Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society

Introduction Unaddressed Arguments. In Round 1, I offered arguments for the negation of the resolution. PRO hasn’t provided any direct rebuttals against them. My arguments are, thus, standing. Since PRO hasn’t not addressed them, they are assumed as true for the remainder of this debate for evaluative purpose. Counter Rebuttals PRO’s rebuttals are somewhat disorganized. I will use the point-by-point schema from the previous rounds, addressing both “parts” of PRO’s defense. A PRO attacks the first paragraph of this rebuttal, while entirely ignoring the second. I said “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. A community entail the existence of individuals. If each of those individuals desires something that no one in that community has, it is the same as the community desiring something it does not have. If the only way for A to get some item T is to associate with B, then A will associate with B, or else not have T. If T is a necessary item, A has no choice but to associate with B. I do not speak Spanish very well. My family, in fact, does not speak Spanish well. Language is a much more significant barrier to interaction that social class or religion. If two people don’t speak the same language, it becomes difficult to communicate. Difficulties in communication cause interactive instances to decrease. Without interactive instances, people cannot associate at all. PRO is arguing that things which aren’t as apparent as a person’s language (their religion), or as preventative of interactive instances (their social status) cause enough issues that two cities will not, under any circumstances, interact. B “…the industry would dictate everything in the region” I don’t see how this is detrimental. This is already the case with state government. With PMC’s people voluntarily give up their income, and are not put in boxes for not doing so. Rather, they just lose the protective services of the PMC. ” “Strategic value” only makes sense in war times. If natural resources do exist in a particular area, trade is much more efficient than invasion. Given the historical issues with occupation of lands (Singapore and Jerusalem are examples), it would be prudent to find a way to gain the resources without violence. Bloodshed is generally the least preferable course of action. Trade is more prudent. Should trade not work, chances are the small area is already prepared for invasion, and has reached out to allies. Unfortunately, given the size of the invading nation, the choices of actions are limited. “” Why is this the “most likely” course of events? C The fact that laws exist does not automatically mean corporations exist. Corporations depend on the existence of laws, but laws can exist without corporations. “Legal personhood” need not be extended to businesses. Arguably, it should not, as the legal distinction of people from an institution is part of the reason anarchists oppose the State. Notably, people are to be held responsible for their actions. Companies are not “people”*, hence, companies cannot be held responsible for their actions. The owners, however, can. Without the concept legal personhood being applied to non-living things, the term “corporation” is no referential. D Despite PRO misunderstanding of my statement, I will address the points here. If we are in the same position with the State, then getting rid of it is not detrimental, as no ill effects are produced from doing so. Without a State, we would be living in an anarchy, by definition. PRO seems to be arguing that because we can impeach the president (remove him/her from office) that therefore the president is not above the law. Taking only those laws which mention the interactions of people (which is what anarchists do), the government is guilty of theft (taxation, involuntary transference of personal items), kidnapping (placing into boxes people who have not wronged anyone else), and murder (killing of people, not in self-defense), just to name a few. The reason government isn’t considered “guilty” is because it has conferred onto itself the power to do all of these things, and we supposedly imply consent by living in the land area that the State rules over. This is no different from a gang ruling over some particular area, except that the State is considered legitimate because it calls itself such. PRO has yet to provide argument as to why the wealthy elite and heads-of-company would be exempt from the law. The point about the rich applies to both anarchy and Statism. If the reason for private industry being exempt from the law is that it controls the military, that would make it the case that government is exempt from the law. PRO has created a contradiction with this argument. E What does the secession of a particular region have to do with the access of people to the companies that were once there? PRO seems to be stating that ALL of private industry in Quebec migrated to Montreal. This claim requires some kind of evidence to be presented. Furthermore, even with that evidence presented, it seems like a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc scenario. PRO is saying that since the companies migrated around the time that Quebec mention secession that therefore they did so because Quebec mentioned secession. Even if this were true, it does nothing to suggest that there would be lack of investment or jobs in the area. An area doesn’t need companies in it to receive the benefit of those companies. A commute doesn’t prevent occupation, nor does it prevent business transactions. F & G Correction: I suggested that more people would be more willing to donate. As for PRO’s source for the assertion that 97% of donated money “never gets into the hands of people in need”, this source does not discuss non-profits which take direct donations, nor does it mention the agreements that non-profits must make with for-profits to even receive any donations. This doesn’t seem like an issue with charities, but rather an issue with companies which prey upon charities. PRO makes the claim that charities can’t raise as much money as taxes, but does not back this up. Arguably, there would be more opportunities for the poor, given the new jobs that must open up to accommodate the loss of government services. Additionally, the necessary decrease of expenditures by company could lead to increased wages. Companies no longer need to pay taxes and can spend as they please with their employees. Not to mention, some companies might become philanthropic, as practiced by known monopolist John D Rockefeller, who reportedly gave funding to several universities, as well as to his church and medical research initiatives [1]. PRO’s universal claim that monopolists will exploit their workers is refuted. Monopolies, by definition, decrease competition, but I don’t see how the characteristics of a monopoly equate to market inefficiency. If PRO is referring to the fact that monopolies do not price as would be “expected” in market equilibrium, this much is already common economic knowledge. How this then means a society’s growth is “slowed” is not apparent. PRO has made yet another unsupported assertion. As for the “exploited employees”, better lawyers does not prevent the suit from going through. Exploitation is a violation of what are considered “universal human rights”. As such, all that is needed is proof of the exploitation. The suit will go through if it can be proven that exploitation is occurring. Conclusion With that, I turn things over to PRO. Hopefully, a rebuttal to my arguments is provided. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...