Debate Info

yes no
Debate Score:6
Total Votes:6
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 yes (3)
 no (1)

Debate Creator

vandebater(444) pic

Anarchy is the only truly fair political/economic system

well i know that generally democracy is considered fair and reasonable but everyone is part of a 'system'.  What if i didnt want to be in government computers and stuff.  also who are you to tell me i cant rape someone or murder someone?  It sounds stupid but how is it "fair" that someone higher than me is tellig me what to do... and theres no escape.  So im not asking you if we should become anarchist or if you think anarchy is the right thing for the world, im asking if it is technically the only fair system?



Side Score: 5


Side Score: 1
2 points

I support anarchy and all of its redundancy. I believe in survival of the fittest not a strong armed goverment deciding what everything is worth. In times of anarchy you earn what you get and nothing more. noone tells you what you deserve or what you can have. I believe that what have no is holding humanity back and not allowing to it prosper.

Side: yes
2 points

"Anarchy" is a broad term, and there is much dispute between anarchists over what an anarchist society would like. The most notable divide is between libertarian anarchism and social anarchism. Social anarchists are your typical radical left-wingers, and are all for workers owning the means of production themselves and running a collectivist society run via direct democracy. Libertarian anarchists are more individualistic, believing very much in "survival of the fittest". Libertarian anarchists accuse Social anarchists of restoring the democratic state and Social anarchists accuse Libertarian anarchists of building a corporate state with wealth concentrated in the hands of the few.

I would argue that Social anarchy is a fair political and economic system, as opposed to Libertarian anarchy. In a social anarchic state:

- Workers each receive a share in the profits they have helped produce.

- Every individual has equal political power.

- The absence of any hierarchy prevents exploitation.

- Individuals are reliant on one another in order to survive within a community, this reliance prevents dissent. (For example, a factory requires 100 employees - each employee is reliant on the other 99 employees so that the factory remains operational and profits can be made).

A social anarchic society would have to be carefully structured (which is the cause of the most criticism from its libertarian counterpart), which is something I'll go in to if anyone is particularly interested.

Side: yes
1 point

The fairness of any system is dictated by the level of equality inside the system. Democracy and social democracy is a system that artificially tries to alleviate class differences.

Anarchy, however, would be as unequal as the people who lived within it. In a system of anarchy, corporations are free to exploit people to the max, rich and powerful people can crush the poor and non-powerful and basically it creates complete chaos.

Anarchy is only equal if the people are equal - but people are not equal by their very nature. There is no truly equal system.

Side: no
goldenblack(1) Disputed
1 point

Whenever one employs the term "equality", one must also define if one thereby means equality of opportunity or equality of outcome. The more your society has of one, the less it will, in general, have of the other.

I assume you mean equality of outcome, given the context.

It is true that under anarchy, there would be inequality of outcome. But there would be a very high equality of opportunity. Contrast this with the non-anarchic, e.g. democratic, societies that we know from our time. Here, those who strive to provide the most value to others are taxed heavily, while those who do not provide value, are taxed lightly. This creates some equality of outcome - although extremely inefficiently due to bureaucracy and so on - at the expense of equality of opportunity.

Under anarchy, corporations are not, in fact, free to exploit. They do that today, under democracy. That is because democratic law allows for the existence of corporations and they are able to game the system, for example by heavily influencing the laws that are passed.

Under anarchy, there is no government and thus no monopoly of violence. The entire apparatus whereby corporations today exploit the masses (take for example the "too big to fail" bailouts) is completely non existent under anarchy.

Side: yes