RM vs Athias: RM picks topic, Athias picks side.

: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel

a situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time

behaving in a way that does not meet the moral standards or match the opinions that you claim to have

[seeking ends] in a way that does not meet the moral standards or match the opinions that [it or one claims] to have

any discrepancy between what a political party claims and the practices the party is trying to hide.

a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government, and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the ability to pursue one’s own conception of happiness, or the “good life”). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.

Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic. Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society.

Right-libertarianism, also known as libertarian capitalism or right-wing libertarianism, is a libertarian political philosophy that supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. The term right-libertarianism is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. In contrast to socialist libertarianism,  right-libertarianism supports free-market capitalism. Like most forms of libertarianism, it supports civil liberties, especially natural law, negative rights, the non-aggression principle, and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.

minarchism (countable and uncountable, plural minarchisms)

1. Belief in the desirability and practicality of minimum government.
   

A state is a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory.

Particularized Threat (10 points): Policies received 0 or 10 points for the particularized threat element of necessity. A policy satisfied this principle if it required a specific heightened risk or threat to allow use of lethal force. All but one of the 20 cities satisfied particularized threat, only allowing use of lethal force in response to a threat of death or serious bodily harm or injury—specific, heightened risks. Indianapolis failed to satisfy this element because the policy allows the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony, without limiting or specifying the relevant felonies or the kind of force or threat of force involved in the commission of the felony.83 Fort Worth, for example, established that use of lethal force was authorized “only when it is necessary for officers to protect themselves or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury” (emphasis added).84

As the descriptions above delineate, both Anarchy or Anarcho-Capitalism, and Right-Wing Libertarianism espouse individual sovereignty, property rights, free-market capitalism, and a position against aggression.

variants or less commonly sovranty

pluralsovereignties also sovranties

1

a

: supreme power especially over a body politic

b

: freedom from external control : AUTONOMY

c

: controlling influence

2

: one that is sovereign

What Are Property Rights?
Property rights define the theoretical and legal ownership of resources and how they can be used. These resources can be both tangible or intangible and can be owned by individuals, businesses, and governments.

The term free market is sometimes used in place of laissez-faire capitalism. Most people are generally referring an economy with open competition and only private transactions among buyers and sellers when they talk about the free market. However, a more apt definition also includes economic activity wherein coercive central authorities have no control.

Yet there is a certain amount of ambiguity among anarchists about freedom. There are topics on which some — many — anarchists reject the pro-freedom, libertarian, position.
For example, concerning freedom of speech. Some anarchists have generalized from our attitude toward fascists (where we attempt to physically drive them off the streets and break up their meetings). These anarchists (and other leftists) have applied this to other groups which are non-fascist — conservatives for example — breaking up their meetings (such as assaulting the platform at Columbia University in New York City of the group which organized “Islamo-fascist Week”). Or anarchists are often against admitting Marxist-Leninists to anarchist gatherings or bookfairs — not only denying them literature tables (which may make sense at an anarchist bookfair) but questioning their right to attend. This is especially true toward the Spartacist League, a Trotskyist group which specializes in “political combat” through being obnoxious, or the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist group which would shoot us if it took power. This denial of free speech has been justified by some with a revival of the 1960s theory of Herbert Marcuse of “repressive tolerance.”

Capitalist politicians jabber about freedom, liberty, democracy, and more freedom. Revolutionary anarchists point out that freedom under capitalism is limited and hypocritical. Mostly the bourgeois (capitalist) politicians mean the freedom to get rich, including capitalists’ “freedom” not to be bothered by unions or by pesky anti-discrimination laws or environmental regulations. Capitalists want the “liberty” to not promote African-Americans or women at work or to rent out apartments without having to modify them for the physically disabled. This is the “freedom” to oppress others (to deny others their freedom). Needless to say, what I am for is the freedom of the oppressed to be free of their oppression!

The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.
Ask yourself what it means to have a "competition" in governmental services. It's a "competition" in wielding force, a "competition" in subjugating others, a "competition" in making people obey commands. That's not "competition," it's violent conflict. On a large scale, it's war.

The shootout at the O.K. Corral was not a case of "competition." Actual competition is a peaceful rivalry to gain dollars--dollars paid voluntarily in uncoerced trade.

Governments are necessary--because we need to be secure from force initiated by criminals, terrorists, and foreign invaders.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

There is a huge literature dealing with the most frequent and obvious objections — e.g., Wouldn’t society descend into violent strife as armed bands fought for turf? How would disputes be resolved if my neighbor chose one arbitrator and I chose another? A short essay can’t answer all objections, so I refer you to this annotated bibliography of anarcho-capitalism assembled by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

There’s a joke that’s been going around over the past few years: what’s the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? Answer: six months. If you value principle, consistency, and justice, and oppose violence, parasitism, and monopoly, it may not take you even that long. Start reading, and see where these ideas take you.

• sovereignty
  
• property rights
  
• free-market capitalism
  
• position against aggression
  

As Con sees it, to even hold together a society in a capitalistic manner that meritocratically rewards people is futile to do in an anarchic manner and only can be successfully done under either a Libertarian regime or right-wing Capitalistic one...

(1) You have a dollar. What keeps that dollar yours?

 A police force and system that is held under legal scrutiny such that people can't randomly print fiat money out of nowhere without it reducing the currency's value. (2) Why do the cops matter? Who stops your or punishes those that cause your finances harm that breaks the rules of the game?

(3) Without rules, a rewards system cannot run. Can you imagine a grading system in a school where cheating and stealing other's marks by extortion were allowed? That is how hypocritical and ridiculous anarcho-capitalism would be if it stayed as that.

(4) Except it never does stay as that, clearly people realise the hypocrisy and either it becomes a rule-established Libertarian state in its next transition or it at the very least shifts to a stage where people are more openly tribalistic and don't care as much for the meritocracy. In the end to be loyal to primal urges to spread one's DNA and keep one's family fed and happy, nepotism thwarts meritocracy in anarcho-capitalism because it is the way to keep your 'tribe' thriving and such.

(5) It is actually self-defeating at its very core. If you try to be a lone meritocratically rewarded individual, you can't even hire muscle because the muscle can rape your family, break your neck and nothing holds them accountable as there's no law and order.

(6) The entire system is broken at its very core, the fairness of the capitalism let alone darwinism is functionally moot as people will just form tribes they trust and ignore the principles on which Capitalism is meant to maintain over generations.

Total - Federal Reserve Bank-Held Gold (Summary)

13,452,810.545 (Fine Troy Ounces)

$568,007,257.40 (Book Value)

 

Total - U.S. Government Gold Reserve (Summary)

261,498,926.241 (Fine Troy Ounces)

$11,041,059,957.90 (Book Value)

The FY 2021 print order of 7.6 to 9.6 billion notes is an increase of 1.7 to 3.8 billion notes, or 30.6 to 65.9 percent, from the final FY 2020 order.3
Currency in circulation, a direct measure of demand for Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), increased by 5.1 billion notes or $226.3 billion dollars between June 2019 and June 2020.

The Board of Governors, as the issuing authority for Federal Reserve notes, approved and submitted its fiscal year (FY) 2023 print order to the U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), on August 9, 2022.1 The FY 2023 print order contains a range of 4.5 billion to 8.6 billion notes, valued at $166.5 billion to $190.5 billion.

 Let me explain why this is important.

If you are a gay drag queen who has HIV, a few years left and dedicate that to a business, Libertarianism not only keeps your doctor and such obligated to accurately and privately tell you how much time you probably have left and keeps all those who'd drag your business down and verbally/emotionally harm you limited to only legal means of doing so.

You cannot have supreme power of any kind in anarchy or it stops being anarchy, the more controlling influence that is even possible, the less it achieves its goal.

You cannot have freedom from external control as everybody is completely free to hurt you, bully you, rob you

and devalue the currency even.

There are infinitely available means of external control to ruin your sovereignty.

You cannot even sleep at night without hoping your security guard doesn't slit your throat and that's best-case scenario.

Property rights are non-existent in anarchy. They are inforced impulsively as the random thugs guarding the property see fit. There are no laws and nothing keeping the rights in tact.

Anarchy at its core loathes capitalism. After all, we cannot be free and without tyranny if the rich are free to hire who they want and betray everyone as they see fit.

Wouldn’t society descend into violent strife as armed bands fought for turf? How would disputes be resolved if my neighbor chose one arbitrator and I chose another? A short essay can’t answer all objections, so I refer you to this annotated bibliography of anarcho-capitalism assembled by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Who keeps that dollar mine? My possession of it does. In an anarcho-capitalist society, currency would be distributed by private, individually competing banks. 

(2) Why do the cops matter? Who stops your or punishes those that cause your finances harm that breaks the rules of the game?

Police or security, like any other good or service, can be privatized. Precincts wouldn't be subdivisions part of one giant organization that is ACCOUNTABLE ONLY TO ITSELF, but private individual organizations competing for the favor of its consumers.

Without rules, a rewards system cannot run. Can you imagine a grading system in a school where cheating and stealing other's marks by extortion were allowed? That is how hypocritical and ridiculous anarcho-capitalism would be if it stayed as that.

Non sequitur. I demand that my opponent establishes how ANARCHO-CAPITALISM = NO RULES despite my submitted descriptions delineating no such thing. If my opponent intends to dispute this, then let him provide his own counterfactual.

 If human beings are prone to their "primal urges" to spread DNA and feed their family, and this subsequently results in non-meritocratic tribalistic dysfunction--and it should be noted that I'm not attempting to validate my opponent's pretext, only extending it to logical conclusion to demonstrate its absurdity--then how is government regulation a remedy? Are the members of government not just as prone to their primal urges? If your evolutionary psychological platitude incorporates every single human being then why does concentrating authority to just a few, and calling them "government" provide an exception? This absurd conclusion you've proposed renders ALL social interaction INESCAPABLE from non-meritocratic tribalism.

Non-sequitur. Anarchism or Anarcho-capitalism is not the absence of law-and-order as my descriptions clearly state. I understand you could not have anticipated my description in the first and/or second rounds, but you could have addressed it in the third, should you have had a dispute. And you don't. Hence this ex-post-facto rebuttal.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics.

Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.

Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

 I still don't understand how this contradicts the principles of Capitalism--particularly free market capitalism. If a person decides to employ or acquire resources for just family members, and this results in an efficient distribution, then what's the problem? If it results in an inefficient distribution, then that's the cross they bear, correct? Please elaborate on your notion of "fairness" before closing arguments.

But with robberies allowed,

You link to a lot of evidence that at times the federal government has printed money, they had to let the other countries know and the USD currency was reduced in value for it.

Without law holding the system in place

People could stop doing business with them but they could then refuse to give out anyone's money.

The giant organisation you refer to is accountable to officials that are elected or appointed by the elected. Do you know how the system works? That depends on the country so I cannot specify as such. In all Libertarian scenarios the government is elected and answerable to by the public ultimately.

If you continually ignore your taxes, you may have more than fees to deal with. The IRS could:

• File a notice of a federal tax lien (a claim to your property)
  
• Seize your property
  
• Make you forfeit your refund
  
• File charges for tax evasion
  
• Revoke your passport
  

Cops themselves are able to (eventually, hopefully) be exposed if breaking the law and reprimanded.

You cannot privatise the police, only security. The police serve the people of the country and enforce the laws agreed upon,

There are no rules in anarcho-capitalism, it doesn't matter if you say the people can make rules,

they can't enforce them remotely like laws

The way it is possible is because the government is accountable to the people and its own opposition, for starters.

there are social and structural mechanics in place to take them down keeping the rules in tact.

Furthermore, even with meritocracy in place it is likely the powerful would encourage the competent to reproduce with their offspring and the competent if from a mediocre or lowly bloodline would certainly want to do so since the system has no place for true love, you need to function in an extremely survivalist manner.

Non-sequitur. Anarchism or Anarcho-capitalism is not the absence of law-and-order as my descriptions clearly state. I understand you could not have anticipated my description in the first and/or second rounds, but you could have addressed it in the third, should you have had a dispute. And you don't. Hence this ex-post-facto rebuttal.

Yes they are. They are exactly what you say they aren't.

Your description never explains whatsoever how laws would arise because it cannot do that as that's not anarchy. 

In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics.

This makes no sense in practise whatsoever. If only the richest and most powerful are entitled to enforce the 'rules' and adjudicate on people's guilt, obviously the entire system would be rigged in their favour. There would be no damn rules whatsoever, they'd have the most dangerous and all of it and then rob the people opposing them too.

It is actually completely unfeasible and unsustainable because it instantly opens up tyranny which is the whole problem.

In the SAME DESCRIPTION THIS IS SAID:

Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.

How can this even be possible? You have legalised fraud, since there are no laws and if the private owners of law enforcement want that fraudster to get away with it, that's allowed. You allow aggression permanently in fact terrorism itself is allowed in Anarcho-capitalism:

Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

You can *in theory* kill the very law enforcers legally but no doubt they'd have the much better thugs and weapons and would hurt you and your family if you dared raise arms against them. It would be pure gangster ethos.