The fact that people disagree on some things does not then mean they will not be able to work together. I don’t even see how these would come into play. This leads to someone doing that which is not in their best interest, particularly because people are well-versed in different areas. In order for me to get a house, for instance, I will need someone who knows how to build and/or value houses. If I am an Atheist, and the only people I can find to do this are Christians, not dealing with this person/these people will prevent me from having a house. On a larger level, if all people choose only to cooperate with those people that are like them, they will not have access to those things they need and want. People gravitating towards those similar to them doesn’t mean they will not cooperate with people different from them. All of that said, how does government prevent this? By forcing them to work together, as was done with the American Civil War? By offering them benefits (which, incidentally, requires that benefits are taken from elsewhere)? Both of those work against freedom. People cannot choose to do as they please (within reason) and people are having their benefits taken, which could lead to economic hardship. Point B As I mentioned, some public services will be pushed into private industry. One such service is military. There are several ways this can happen. Assuming that anarchist communities are simply “pop-up” occurrences, and no large anarchist societies exist, the wisest thing to do is to team up. Even if Point A is true, and people will not regularly work together, it is in their best interest to provide for their own safety. Otherwise, they will lose their property. Hence, the small communities have a reason, predicated on self-interest, to forgo their predispositions and work with even those people they dislike. Further, another method for a military to exist is as a PMC, private military company. This would, essentially, be a large scale security firm, dedicated to protecting smaller areas. Payment methods could vary, but to suggest that military force is necessarily weak due to the contingent size of anarchist communities is somewhat off-based. In all honesty, what are the benefits of invading a small area? The cost of an invasion would surely exceed the financial gain, thus rendering the invasion entirely counter-productive. Not to mention, if the anarchist community falls within the region of a State, the anarchists are protected anyway. Given that the only land-masses without government influence tend to be hard to inhabit (Antarctica and Outer-Russia), there is reason to assume people wouldn’t live there. Point C Agreed. However, a corporation is the construction of the State [1]. A corporation does not exist without legislation and registration. If there is no “government” with which to register, there can be no corporations, by definition. Point D Seems, to me, to be the position we are in currently. The State sets down rules that it is not subject to, and which the rich can buy their way out of entirely. A cost-benefit analysis will show that it is preferable to have the rich receive lenient treatment than to have the State entirely exempt from the law. Point E I think there is a level of equivocation here. C1 is in regards to military security. Investors are more concerned with financial security. The very purpose of investing is to receive some kind of benefit. Financial benefit is most common, but emotional satisfaction is a benefit as well. “Without the government, our money will depreciate in value.” This is already happening. “Inflation” is the relationship between the general level of prices of goods and purchasing power [3]. Every year, there is a decrease in our purchasing power, due to a rise in the general level of prices; this rise is generally around 2%. Even with government, the value of our money is going down. As for the issue of fiat currency: it only of value because of the State’s promise to pay the amount stated [4]. That then means that our currency is nothing more than transference of debt. The calculations done for currency valuation have little to do with the word of the State. Economic and political conditions have a lot more to do with exchange rates. Arguably, it would not be difficult to construct a new “national currency” for Anarchism. The Fed could remain as is, only it would print different bills. It is not the promise to pay that makes the US dollar valuable, it is the relative value of the US dollar to other national currencies that makes it valuable. Stated another way, the word of the State is irrelevant to the exchange rate of the dollar. Point F If the issue is public funding, charities will do just as well, if not better, than taxes, especially when people are getting all of the money they worked to earn. People will donate more money if they have more to give. Universal healthcare, public schooling and the like can also be promoted through vouchers and generosity. PRO has left the main claim undefended, and instead argued for the abilities of government. Point G In relation to monopolies and buyouts, the fact that a monopoly “can” exploit workers does not then mean they will exploit workers. In fact, the fact that corporations don’t exist means that workers can then sue the company they work for. If they are, indeed, being exploited, the suit should go through, assuming it was class action (which, by the way, are fewer and fewer due to government actions). As relates to schooling and firefighting, part of the reason these are not “particularly profitable” is that salaries are determined by government interaction, not by market interaction. Closing Remarks Many of PRO’s arguments center on the comparative abilities of the State and Anarchy. These only attempt to show Anarchy to be less adequate at attaining some particular values than Government. However, the resolution states “Anarchy is detrimental to freedom and the growth of society”. PRO will need to show a direct connection between anarchy and the detriment to these things. As I mentioned in my own arguments, the detriment of X to a particular Y depends on X’s relation to Y. That is to say, that the claim that (Anarchy) is detrimental to (freedom and the growth of society) depends on (Anarchy’s) direct relation to (freedom and the growth of society). Essentially, what PRO needs to argue is that Anarchy leads to less freedom than exists in a Statist society AND ALSO leads to either (A) no further growth or (B) decline/failure of society. These arguments only serve as attempts to establish that eradicating government immediately would be bad. Each of these points is easily addressed by extending the time frame with which a particular area becomes anarchistic. If this discussion is to center on a comparison between government and anarchism, I think this redirect will be necessary. However, if we are to discuss the original resolution, PRO will have to restate these arguments to create a direct relationship between diminishment of freedoms and decline/failure of society and Anarchism. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.investopedia.com... [4] http://inflationdata.com... [5] http://www.businessdictionary.com...