CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
A good way to keep the benefits of Capitaism while taking out some of the unfair aspects would be Anarchy.
Land and Resource ownership seems to curb a lot of disproportionate wealth towards a small group of people, however land ownership without a state can not extend far beyond what the person builds on the land. And the "capital" that a person can hold is limited to the resources they have. No fiat currency means truly putting up what you're worth.
Without a state, is practically impossible for anyone to become that rich and to own things that others need to survive. Capitalism itself isn't the issue, the State is. A lot of anarcho-Socialists assume that Capitalism is only possible with a state, yet they are okay with "ownership" of certain things (personal food, cars, etc.) That ownership is all that is necessary for a Capitalist. Anarcho-Capitalists believe in voluntary interaction. Claiming ownership of land with nothing but paper is not a voluntary effort. Other people around that land own it just as much as everyone else. If you build a house, you own the house, however that land around it is not yours. It can't be yours. It's just there.
Simply put, Free Trade and Voluntary Interaction will solve any current issues of "Capitalism."
No fiat currency means truly putting up what you're worth.
Currency of some kind is necessary. Fiat or otherwise, wealth can be amassed.
Claiming ownership of land with nothing but paper is not a voluntary effort.
Are you talking about fiat currency or the land deed? If it is the land deed, then respecting contracts is the voluntary effort that legitimizes land ownership. Does the farmer own the vast fields that he plants?
If you think Anarchy is the solution to perceived problems with Capitalism, then I'll have to post another debate titled "what is the solution to Anarchy". Can you name one example of a thriving Anarchy?
Not sure why you think that land ownership is a problem with capitalism. There is very little land in Singapore, yet they are incredibly wealthy. Wealthier than the U.S. per capita.
Free Trade and Voluntary Interaction will solve any current issues of "Capitalism."
Free Trade and Voluntary Interaction are Capitalistic principals already. It's almost like saying the solution to Capitalism is to actually adopt Capitalism.
then respecting contracts is the voluntary effort that legitimizes land ownership
Contracts are not magic. Contracts is a written document between consenting parties. Unless people living on and around these resources all consent to giving up the ownership of these resources to one person, no contract will simply grand the right to own a patch of land to someone.
Does the farmer own the vast fields that she plants?
He owns the crops that he planted, and the land is then being used for those crops. For someone to remove those crops would be an act of force.
However, if that land is NOT being used, it can not justifiably belong to anyone unless, as stated, all surrounding parties already agreed.
Can you name one example of a thriving Anarchy?
"Thriving" is just a word. I may as well ask you to provide one example of "thriving" statism. You can say any state you want, but I'll find a reason to say that it's not thriving. Word garbage.
There is very little land in Singapore, yet they are incredibly wealthy. Wealthier than the U.S. per capita
Wealthy as a collective or just some individuals whom are very wealthy?
The issue with State Capitalism tends to be people using imaginary assets (dollars and credit) to legally own vast amounts of resources that they would NOT be able to obtain without a government. If the people of Singapore are wealthy as a collective, I see no issue here. If there are just a select few people whom are wealthy, the issue, as explained, is through Statism.
Free Trade and Voluntary Interaction are Capitalistic principals already. It's almost like saying the solution to Capitalism is to actually adopt Capitalism.
State Capitalism is not Free Trade and is not voluntary. The solution to State Capitalism is Free Market Capitalism/Anarcho-Capitalism.
Including bullshit. Constructs like "thriving" with no objective explanation are part of that.
Currency happens because barter is shit. People will naturally adopt a rare commodity to store value. Like cigarettes in a prison.
Bartering is merely trade. Currency occurs from bartering. Your cigarette example is a great representation of how bartering creates currency without any standardization (state law.) Cigarettes are useable and this is why prisoners continue to use them as a type of currency. However, the price is determined randomly and no laws exist to maintain that use of cigs for currency.
Considering these people are caged like animals and forced against each other by the state, it's amazing that they can STILL barter like sane human beings. If prisoners can trade freely like quasi-civilized human beings, a free, non-violent people with no violent state oppressing them can do much better, and even better than their current status.
However, all the cigs in the world will not get prisoners to give up their living quarters, and the only thing that can get them to move would be means of force. Without a state, generating that man-power is nearly impossible, especially when communities are larger and stronger than any gangs. Prisoners resort to gang violence because of the oppressive state they're in. Gang violence exists today because of oppression and vice laws.
The solution to all of these problems are a lot more simpler. Remove the state. Same with any possible issues of modern Capitalism. Simply allow for free trade.
Credit and even currency do not require any kind of government support
Protection of large amounts of assets for one man does. And standardized currency is generated and enforced by the State.
Constructs like "thriving" with no objective explanation are part of that.
Lets try this: Take your own definition of what success is, and then give me an example of an anarchic society that was successful according to your standards.
And standardized currency is generated and enforced by the State.
There would be some amount of non-governmental standardization with non-governmental currency. A man could amass enough wealth with non-governmental currency to hire enough people to protect his own vast assets. All without the government.
Take your own definition of what success is, and then give me an example of an anarchic society that was successful according to your standards.
You're missing my point. You have no example of a "thriving" state, so why demand thriving Anarchy?
Unless your definition of "thriving" is existing, then we would merely have only examples of "thriving" states, and I hardly see that as a reason to support it.
A man could amass enough wealth with non-governmental currency to hire enough people to protect his own vast assets.
What value does that currency have? Are all the people more willing to protect this man's vast wealth for currency that has no legal value? Who would accept this currency? For what reason? Would it not be simpler for the people to demand collective ownership of the various assets? How are these assets even acquired and protected in the first place for this to exist at all?
It's a circle of logic. You're assuming this would be the reality without government, yet have no explanation of why this would be the reality. Easier explained as a simple fear, nothing more.
You're missing my point. You have no example of a "thriving" state, so why demand thriving Anarchy?
I'm not missing the point, you are avoiding the question. You seem to want to say that Anarchy is better without even saying why it's good (it's not, that's why I want an example).
The United States as a nation has a government. This doesn't mean that a successful United States equals a successful state. The U.S. has seen various degrees of prosperity at different times, but I would say that this experiment has been successful. This nation has thrived as opposed to being trampled by despots or constantly war torn. There are lots of examples of anarchy throughout history and they have all been disasters (dark ages, the Congo, Somalia, etc).
What value does that currency have? Are all the people more willing to protect this man's vast wealth for currency that has no legal value?
People who trade determine the value. For most of human history currency had no "legal" value. It isn't required.
Would it not be simpler for the people to demand collective ownership of the various assets?
You're assuming this would be the reality without government
This is the problem with anarchy. This is why they don't thrive. A few people who can hire enough thugs to protect their own become the local despot (This also has historical precedence) This is why Anarchy is no solution to Capitalism and why Capitalism requires laws.
There are lots of examples of anarchy throughout history and they have all been disasters (dark ages, the Congo, Somalia, etc).
First, the dark ages is not a very good example unless you want provide some reference of an anarchic society at that time and compare it relative to a city-state and/or monarchy. Iceland is one that comes to mind and they were poor at that time, but they did have a way of doing things without a central ruling class as opposed to England at the time.
And thirdly, if you study the history of Somalia, it is traditionally stateless, without an established central government. However, it was under a military dictatorship for a bit. When it civil war broke out back in 1991, there was fighting going on for a bit; that would likely occur in any case. But it eventually settled down somewhat and there was a balance that developed.
Then, the International community comes in, again and attempts to establish a central government; fighting takes place between the tribes in the different areas because they want to be recognized and put into power.
As it so happens currently, there is a federal government being developed and placed, but not everyone is in favor.
Congo is not a good reference because they do have a state in place and therefore, is not anarchic.
My understanding of Anarchy is that a recognized state is irreverent, What matters is if there is established rule. There is no established rule for all the folks who are not on one side or the other, and they are victimized by both.
the dark ages is not a very good example unless you want provide some reference of an anarchic society at that time and compare it relative to a city-state and/or monarchy. Iceland is one that comes to mind
I consider the fall of Rome to be the start of the dark ages. When Rome withdrew from the British Isles, there was Anarchy. People didn't all just get along then. They found the strongest leader they could to protect them from invaders (from places like Iceland and Scandinavia). What came out of English anarchy were petty despots fighting over who was lord of the manner.
International waters are a good example of potential anarchy. When all those people from different countries wanted to voluntarily trade across the ocean, they couldn't because their vessels would get sacked by pirates. The British Navy protected trade routes thus making free and voluntary international interaction possible.
My understanding of Anarchy is that a recognized state is irreverent, What matters is if there is established rule. There is no established rule for all the folks who are not on one side or the other, and they are victimized by both.
I have been considering the original meaning of Anarchy and have a working theory that I am currently working on; I think the very concept is missing an important element.
As to what you pointed out, it is a giant power struggle in that region. This seems to be the case over the entire planet to one extent or another. Those who are fighting for power there want to be the established ruler(s) to make the rule(s). I do not think this supports your argument very well.
I consider the fall of Rome to be the start of the dark ages. When Rome withdrew from the British Isles, there was Anarchy. People didn't all just get along then. They found the strongest leader they could to protect them from invaders (from places like Iceland and Scandinavia). What came out of English anarchy were petty despots fighting over who was lord of the manner.
Rome fell from within as well as from external problems. But no, people never just get along, until they decide to seek a resolution other than killing each other.
When I mentioned Iceland, I was speaking to the way they decided to conduct themselves. Also, Ireland had a private law set-up that lasted for approximately, 1700 years when it was slowly eradicated by the King of England; as I understand it, there were still elements of it surviving until the 18th century. Anyhow, what we have pointed to is a comparison of decentralized or centralized social structures. These are considered by many historians to be forms of "governments"; not anarchy. In fact, I believe it to be a misinterpretation to think that anarchy or "anarchism" is intended to have an established "system".
Those who claim to be anarchist, seem more inclined towards the Voluntaryist approach; this is based on no monopoly of the use of force. I do not see why people are contentious towards such a way. It seems to me that if a person wishes to have Freedom to live their lives as they see fit, then, they have to allow for their neighbor(s) to do the same; that means not acting in harmful ways, either directly nor indirectly through supporting such actions in their name.
Therefore, the solution to Capitalism is to not act as an interference in others seeking to attain their own wealth. That sounds allot like the Free-market approach to me.
You seem to want to say that Anarchy is better without even saying why it's good
Once again, you're dependent on simplistic constructs instead of realizing the point. The government is a forceful mechanism. It steals from the populace and forces them to live within arbitrary boundaries by the threat of death, imprisonment, or the seizing of property. Anarchy is without the brutal mechanism.
This nation has thrived as opposed to being trampled by despots or constantly war torn
It also murders millions of people over seas while citizens sit idly by enjoying what you call "prosperity." Just because middle class families can avoid vehicles (responsible for environment devastation and alarming death rates) does not mean that things are going well. Blacks and minorities live disproportionately in poverty and are thrown into prisons for non-violent crimes. The US has the populace content enough to hold power to execute any citizen without due process. This isn't progress.
dark ages, the Congo, Somalia
Dark Ages is an example of war torn cities and a church that resorted to destruction of private property.
Somalia is better off than its neighboring countries, and Africa in general is mostly fucked except for areas that are heavily supported by the Western European empire, but the UK was responsible for much of the land stealing that put Africa where it is today. Somalia was fucked before the Civil War and it's actually rebuilding better than Ethiopia or Rawanda, which are are still plague by Bureaucrats and heavily powerful state troops. Somalia has the advantage of very small factions of villages, leaving no concentrated power.
People who trade determine the value. For most of human history currency had no "legal" value. It isn't required.
People who trade ONCE determined the value. That is no longer the case thanks to American and Federal Reserve Empire.
A few people who can hire enough thugs to protect their own become the local despot
Hire with what? Once again, going in circles. They need to protect their resources, so they hire people with the resources that they need protected? How much do they have to hire people with? If it's so hard to protect, how is it possible that so many would simply just listen to such a minority?
I suppose that is the typical Statist assumption, since that is exactly what Statism is. The only difference is that Statism has been around for millenias and is practically ingrained as "normal." In Anarchy, this idea of simply allowing one man to own so much without any rational reasoning would not fly. Once again, collective ownership would most likely take over the land.
Capitalism requires laws
State Capitalism (allowing one to use Federally recognized credit to simply own land and natural resources) requires laws. Free Market Capitalism (free, unregulated trade among people with resources that they can own by themselves and does not infringe on the neighbors) does not.
The government is a forceful mechanism...Anarchy is without the brutal mechanism.
The simplistic construct is language. It isn't that you can tell me that Anarchy is good, only that government is bad. Got it.
Somalia is better off than its neighboring countries, and Africa in general is mostly fucked except for areas that are heavily supported by the Western European empire
Saying that Somalia is better is a simplistic construct. If the areas that are not fucked are supported by the "Western European Empire", than perhaps the Emperor of Western Europe is doing something right and more nations should ask for his advice.
Somalia has the advantage of very small factions of villages, leaving no concentrated power.
Somalia is stagnant. The tribal factions are no advantage. Every time one tribe acquires more arms than the others, the fighting starts again until an arms balance is once again reached. Some advantage.
People who trade ONCE determined the value
I'm glad you see my point. I'm not talking about fiat money, but money as such. Though our current system is dependent on a central bank, money itself is not. Wealth can be amassed with commonly held currency. It has been the case in the past with or without government sanction.
Hire with what? Once again, going in circles. They need to protect their resources, so they hire people with the resources that they need protected?
It isn't going in circles, it is dependent on the premise of money which you tried but failed to negate.
Free Market Capitalism (free, unregulated trade among people with resources that they can own by themselves and does not infringe on the neighbors) does not "require laws"
Property ownership requires enforceable laws. Rights of neighbors that can't be infringed require enforceable laws.
You said in an earlier post that in Anarchy the community wouldn't allow one person to amass the wealth that I am talking about. People deciding that someone has too much, and then taking it, is the moral crime that underlies the fundamental destruction of your anarchy.
It isn't that you can tell me that Anarchy is good, only that government is bad. Got it.
facepalm
Look, no need to be a child about it. The initiation of force is what Anarchists are against. If you are in favor of force, violence, and theft, it would make sense that you support government. However, if you are against force, violence, and theft, I see no reason to continue defending government in fear of something that is just not government.
I'd like to finally hear your actual defense of this thing that is being forced onto the rest of us. What justifies you forcing your ideals onto others? Anarchy is the Atheism of Statism. We are simply against force, and government is systematic force.
If the areas that are not fucked are supported by the "Western European Empire", than perhaps the Emperor of Western Europe is doing something right and more nations should ask for his advice
Tell that to Gandhi and the United States.
the fighting starts again until an arms balance is once again reached. Some advantage.
I hate the Somalia example because in the rest of most of Africa, which does have central government, it's the same or worse. Not the same as the Western, developed world.
However, the US just drops bombs onto villages killing thousands of innocent people. Most of the Western involvement in countries with brown people is a slaughter. I hardly see this as better than just some small villages fighting every once in a while. Just because we get to live in the comfort of a developed world does not mean that we are living under some kind of morally better system. The West is tyrannical and genocidal.
It has been the case in the past with or without government sanction.
Examples.
Property ownership requires enforceable laws
Land ownership possibly, because as I stated and as you seem to understand, the people will not simply allow for one man to say "this all is mine, deal with it."
To own natural resources that have always been there is already an act of force. The people will not stand for it. If they did, it would be cooperative and NOT force.
Despite the ad hominem, I'm sticking with my statement. You don't give positive answers for Anarchy, only negative answers for government. Atheism is able to give positive answers for their positions and there are visible, tangible benefits that have resulted from their view. You don't stand for Anarchy, just against government.
I'd like to finally hear your actual defense of this thing that is being forced onto the rest of us.
Much of Africa isn't under control of government, but dictatorship. The anarchist fallacy is equating government as such as dictatorship. Being constrained, by force, from; stealing, speeding, raping, kidnapping, breach of contract, false advertising, child abuse, etc, is not the same as being ruled over. There are just laws and unjust laws. The existence of unjust laws are not cause to throw out the system that also upholds just laws.
Tell that to Gandhi and the United States.
The "Emperor of Western Europe" was tongue in cheek. You may not know this but there is no Emperor of Western Europe. Incidentally, Gandhi's policies, not the remnants of colonialism, are what set the stage for 50 years of destitution in India. The United States took a lot of cues from Europe including the judicial system of common law.
I hate the Somalia example because in the rest of most of Africa, which does have central government, it's the same or worse. Not the same as the Western, developed world.
If a single tribe gets an military advantage in Somalia, they will become the ruler. This is similar to how other countries in Africa got their "Central Governments" which are not governments, but the end result of Anarchy.
the US just drops bombs onto villages killing thousands of innocent people
While innocent people die in war, being a villager does not necessarily make one innocent. Sometimes villagers chop off the heads of non-combatant workers and the rest of the village hides them and enables them. And the United States still gives them valuable meds that they sell for bombs rather than using them to fix their own kids ailments.
Most of the Western involvement in countries with brown people is a slaughter
If by involvement you mean wars, than this applies to all wars regardless of color or who it's between. If by involvement you mean trade agreement, sanctions for human rights violations (South Africa), peace keeping operations (Bosnia and Kosovo), then western involvement often meant the end of slaughter.
I didn't know that real estate was against Anarchist principles. Ownership of anything, land or otherwise, depends on your neighbors voluntarily agreeing not to steal it from you. This is why places where property laws are effectively upheld, there tends to be more prosperity. When there is no little piece of paper that people agree to respect (land deeds and contracts) than what you have is turf wars. But I guess that's better.
You don't give positive answers for Anarchy, only negative answers for government
Only in answering some of your questions do i resort to any of that, but like Atheism, the argument in favor of Anarchy is simply the lack of coherent argument in favor of government, which is a system of force, violence, theft, and slavery. Anarchy is against that systematic oppression. We're not babies, we don't need to give a few men power over the rest of us to have "order."
Much of Africa isn't under control of government, but dictatorship.
What mathematics did you come up with for that statement? Is there some kind of algorithm developed by some Elite Statist whom figured out how to avoid the "unjust" laws that have plagued government for thousands of years? Or is the answer just going to be "we have a Constitution" or "a democracy". Yes, because those things somehow justify the government stealing our shit, mass murdering foreigners, treating immigrants like animals, locking people into prisons for a variety of non-violent crimes, etc.
You may not know this but there is no Emperor of Western Europe.
I know. I said "empire." I ignored your obvious "joke" to focus on the argument. I hate derailing tactics and it's best to ignore them.
The United States took a lot of cues from Europe including the judicial system of common law.
Yep, and successfully used that beautiful system to put hundreds of thousands of innocent people into a cage, including a man (Bradley Manning) who exposed the American government for its sinister acts into a prison for 35 years.
If a single tribe gets an military advantage in Somalia, they will become the ruler.
Oh, so I suppose you're all just waiting for that to FINALLY happen in Somalia to somehow make a point about possible First World Anarchy, right?
This is similar to how other countries in Africa got their "Central Governments"
I'll ignore how you're not very well-read on African politics to point out that this is how ALL governments come to be. It doesn't "start" with Anarchy. There is rarely every any Anarchy. There is an exchange in power.
The Anarchist goal is to eradicate government. I suppose your fear is that at that time when the people are finally able to dissolve government, people will just start trying to take power... I guess you don't understand what Anarchists are actually trying to do. There might be people who try it, and hopefully the people will fight back. After all, with no fiat currency or establishment of any power, there is no motivation no ability for large enough militias to rise. We're talking about the First World resorting to barbarism and Feudalism just because government finally stopped being a thing. That's the most paranoid thing I've ever heard.
While innocent people die in war, being a villager does not necessarily make one innocent. Sometimes villagers chop off the heads of non-combatant workers and the rest of the village hides them and enables them. And the United States still gives them valuable meds that they sell for bombs rather than using them to fix their own kids ailments.
The casualties are grossly disproportionate not to mention the issues with a body of powerful people convincing young men and women that they're fighting for "freedom" and promising them "benefits" at the expense of taxpayers. And, as stated, when one of them exposes the acts of the American government, they are thrown in a prison.
As for "buying bombs," regardless of whether this even happens that much, it kind of makes sense when the people who just blew up your kids saying "here's some money to look the other way" results in the purchase of weaponry to fight back with.
When there is no little piece of paper that people agree to respect (land deeds and contracts)
They only respect it because it's voluntary. And that's all it is, a little piece of paper. Hell, if we can get a bunch of people to agree to getting their shit stolen by a group of people (politicians), and be forced to live by their rules, I'm sure people are capable of voluntarily abiding by contracts among each other.
But who knows, maybe politicians are magic and them having "power" keeps people from just becoming mindless animals with a blood-thirst. I'm pretty sure sociologists have determined that, right?
government, which is a system of force, violence, theft, and slavery
Anarchists do not understand the difference between dictatorships and governments, this is because the Anarchy fallacy requires that they be one and the same. How do anarchist propose to halt force, violence, theft, and slavery?
regardless of whether this even happens that much
Whether the US and its troops are helping or not there is always someone with no understanding of how things work ready to rally against America.
You don't strike me as someone with experience concerning either dictatorships or anarchy.
Yes we know: The solution to capitalism is for the PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeople to unite under democracy and use the power of the ballot to kill and steal- I mean, to make a utopia!
