Before I start this debate I will list some definitions:
The State ( Or government ) - An organization that uses the initiation of force in any geographical region.
Force- coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
Generally in our society, we condemn the use of force against people with the exception of the state who can take half of a man's income as tax for the greater good which it poorly and inefficiently spends. Let's take a look at the U.S:
Now the U.S is in 18 trillion dollars of debt. Same for Europe too.
The reasons for this are diverse. One is the battle for different department's self interest and corrupt politicians, and another is the lack of incentive. At the government level, there is no accountability for people that screw up along with no incentive to be efficient or even get the job done. How well is the war on drugs fighting drugs? Welfare fighting Poverty?The government being fiscally responsible( Look above)? Is the middle east not a peaceful place now? The only thing that would keep the government from inefficiency would be the good spirit of a human being(Which is so reliable). " The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency"- Eugene McCarthy. Not only is the state inefficient, but it is immoral.
Like I already highlighted, they are an exception to the initiation of force in our society. Not only that but it's a little ironic how the state's laws( enforced opinions) are based on the protection of people against the use of force by others and bases that go from self interest to utter stupidity. Just in the 20th century alone there were about 250,000,000 murders in democide. Just democide. From the PRC to the USSR to imperialist Japan, governments were the result of millions of deaths. America's intervention in the middle east: disastrous. In Europe we had the holocaust, colonialism, and two world wars. We are a human tax farm.
We can do better than this. All of these terrible things come from states and their power. In a stateless society everything would be voluntary. No moral exception bubble with a group of people in it. Imagine the power of non forceful transactions. After slavery was abolished, people needed to be creative. We now only have 3% of the population working on farms because of technology. We stopped forcing people to work, and now we have an unimaginable from 1850 futuristic farms with big metal machines and huge processing plants. Self defence against those who wish to use force against you would be easy. You can have a gun and hire someone to protect you. Along with other solutions we can solve problems without force. We must abolish the state before technology gets too powerful.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-02 13:40:04| Speak Round
I'd like to thank my opponent for opening this debate discussion, the source of all-too-many forum arguments of mine. I'm proud to defend states but at the outset of the debate would like to take issue with pro's framing.
Framing the debate
Pro defined a state as "An organization that uses the initiation of force in any geographical region." I don't oppose this definition per say but I want to defend a narrower kind of state, as under this definition, for example, criminal gangs would count as states. I think most ordinary people would see this topic as being about the abolition of, for example, the social orders known as Iceland, India or Tonga. These are three random "states" in the sense that most people would understand the term. It is my contention in this debate that while I am all for the removal of criminal gangs for all the reasons pro stated, I am opposed to the abolition of these kinds of states. I intend to demonstrate some of the differences in my case. Pro implicitly seems to accept a narrower interpretation of states also in the examples he uses. Needless to say I am not defending the status quo, but I am defending that states are more ideal than not having states.
Morality of using force
I disagree that the use of force is always immoral. In life as well as Star Wars, the force has a light and a dark side.
Let me give a few examples. Can war be just? Should abortion be allowed? What about euthanasia? Or the death penalty? These are all, of course, controversial, but note these all involve the application of one of the most extreme forms of force - actually killing somebody. That all or some of them are accepted by society implies two things - first that morality is not absolute - ie, people can rationally disagree about moral outcomes of moral decisions. And second, that even if it were, there is no absolute moral principle condemning the use of force. Sometimes using force may even be the moral option. In a variation of the trolley problem, is it better to kill one shooter or let that shooter kill 10 other people? Probably the use of force, to kill the shooter, leads to less overall death.
Therefore, we should dismiss out of hand this idea that the use of force is wrong a priori. This needs to be justified in depth by my opponent.
Pro claims taxation is too high, and poorly spent. Such is not inherent to states. It is possible to have a state with few taxes, well spent. Even if my opponent believes, for example, that the US government is terrible, that's no reason to abolish states. So therefore pro's claim must be that onerous and unjust taxation is inherent to statehood.
Let me therefore explain why we have taxes. States exist primarily as a vehicle for people to help each other. Helping others occasionally requires the provision of goods and services. Goods and services typically cost money. Taxes are a means for people to contribute, by an amount society believes is a "fair share" of the overall price of those goods and services. Because everyone pays in a fair amount, that avoids an undue burden falling on those who want to contribute due to the free rider principle - it is impossible to block access to public goods.
A simple example of this is street lighting. This is a safety mechanism that keeps the streets way more safe. However, because roads are publicly owned, no individual is willing to pay to light them all. This makes it a public good. Yet you can't stop a non-payer from getting the benefits of street lights. That's why people have to pay tax.
So yes, it is forcing people to pay - pay for things that are good for society! Taxes fund things we all need, like education or healthcare. They give everyone a fighting chance at life and improve our safety & well-being. No doubt some things pro is dissatisfied paying for. If so, he has the option to vote to pay for different things, or fewer things. Unlike a gang, a state is owned by the people. This means that the people in the state, including all taxpayers, are jointly in control of all of the actions of the state.
How is it inherent, then? First pro claims politicians are corrupt. While it is true some might be corrupt, like science, politics is self-correcting - just oust poor politicians. Limitations to this, like the 2-party system in the US, are not inherent to states - breaking down those limitations sounds like a great idea to me too. That's both the accountability and the incentive - state leaders inherently need to be accountable to the people. The solution is to make them accountable, not abolish states.
Pro further claims the government accomplishes nothing good. I would suggest he consider the actual evidence here. For example, poverty in America would be 40% higher for vulnerable people than it is with American welfare programs. And let's face it, American welfare isn't exactly the best in the world.
Finally he states that despite this, governments are frequently indebted. That just proves they'd rather borrow than tax, which in his view is of course very "moral".
Pretty much the only argument against laws that pro raised was that they have resulted in democide. I disagree with democide also and don't think states should kill their people. Those aren't the states I am defending in this debate. I think it's incumbent on all states to better themselves and seek better outcomes for the people they serve rather than oppose. That means providing laws to protect the people, not to kill them.
Regardless of their morality, abolishing the state again does not follow. What follows is repealing those laws. This is a process of refinement in which all the moral issues around not killing people are defended.
Let me give an example. Pro's democide figures include those killed in World War 2. Should Hitler have been allowed to be unopposed? Bear in mind that many individuals DID try to resist the nazis in nazi-occupied territories. Yet it was nations that won the war, while many such individuals were never heard from again.
Personally, I don't believe in having armies at all. But those are legitimate moral questions that states must face. Most people, myself not included, vote for states that provide for the common defense. Laws are the institution that allow states to do that. And I say this as a strong opponent of war, conscription etc. These are terrible things but they come about because of a lack of moral understanding. Abolishing a state doesn't mean people won't want that. In a sense, everyone loses.
What laws more typically provide for is protection against murder, or fraud, or your neighbor building a tall building to block your priceless view. Laws are just a system of balances that provide for people to exercise some control over society. Because people want to avoid being murdered, for example, they institute anti-murder laws.
Life without states
At the outset, yes, healthcare, education and stuff could be provided without states. With trade in gold, and existing infrastructure, things could certainly be provided for a time. This is, however, short term thinking. If the state was gone tomorrow, could things last is the real question.
In ancient times, people banded together and set up rules to work as a community. Over time different communities learned to cooperate under new rules. It was over centuries that the modern system of courts and laws was developed. People think that the government of America is Obama and the legislature. The most important part is actually the courts. It's not the making of the laws, nor is it imposing them - its the right to due process and to a fair system of handling disputes. The same is true of any other state. Without courts to enforce rules fairly and consistently, you effectively undo that banding that took people many thousands of years to invent. People did that to avoid socially undesirable things.
So here's the reality, like it or not - without states, more people would get away with murder. There would be no huge dedicated police force to catch murderers, no courts to protect the innocent, and no agreed-upon rule against murder in the first place. At best you get something akin to medieval witch-hunts. And that's just one crime! There are so many things that we protect ourselves against by government.
Slowly those public goods that the government pays for through taxation fall into ruin. Public schools are gone. People who can't afford to pay for a primary school education are out of luck. Roads fall into disrepair. Hospitals run short on drugs.
With no infrastructure for negotiating international trade and other presently agreed on systems of commerce, like contracts, major corporations have a tough choice to make - either seize control themselves or fail. And so suddenly private security becomes the only really viable industry. Everyone's armed to the teeth and constantly afraid of everyone else. It's a paranoid state of affairs. And with this, if anyone displeases somebody, the consequences grow. People realize they can kill whom they please with no repercussions, so why not? They can rape, take slaves ... whatever you don't like, there is no organization that attempts to stop it.
Somehow, this dystopia is supposed to be less forceful? I don't think so.
Slowly, over time, you might find little militias emerge that try to enforce some sort of order, some sort of law among all the chaos. And slowly those militias will fight each other over whose order dominates. And they'll try to increase representation. And they'll try to force people into their little militia. And very soon, Animal Farm will become reality, and you'll basically end up with a more primitive version of what you had before.
States are a natural consequence of the human desire for safety and consideration, and the provision of public goods.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-05 05:16:25| Speak Round
Definition of states-
Con stated that a narrower definition of a state was needed because criminal gangs ( Organized group of criminals ) would fall under the definition of a state; however, the government of Nazi Germany during the time of the holocaust seams to fit the definition of a criminal gang who committed appalling crimes. They also used the initiation of force in europe, as a social structure recognized by the world. I have to point out that my opponent did condemn criminal gangs, but many criminal gangs would be states, such as ISIS, the USSR, Boko Haram, and Nazi Germany. The only distinction when defining for example, Nazi Germany and present day France is the severity of the initiation of force. They are both states, but one used the initiation of force at an ungodly level. You condemn STATES such as the USSR, North Korea, and Nazi Germany; but they, like many started out as "states in the sense that most people would understand the term"( Examples on request ). Because of this, the state should be abolished because they are at risk of becoming tyrannical. The fact is this, history is abundant with democracies going tyrannical. It happened in France in the 19th century. It happened in Spain in the 20th century. It happened in Germany. It happened in Italy. It happened in Japan. No narrower definition is needed unless you want to characterise states as nonviolent and risk free of becoming tyrannical institutions. If you wanted to define states based on their intensity of the initiation of force any level except none would be arbitrary.
Con stated that the use of force is sometimes justifiable. I agree. If I did not make myself clear, I condemned the initiation of force. The initiation of force is very different than the semi-broad spectrum of force. Let's take con's example; "Is it better to kill one shooter or let that shooter kill 10 other people?". It would probably be better to kill the shooter using force to save more people; however the initiator was the shooter. The person that stopped the shooter is using defence/self defence from the initiation of force. Alleviating a threat using force is defence against the initiation of force because the initiation of force does include real threats. If you can, please give me an example of the initiation of force being moral. This principle is still standing, and the government does not meet the moral standard.
First my justification to abolish states is not because I think the U.S government is terrible. I think that fiscal irresponsibility ( and debt ) is a problem of many governments. Only 5 governments have no debt. Soon the debt ceiling will crash and that is terrible for a country and is enslavement of the young in taxation. One of the big reasons for this is because of the lack of incentive. What incentive do politicians/bureaucrats have to solve problems. The answer is that their incentive includes, goodness of the human( so reliable ), self interest and power. That is why governments are inefficient. The difference between a state and business is that if the business does a bad job they are held accountable because they don't generate profit if they don't supply demand. If you gave money to a poverty fighting charity and they don't fight poverty very well, would you continue to fund them? If the government does a bad job, you are coercively forced to fund them. Con claimed that American welfare does not do that bad of a job; however I suggest he looks at the actual facts.
Also I did not claim that the government does nothing good, but they are not very good at doing good. Also, con's 40% statistic was very misleading and was misinterpreted. From the website he used, "Without social security, the poverty rate for Americans 65 and older would jump nearly 40%". That reason is because older people know when they retire at 65 they get social security benefits, so retirement planning is not that big of a deal, so obviously if there was no social security older folks would be more vulnerable. If there was no social security and people were able to retire with their own money, we would not have as big of a problem. I conclude that SS is not as vital to older people, but it does do some help, because as people get older they are less valuable to the workplace ( because of health and other reasons ). Con stated " For example, poverty in America would be 40% higher for vulnerable people than it is with American welfare programs. ". That is not true and does not accurately represent the fact.
- In 1964 president Johnson declared the war on poverty
- Since 1964, $19,000,000,000,000 have been spent in a attempt to end poverty.
- In 1966 the poverty rate was at 14.3% and was declining since WW2.
- In 1970 it was at 12.6%
- 2012, 15%, despite the amount of money increased on the war on poverty since 1964 to today being 640%.
Charity vs Welfare
- Over 350 billion given to charity and around 80-85% gets to the poor. 300 b
- About a trillion spent by government and around 30% gets to the poor. 300 b
As you can see, charity is much more efficient at just getting money to the poor. There is competition among charity to help the poor, because the best charity will get the most money. On the other side with American welfare there is no incentive to fight poverty because bureaucrats keep their job regardless. In cook county Illinois, a single mom will recieve the most resources from her wage and the government if her wage is 8.25 to $12 an hour. If she gets a raise to $18 an hour, her resources collapse by 33%. She would even out at $38 an hour. " The Welfare Cliff".
This is how people are trapped. I am spending too much of my characters on this, but the bottom line is that the government does not fight poverty, because of reasons I have already underlined. Private institutions are extremely more efficient because they have to fight poverty to recieve income, if they don't do a good job, then they will go out of business.
Pro stated a state was a vehicle for people to help other people. The state is not a vehicle or tool for the people it is a relationship between people. If the state was a voluntary institution that could be used by people to help people, most people would not use it, considering the state does a bad job and costs a lot. Anyway, there is the government, and the common man. The government can take the common man's money and it is called taxation, and if the common man makes takes any money, it is labeled theft, and he is thrown in jail. Con stated that taxation pays for things that are good for society. I believe he referring to the wondrous, tax paid, war on drugs, the welfare state, education( can justify why it sucks ), and the war on terror, along with many other things. Not to mention, the Nazi's army was paid through taxation. What a good public service. IN a free society, people would choose to collectively pay for things that would benefit them. A community could pay for a military, a public education system, and if the service is no good, then you don't have to pay for it and then you would not recieve its benefits if there were any. Would you want to be forced to pay for something that does not help you, especially if the people generating the benefits are poorly allocating your resources. That is what the state is.
I will explain how street lights might be paid for in a anarchic society:
Because roads would be privately owned, con may ask who would pay for the street lights. The owner's incentive would probably be to build streetlights, because then he could get more people to drive on his road during the night time. The more people that drive on his road, the more money he would get. Now we are getting into theoretical anarchy. This is very broad topic, in which, we can not go into depth about because of our limited characters, and posts. I will try to sum it up.
Let's say we are debating slavery in the early 1800s in the U.S. South. I am the abolitionist and you say " If we stop slavery, who will grow the cotton, for our economy is built on slavery". I would rebutt with " Doesn't matter, slavery is evil, and we need to come up with a better solution to the economy". Who would have thought, that only 3% of the population in the U.S today is working on the farm, because of these big machines that harvest crop fields miles long, and rapidly plant seeds. We don't need to solve every conceivable problem in a stateless society for the purpose of this debate, and my computer. However, I will try to solve some of the problems you bring up, but don't judge me if I forgot or did not have enough room to solve certain problems. There are solutions that can be applied without the initiation of force, my solutions are not needed because of the moral argument, and the inefficiency of states.
No more characters.Source on request. I can address issues next post. Can you extend the amount of posts?
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-07 20:24:53| Speak Round
I'd like to thank my opponent for continuing their case. You can't extend characters per round mid-debate unless agreed prior ie by using a custom format, as that would not be fair. This is no excuse to not provide sources since you can hotlink. I'd even suggest he wouldn't run out of characters if he didn't rant or make his point about taxation twice. He asks forgiveness for not addressing all my points - weird then that as you will see, I have no problem addressing his.
In general pro's case, particularly in this round, rings of the sentiment that because states are not perfect, they should be abolished. Historically it is true, one may cherry-pick examples of states - and my opponent did a good job of this - which in some respect behaved like criminal gangs. But it's also worth noting that all my opponent's examples here would have fallen under my narrower definition also, so we don't actually have a disagreement about where this debate is set. Nevertheless watch out for this theme as I analyze the debate in detail.
With regards to the charge that states are inherently criminal, this remains to be proven. Pro's sole link between criminal gangs and states here is that both may initiate force. Let it be remembered that a kitten may initiate force also when playing with a ball of yarn. Since kittens are not gangs in and of themselves, this cannot be an absolute. There was no further justification pro presented to this point, just a vague reference to force which pro never substantiated.
I agree that states can be tyrannical and/or despotic. It is a problem but not an inherent one - states aren't perfect but that is not to say anything about either the alternative, or about the nature of states themselves, especially given the fact that tyranny is the exception as opposed to the norm. When we approach such a problem the view should rather be constructive, about how we fix those problems, rather than abandoning it altogether.
With regards to tyranny specifically, popular political movements exist without states. ISIS is one of them, actually it's one of the best examples, as it grew not out of a state but rather a void, a sense of lawlessness, coupled with fanaticism among some of the population. That's a problem with human nature - states don't fully solve for it but they also don't create it. Notwithstanding that, states have further potential to protect against tyranny. Examples might be constitutional protections against it by means of several levels of checks and balances, and to prevent such movements from becoming too popular among the masses, the imposition of law and order.
My opponent's rebuttal here does not relate to the argument I was making. Even taking his narrower view of what force is moral and what force is not, pro disregards entirely the outcome of that force. So pro asked for an example of the initiation of force being moral - that depends on what you think is moral. I'm initiating force right now on millions of airborne micro-organisms by the simple act of breathing. Not like they did anything to me! The same is true towards other people. If you have a job, and somebody hired you, that act of hiring you is the initiation of force in many respects. Don't you have to go to work? And yet, working is hardly immoral - it is how we get things done. With regards to the shooter example, suppose how it might change if the person hadn't shot anyone yet. Now they're just an ordinary dude with a gun. But by shooting them perhaps you would save 10 lives. You never know the alternative outcome of a moral action. Simply having a gun isn't the initiation of force either. This is the sort of thing ethics professors like to joke about.
This counter-principle can be loosely termed as the ends justifying the means. It makes way more sense because it takes things in the context of what they achieve, not what they entail, in determining their value. A force-mediated utopia is therefore superior to a world with little force but abjectly terrible lives - poverty, death and ruin. Pro will tell you that states cause those things, but in doing so pro is buying into my principle, that it is the ends that matter, not the means. And most of pro's other material also directly ties into this. My principle is not only the more consistent alternative, it is also more correct, because it implies a more natural understanding of morality. Whether Hitler was not put into power by the medium of military intervention or aliens or an art career taking off or a giant cascading snowball - it doesn't really matter, what has moral value is that Hitler loses power.
Again, just because the government is not perfect with regards to policy does not mean they should be abolished. I'd suggest pro vote for somebody else. In the meantime, recognize that none of this is inherent to states. Others are much better. My opponent's supposed mechanisms fail not only on a pragmatic level, but a conceptual one also. Assuming democracy, the incentive for politicians to make things better is that they lose their job if they don't, just like a business goes bust. Regarding this idea about being forced to fund junk projects, two points - first, why'd you vote for them then, and second, governments are self-correcting in the same way.
Supporting others sometimes means supporting those you don't like, even your enemies. In fact on side negative, we think it's moral to suggest that people continue to help society in a manner commiserate with their means, even when they don't like many facets of how society is changing. They can always influence others back to their ideology. And yeah, sometimes that does mean paying for some road you'll never use or something, but it also means others will pay for some road they'll never use. At the end of the day in most tax systems, the rich will subsidize the poor, increasing the equality of opportunity in society.
Pro claimed a relationship can't be a tool. I'd refer him to churches, which also use these "relationships between people" to influence them into doing what that church considers morally right. A voluntary state implies you can contract into a state without a state, which makes no sense because contracts are a state institution. Regardless I and I suspect many others would still want to live under a state, but perhaps choose a state more congruent with what we like - most people like to have some assurance that criminals will be held morally culpable for their actions, or that their kids can go to school (please justify why going to school sucks using your school-provided literacy, it will be nicely ironic), or that they will get treatment in a public hospital should they need it. Taxes provide all the things we demand from states, which is usually little more than to live peaceful and prosperous lives. Sometimes I also disagree with government policy. I'm not from the US but sure, war on terror wasn't a good use of your resources. Does that mean you give up the state, or give up the war on terror? Which one of those options LOGICALLY follows?
Pro claims welfare is bad. I agree welfare cliffs are a problem. I don't think American welfare is perfect and I didn't argue that it is. That just means you fix the problems with welfare, smoothing out some of those cliffs. To my mind a big part of the problem is that the thresholds are absolute and not linearly transformed. Other welfare systems use similar models.
This notion that people don't retire with their own money is probably best disproved by old people themselves, many of whom can't afford a basic standard of living and are in poverty even in spite of what they get from the government. Regardless if pro had read the actual study, he'd notice that the authors actually took that into account with their study design.
Pro cannot oppose government policy on principle and then claim it's good that charity can better provide them. Either he supports the programs and just wants to remove bureaucracy, or he opposes them and opposes charities - he can't have it both ways.
To extend the thought though, while I'm sure everyone in this debate loves efficiency, charity doesn't guarantee it. In fact plenty of charities are corrupt and not motivated to help all. The difference is that as private outfits, they are more difficult to scrutinize. Actually, the primary way we scrutinize them at the moment is by means of their government-mandated returns. The very reason why charities are government-licensed is to ensure that they are actually fulfilling some positive social need. It isn't even that long ago that things like public education did not exist. It was introduced because charity in a free market would not meet that need, and people believed (as I do) that every child should have an education. Likewise public healthcare is still not assured as a right in some parts of the world, yet these institutions are increasingly provided by states because in societies without it, people can't get access as readily, especially if they're poor and vulnerable.
Provision of public goods on the basis of charity is similarly unacceptable. Just because a community can't afford to build a road doesn't mean that building this road won't be good for that community. Governments deal with that sort of thing.
Slavery is a poor counter-example because slaves are not a public good. People are willing and able to pay for slaves.
Pro said road owners would pay for street lights using tolls. That's a valid rebuttal for club goods, but not public goods. I'd suggest if pro needs to pay a toll for every little cul-de-sac he ever strolls down, that would be even more inefficient and expensive, not least to build a toll booth on every cul-de-sac. The reality is most roads are nonetheless terribly unprofitable. Other examples include language, pollution-free air, or trademarks.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-10 08:18:19| Speak Round
Con's argument was that laws are there for protection. Despite the various states that had unjust laws and committed democide, we should not abolish states but work to fix those problems. Let us look at Nazi Germany and why the Nazi's got so powerful. Before Hitler, there was the Weimar constitution. Articles 109 to 118 set forth individual rights of Germans, the principal tenet being that every German was equal before the law. Also free practice of religion was guaranteed by the constitution and protected by the state, and no state church was established. These laws were the peoples individual and religious protections. The liberties were GREATLY impended upon due to the horrifying acts of the Nazi's against Jews and many nonjew citizens. Con also argued that Hitler was opposed by citizens, but nations were the ones to beat him. This is grossly misleading, because the citizens of Germany were subjected to strict gun laws. They were not equipped to defend against their powerful state. The reason Hitler became so powerful was through the people and through slow growth in government and military. If you look with a magnifying glass you would see the genius propaganda, and compelling speeches Hitler made to get people on his side so he could start his conquest unopposed with the arm of the state, plowing into the gunless people.
The notion that laws are made to protect the people and that is why the state creates them is false. Historical and Physiological evidence is supportive of my claim, since power corrupts. You can see this across the world. I did not just make an argument against democide but tyranny as a whole. You can see this in modern western nations. In the U.S, land in the U.S can be taken for the greater good, and across the E.U, with strict regulations, and unfair redistribution which may be seen as just to some. Look into it there is a lot more. Even during the birth of the U.S, when people were protected and the government was very small, a law was made that allowed the president to make subjective deportations to citizens that spoke ill about him.
The idea that laws can not exist or exist with injustice/unenforced characteristics without a state is incorrect. I think Stefan Molyneux has a smart solution to violent crime. A DRO is a Dispute Resolution Organization. Courts can be open sourced and everything only works when the customer is satisfied, that is important. A company will only make money if the customer is satisfied. Contracts can exist and be enforced through a 3rd party or insurance. Not using the initiation of force. I provide these possible solutions for comfort with no state and I argue it will be better, but it does not matter how the cotton is grown without slavery.
Here some possible solutions to the problem Con presented about the poor not being educated in a stateless society. If there is a demand for educating poor children than charitable organizations might provide supply that . There were many charity funded schools in Britain before public education. Before I continue I want to point out that public education sucks. ( Not arguing it does NOTHING good ). A private school might take advantage of this by supplying an education in return for interest later in life or labor. You could pay an older kid who already learned about the subject to teach you for a small cost, libraries are cheap, and now the internet is BOOMING with free education.
The solutions out their are all creative, plausible, and abundant.
The reason I emphasized that states can be criminal gangs is because Con can then categorize states as nonviolent organizations. States are not inherently criminal because criminal states are not the states we are debating, is the logic that might be used. Kittens...realy. This is proof that Con can't deny my moral principle. The initiation of force is the act of one man initiating force against another, as opposed to retaliatory force. Force includes such acts as murder, theft, threats, and fraud. It is acting against another person without their consent. A kitten playing with yarn uses classical force. ( You might want to purchase a thesaurus ). Same with the micro-organisms.
Con tried to say that I argued all politicians are corrupt. That is not true. I said that corrupt politicians are one of the reasons for inefficiency and aggressive use of power no matter how it was obtained. This is a problem in all countries. Intensities vary, and we see this in China as a huge problem. As illustrated in " China's Foreign Relations" by Denny Roy, china's various bureaucracies all have special interest, and that the bureaucracies attempt to gain more power and funds even by lying or corrupting higher leaders. Corruption is inherent to states.
Con's argument on tyranny was very poor. I did not say tyranny was inherent, but many states are tyrannical, and many are at risk. Again, many democracies and republics with many checks and balances with limited power have become tyrannical. Even in the present day west, state power is growing, and young Americans and Europeans are pushing for it because the media and the schools are controlled. Guns are being taken, the regulations and taxes are piling up, and many laws are restricting us. Whether there is obvious tyranny or not the state is inherently immoral. I provide solutions and examples and all Con seams to say is " Let's find solutions! ". How will you prevent tyranny? If an organization starts becoming tyrannical in an anarchic society, people will stop funding them, defence agencies would protect people from violence, (if the people don't have the skills and tools to defend themselves), and power and water will not reach their buildings. It is ALL up to the customers.
Getting a job is not using the initiation of force. You choose whether you go to work. They can not make you. You go to work because they will give you money. If you do not go to work there will be consequences . No initiation of force. If a guy has a gun and he has not shot anyone, he is not initiating force. You don't know if he is going to shoot someone and if you know his intentions, you would alert surrounding people and maybe a security guard. If you were that paranoid, then you could make the place gun free, or not go there. This is the type of things people with knowledge of common sense joke about. ( Stop with the condescending ad-Hominem comments )
Con justifies the means with the end. How can we do good for others by doing bad to others. Liberties can not be protected through the liberty violation of others. We can not do good through the initiation of force. Killing all hungry people will solve world hunger. Stealing others money to fight poverty( Which is not working ). Con's example with hitler did not make sense. Please clarify how it ties into your principal.
"pro is buying into my principle, that it is the ends that matter, not the means"
See above for counter.
I directly attack the means of the government, which is attacking the government. Not only that, but I explain how that creates problems. I explain how the means create problems and why the means are immoral, even though, " morality is not absolute ". I would use this as an argument to abolish the state, since the state will make our diverse moral decisions for us. To not agree with with me would be a contradiction because "morality is not absolute". Hitler found it moral to kill people with religious ends, but to many killing is immoral. In a stateless society you defend your morals, and if someone impedes on them you can defend against it. If people think you are doing something immoral then there can be voluntary punishments as listed in Stefan's idea.
I think that the initiation of force is immoral. If con thinks that all acts under the initiation of force such as theft, murder, rape, and non defensive violence is immoral then, the state must be abolished. Ends justifying means, is terrible for reasons I have already stated. Voluntary solutions with economic incentive or a reliance on the human heart, do better than coercive solutions. Once a industry starts to be privatized, it goes downhill. The internet is almost untouched and look at the wonders it has created.
The fallacy of democracy is that the majority rule. If 60% want murder then it will be that. Con was speaking of a republic, where the people are voted in, and they have power, limited, but power.
Con is wrong. States do not operate like a business. They do not self change to the people's wants and they are able to continuously operate in the red. The truth is, that all politicians will run a campaign saying how fiscally responsible they are but most are not. Majority of fraud waste and abuse occurs at the bureaucratic level. They don't have much incentive to supply people's demand at the fullest potential, and there is almost no accountability. Politicians are worse because they are borrowing more than they spend. According to the evidence I have presented in this debate, fiscal irresponsibility, low supply, and self interest fostered by corruption, lack of incentive, and accountability are inherent. There is no direct accountability comparable to a business in the government. Sure you can have good leaders, but you have to rely on leaders being good, but even good leaders can't do much.
Thx for the time con. No characters.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-17 01:09:42| Speak Round
I thank my opponent for their penultimate round.
Pro makes few unique arguments and rebuttals, urging readers to instead check his sources. This is unfair - substantive arguments should be explicated in the debate. Don't allow these points to stand.
Pro's central argument remains the selection of a small minority of extreme examples of "states gone bad". On a historical note, the Nazis became powerful in spite of many protections against exactly what they were trying to accomplish being imposed by the state - so while the Nazis may eventually have hijacked the German state, bear in mind that the first state to oppose Hitler's plans was Germany, not least when they threw Hitler in prison. Bear in mind too that Hitler found opposition in almost every other state around.
On a more principle level, I analyzed this from a more nuanced standpoint in the second round, where I explained that abolishing states does not abolish despotism. The problem is that many do buy in to popular movements that keep large populations under control by fear. Such movements need not have a pre-existing state - I mentioned ISIS as a contemporary example. In fact, the lack of an organized state is one less obstacle for such groups, much like the German state was an obstacle for Hitler (and this was before the strict gun laws pro talked about - though being armed to the teeth hardly prevents violence). With regards to his proposed anarchic alternative, such a system exists already where people can "withdraw support", and it's called democracy. But of course it's not that simple, is it? When you live under a tyranny, whether it used to be anarchic or not, you don't really have the right to oppose that state. So much like "in theory" anarchy might be seen as all up to customers, so too is democracy. Even Hitler had to change his mind about Action T4 due to public opposition, and that's why he had to keep the Final Solution a secret.
Pro accepts that tyranny is not inherent to a state - this means that it's solvable within a state context. He instead attempts to equate tyranny with immorality, virtually dropping this as a substantive. He does claim that some shadowy tyranny exists by means of the taking of guns - and it should be noted that failed states have much higher proliferation of firearms with the possible exception of the USA if you don't count that as a failed state - and taxation.
Pro presents scant analysis for why non-state actors will provide the same or superior levels of public services. I mentioned last round that public healthcare and education were both brought in to meet a need that was not being fulfilled. It's true there were some small educational institutions - today we'd call them "monasteries" - and they taught a small number of things, to a small number of small people. Similar in the east with Confucian academies etc. Public education revolutionized all society - it most certainly does not "suck".
DROs don't catch murderers, and don't have much of an incentive to, since murderers are unlikely to voluntarily subject themselves to punishment - and if they did, a trial would hardly be necessary anyway. Under states, disputes tribunals exist in many parts of the world already as lower courts, including in my own country - they rarely work and in their case they're not even trying to make a profit. Either one side gives up due to exasperation with the system, or things get elevated to a higher court. This is doubly the case if the trial is unprofitable - where the litigants have few resources and the trial is complex, justice cannot be served by a DRO.
Pro completely ignores everything I said about public goods. This point clearly falls to the negative.
Pro brought up the internet as a counterpoint. Some countries have been slow to regulate internet access and people have literally died as a result. Meanwhile every industry which contributed to the internet has in fact been regulated heavily from the start and has not resulted in any harms. This is why sites like edeb8 enforce rules, to keep the internet having a sense of law about it. To that extent moderators etc are kinds of states that have existed since the earliest days of the internet.
Pro mentions civil forfeiture in passing but neglects to explain why it's bad. I hope he realized there's only one more round.
In pro's mind the initiation of force is always bad as a moral principle. As I mentioned last round, there are numerous expressions of force where this would seem to be incorrect in other contexts, from killing a cow so you can eat it, through to getting a job. Pro argues the example of getting a job, not realizing that threatening force (denying income leading to the subject starving etc) is itself an expression of force. Like when people initiate force on each other mutually when they sign a contract. I used holding a gun in the first round as a case in point. Is it moral to shoot somebody who has not shot you yet, but you have reasonable grounds to believe they might shoot you? Some would call that self-defense, even though strictly speaking, no force has been applied. What is this hypothetical security guard going to do about it if they can't initiate force? What if the gun was pulled in your own home? Without a state it's not like you can enforce property rights to tell somebody to go away. By pro's own admission the use of force is natural even to micro-organisms.
We protect negative liberties by giving up positive ones. For example, we cannot have freedom from being killed unless we surrender the freedom to kill. Such common surrendering is the basis for not only government but all law. To protect life, liberty and happiness, society removes freedoms from people that undermine those things. Such is necessary for the state also - killing people is hardly the most liberal option in solving world hunger when the world has plenty of food. One fifth of the world goes hungry and one fifth of the world is obese. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. Yet such redistribution is impossible without the organization of states. Surely it is fair if everyone gets to eat.
Pro agrees morality is not absolute but nonetheless insists on using an absolute moral principle. He argues that states impose a single moral judgment, yet ignores that modern states are not uniform. That he calls bureaucracy and inefficiency. It is true that things are more efficient if everybody agrees, but it comes at a price of diversity of thought in the political process. A better explanation for this is that despite competing moral ideas, we still need to try to run our society as best we possibly can. If we stopped over every conceivable moral disagreement in our personal lives we would never achieve anything, so the same standard cannot be held on government.
Con argues that majority rule is a failure point. So what if 60% want murder? That's differing moral judgments in action. As long as the other 40% have some measure of say as well, that's a perfectly fair outcome. To say otherwise is a fundamental mistrust of the good judgment of the masses, implying the better judgment of some elite - in which case, any form of anarchism does not provide the best outcome for society since that elite could not guide others. But democracy stands for the common man, and their ability to make things work. You can have a democratic republic, the two are not exclusive.
Pro claims states do not self change. I wonder what he thinks votes are. This too, is their incentive and accountability, usually.
Pro claims states can forever operate in the red. I wonder why I thinks governments tax, then. Surely they'd make use of all that free money... except economics doesn't work that way.
All of this can only happen with states - in an anarchic society there is no accountability etc to anybody except yourself.
Finally con notes corruption could happen. Or it might not. There was little to expand on this point from previous rounds - simply bringing up examples of politicians putting in place common sense, or at least generally-thought-of-as-good-outside-of-the-USA, regulations like gun control is not corruption.
Nothing pro said about the nature of states is therefore standing at the end of the day.
The resolution is negated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-20 01:00:55| Speak Round
Admin is a great debater. I still disagree, and can argue, against his points but my mental organization went bonkers and I lost track, therefor I guess Admin wins. What a fun debate. I hope to debate admin on this in the future when I debate better, maybe with coaching from Admin? I guess you could vote for me if you actually thought I won, but consider this round forfeited. Thank you Admin, and I hoped the site enjoyed this intellectually stimulating topic. Anarchy is a lot more interesting than I thought.
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-22 23:34:39| Speak Round
Thanks pro, it was heaps of fun :)
Return To Top | Posted:
2016-08-22 23:43:29| Speak Round