Anarchy

My opponent argues that my arguments are based on "wishes" however if he were to read my arguments carefully, he would see that they are all based off of self-interest. Basically we are simply arguing what works out best for the person with the most resources. (P1) My opponent has described four situations that might arise out of our hypothetical scenario. I will deal with them below and show that a stable long-term trading partnership is more beneficial to the manufacturer than a short term dictatorship. 1. ) The controller of the resources can play fair and give everyone an equal share of resources out of it's personal stock. I would never argue that this is a likely scenario. 2. ) The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly. This is a very probable scenario in that the manufacturer gains A. - A stable work force, B. - A valuable trading partnership. It is in the manufacturer's best interest to act in a fair and reasonable manner. I have never argued that he would simply give his wealth away. 3. ) The controller can trade fairly with the majority. This is equally as probable as the second option. The only difference is the mode of exchange. In the first, the manufacturer is paid in labor, in this one, the manufacturer is paid with some sort other form of currency. Again, it is in the manufacturer's rational self interest to do this over trying to have a forceful relationship with his customers. 4. ) The controller can horde the resources and give nothing. Now we get to the scenario that my opponent somehow believes is most probable. It may seem like the selfish thing to do and it might seem that the manufacturer gains the most out of this scenario. However under a cost/benefit analysis this scenario can be seen to be incredibly unlikely. Costs: (A)Does not gain anything, (B)Creates a poor relationship with the locals, (C)Destroys his reputation with other would-be trading partners. Benefits: (A)Short term stronghold in relationship with locals. Any person with access to the amount of resources my opponent describes and the incredible greediness that he also describes would almost certainly go with the second or third options. He would not do it out of moral or humanitarian considerations. It would be purely and completely out of his own self interest. My opponent then tries to define government. He defines it as: //"A certain framework of order and authority that deals with certain criteria. "// Now do the readers understand my frustration? (P2) My opponent again shows a complete lack of knowledge of anarcho-capitalism when he writes this in response to something I wrote about private defense agencies. I will explain the context as I refute his reasoning. 1. ) Would be a breach of contract for creating a defense agency? My opponent might simply have mixed up his words here. I don't know what thought he is trying to communicate. Breach what contract? In order to form voluntary associations with corporations who have access to resources(weapons, manpower), a contract that dictates under what conditions this defense agency would help would need to be thought out. No defense agency would simply blindly help someone in any situation. If they come to the aid of someone who raped someone else, their reputation would necessarily be damaged. It is in their self interest to act in the fairest manner possible. How do you take my freedom away to build a defense agency? Your freedom is not taken away by someone building a defense agency. It is if you voluntarily associate with them that they have authority over you. And this authority is mutually equal. If they breach the contract(don't come to your aid when someone attacks you), you may consequently take them to an independent arbitrator to sue for some form of compensation. And why would I sign such a contract? No one makes you. It's called voluntary association and is the reason why it is not a government. However it would be in your personal self interest to sign with a private defense agency for similar reasons why it is in your self interest to have life insurance. It is so you have defense in the case that someone initiates aggression against you or your property. If you don't then you could be vulnerable to aggression. 2. )My opponent after simply asking me a lot of questions about AnCap argues that there would necessarily be violence between people with different defense agencies and that the winner would become a government. Disregarding the fact that this again does not actually constitute a government, my opponent forgets to apply the fact that these corporations cannot simply tax everyone around them to fund their war. In order to fight, a corporation must finance itself. I already showed how this simple fact would make war much less frequent than it is now. 3. )My opponent then moves on to argue that under AnCap you are able to hire private defense agencies to go after anyone who does something you don't like. Again, this point comes out only because my opponent refuses to listen to my arguments. One forms a contract with a private defense agency only to keep people from aggressing against his own property. Anarcho-capitalism is pretty much built around a strict adherence to the non-aggression principle. You do not hire goons to do your bidding, a private defense agency is there as insurance in case someone aggresses against you or your property. (P3) 1. )Here my opponent asks how his scenarios are "wild". The reason that they are "wild" is simply because my opponent keeps changing the circumstances every time I respond to his argument. They keep getting more lopsided as each round goes by. However, even with his changing of circumstances I have shown why self interest and a cost/benefit analysis create an equilibrium among the relations between manufacturer and consumer. 2. )Here my opponent again brings the argument that some people will always have control over others. Again he refuses to listen to my actual arguments. He absolutely refuses to take the egoism and self interest into account that he keeps claiming is the sole motivator of everyone's actions. 3. )Here my opponent argues that since the benefits will always outweigh the costs in transactions between consumer and producer. However I have repeatedly shown why when one acts in self interest, one will naturally work in a mutually beneficial manner because a long-term trading relationship is more cost effective to the producer than a short term war with short term benefits. (P3) 1. )This isn't really anything so I won't respond. 2. )Here my opponent makes a very poor assumption. He writes: //"When these different systems of authority decide to wage war on one another, for whatever reasons it might be. .. Allies will arise. Enemies will show themselves. "// Here my opponent again shows his complete lack of knowledge on how an anarcho-capitalist society would work. He makes this faulty assumption only because he is first assuming that corporations are governments and then making his arguments based on that. I however showed in R3 the major differences. I believe this is the third time or so I've had t remind my opponent that corporations are not able to coercively tax anyone near them. They make decisions based on a profit incentive. I have already shown why war would be a very rare occurence. I truly hope that my opponent carefully reads my responses so that I do not have to repeat myself again. It seems that he is choosing to incorporate self interest where it helps his case, but when it comes to my responses, people don't act according to self interest. This debate is going to be the death of me. The resolution that anarchy(specifically anarcho-capitalism) can be sustained as a long term form of societal organization is clearly affirmed.