Anarchy

My opponent makes grand assumptions in his last argument, so I will defend my position and make my conclusions. P1 - My opponent writes.... "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." Here is where my opponent lies directly. I never once said that option 4 was most probable. My arguments have been built around scenario 2...( The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly). In this scenario a controller can build an army and a force of workers through hiring them to work for resources (food, shelter, clothing, coin, etc.). Which in basically turns into a Monarchy, like kingdoms of ages past. And as I explained in my last argument, this scenario plays out depending on the moral compass of the controller. Good Monarchies will arise and so will bad ones... But they are still Monarchies. The controller decides what happens or the people lose their resources to survive and can suffer the wrath of the Monarchy leader's army. Anything even remotely reflecting an anarchist society has always turned into a Monarchy or some other form of government. History speaks for itself. I will move on. P2 - My opponent belittles my intelligence and then goes on to paint a picture for us... A picture that doesn't fit in with reality. MY opponent thinks that just because their are benefits to being "fair" that everyone will magically act that way. The fact of the matter is this. Power makes the rules. He who controls the most power makes the most rules. Men will always strive for power. Fairness only plays part when it satisfies an individuals needs for power. If a person has his desires met from a scenario of fairness then he will be happy and accept the scenario. However, if the individual is not happy with the scenario, he will work against it to gain the power he needs to make his desires come true. Whatever people hold the most power in the society, they make the rules. Contracts mean nothing. I can sign a contract saying that I won't kill you and then stab you as soon as you turn your back. Power supersedes fairness because of force. You can't stop force with fairness, but you can stop fairness with force. It doesn't matter what is most beneficial in my opponent's eyes. In the long run or the short run...power makes the rules. If I attack you... I force you to attack me or be defeated. If you choose to attack, now you are playing by my rules. Force. Power = force. In a scenario of force people will have to group together to increase power, which in turn increases their chance to win. Keep that scenario stable and it is called a unified monopoly of force. This is the natural order of things. Lastly, my opponent continues to assume my meanings and belittles me further. I never spoke of corporations or governments being the forces I spoke of. I spoke of the defense forces in general, put whatever label you want on them, it would not change the outcome. And my opponent speaks in specifics of corporations and governments, these are just labels my friend. We are talking about human behavior in a society here. Labels mean nothing in essence. My opponent belittles my knowledge on what a government is, but he himself does not understand what a government truly is in essence. What is a Monarchy in essence? A controlling framework of order and authority over a society of people. What is a Republic in essence? A controlling framework of order and authority over a society of people. What is a democracy in essence? A controlling framework of order and authority over a society of people. What is a government in essence? A controlling framework of order and authority over a society of people. I understand what my opponent obviously does not. Government is just a label. In essence it provides the same function, the difference in what you label the framework. Numbers, structure, etc, these variables in different combinations all form the many different labels for different governments that we have in the world today. But please, don't forget what a government truly is in essence. My opponent hides behind grand assumptions and accusations, this is because he has no foundation to stand on in this debate. A sustainable Anarcho-Capitalist society doesn't exist now, has never existed before, and will never exist in the future. This is the real truth. This is what Anarcho-Capitalist can't accept. Look at the behavior around you. Look at the world we live in. Look through the history books. An Anarchist-Capitalist society is not sustainable. I rest my case. Thank you for your interest in this debate. - Lionheart -