Instigator / Con
7
1465
rating
34
debates
57.35%
won
Topic
#5532
Does Anarchy Work?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Owen_T
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
4
1233
rating
403
debates
39.45%
won
Description
Con must argue that true anarchy cannot be a functional society.
Pro must argue that anarchy is the ideal system. They have burden of proof.
Round 1
Con
#1
No government to control you. Complete free will. Mutual respect. This sounds like a utopian society, which is to say, unachievable. The idea of Anarchism is to be able to exercise all natural rights, as long as it does not interfere with that of others. That is also the point of a government. The only difference is that in the ladder, people's natural rights are safe. Whereas one bad player can bring the entire system down in Anarchy.
Pro
#2
If all people choose to become anarchs, then anarchy is very much possible. Government is a type of force in which you never have a choice to begin with, thus you cannot want government since in order to want something, there needs to be a choice. Thus, any forceful change which government does to individual's body cannot be wanted, since the choice was never given to the individual but taken away from individual and given to the government.
Round 2
Con
#3
The problems with Anarchy:
- Not enough people support it to make it work
The number of anarchists is so low that I couldn't even find the number on a reliable site. As you mentioned, we need everyone to agree on anarchism in order for it to work.
- People will still not follow the rules
Even in our society with law, some people still step out of line. In a society with no law, it would be complete chaos.
- No motivation for innovation
Like communism, if people don't get rewarded for innovation, then they would stop innovating.
Government is a type of force in which you never have a choice to begin with, thus you cannot want government since in order to want something, there needs to be a choice. Thus, any forceful change which government does to individual's body cannot be wanted, since the choice was never given to the individual but taken away from individual and given to the government.
Unfortunately, government is needed, and, if enough people wanted no government, then the government would lose its power. People prefer government to chaos.
People do not choose to be hungry, yet the still need to eat. Government is a necessity.
Pro
#4
As you mentioned, we need everyone to agree on anarchism in order for it to work.
Thats actually not even close to what I said.
I merely said that if everyone becomes anarch, then anarchy is possible. Everyone can choose to become anarch, thus anarchy is possible.
But every additional anarch is also a benefit to the world.
Its not "all or nothing" scenario. Every additional anarch improves the world by respecting body rights, so if more anarchs means a better world, then anarchy is desirable and it is desirable to increase number of anarchs in the world, which only leads to conclusion that anarchy works with any number of people following it.
Even in our society with law, some people still step out of line. In a society with no law, it would be complete chaos
Anarchy is not a society without law. It is merely society without force, and society which wants to eliminate force. The main law of anarchy is respecting body rights.
No motivation for innovation
This is just an assumption. My opponent didnt explain why there would be no reward for innovation. My opponent also assumed that innovation is a good thing, which it doesnt have to be.
Unfortunately, government is needed, and, if enough people wanted no government, then the government would lose its power. People prefer government to chaos.
Government is not needed nor wanted by all. However, the force it uses to violate body rights cannot be wanted, since force means lack of want by definition.
Thus, when government uses force on all people, such as in forced education, it cannot be wanted by anyone, since to want something means to also have a choice to reject it, which people under government dont have.
Thus, the lack of will to abolish government is not a product of choice of any kind, since government isnt based on choices to begin with, as it applies force before any choice can be made.
Its like me saying that after I punch you, you have a choice of how to react.
But the actual choice would be to be able to choose not to get punched in the first place, since after a punch, your choice has already been violated.
People do not choose to be hungry, yet the still need to eat.
How does this justify all force?
To eat is a choice one makes.
Round 3
Con
#5
I merely said that if everyone becomes anarch, then anarchy is possible. Everyone can choose to become anarch, thus anarchy is possible.
Yet, it is improbably to the point of absurdity. Abolishing government hierarchy, and getting everyone to agree on it, I can say with absolute certainty will never happen, unless you use force and violence to do so. Something which contradicts, if I understand, the very point of anarchy.
Every additional anarch improves the world by respecting body rights
First of all, people who aren't anarchs are completely capable of respecting each other's bodies. Infact, in a government, body rights are more respected, as there is consequence for not doing so. There is so much more to running a society than respecting body rights.
Anarchy is not a society without law. It is merely society without force, and society which wants to eliminate force. The main law of anarchy is respecting body rights.
Unfortunately, the law cannot be respected without force. We need to be able to use force sometimes in order to ensure that the law actually works. It's the harsh truth.
Thus, when government uses force on all people, such as in forced education, it cannot be wanted by anyone, since to want something means to also have a choice to reject it, which people under government don't have.
We force education, because it's what is good for the people. Just because people want it, doesn't mean it's good. People can want drugs. People can want to cheat. People can want no taxes.
Force is a requirement for an ordered society.
But the actual choice would be to be able to choose not to get punched in the first place, since after a punch, your choice has already been violated.
Being assailed and government are two different things. One was made to hurt.
By your logic, it is wrong for a parent to give a child curfew, since it's being forced upon the child. The child does not want to abide by a curfew, but it is for the child's own good.
We need force, because no matter how much respect you give a criminal, they're not going to stop committing crimes if you ask politely. Sure, the murder didn't want to go to jail, but it's what needs to be done. In order for the law to be respected, it must be enforced.
Pro
#6
will never happen
This isnt a debate about if complete anarchy will ever happen. This is a debate about if anarchy works, which is to say if it achieves goals such as benefiting society, which it does, as every additional anarch benefits a society by respecting body rights of others.
And ideal society would be a society of anarchs where no one violates bodies of another and where everyone is free to do what he wants with his body. This society is most desired by all who dont want to violate others, thus it is ideal society. In fact, person cannot even choose to not own his body unless he also has a choice to own his body. If there are no choices, person cannot choose.
unless you use force
Anarchy is not about the use of force and civil wars to overthrow government, but spreading through ideas and therefore benefiting society.
First of all, people who aren't anarchs are completely capable of respecting each other's bodies.
That is logically impossible. Anarch is literally defined as someone who doesnt violate other people's bodies and expects others not to violate his either in return. Thus, person who isnt anarch(someone who doesnt violate other people's bodies) cannot at the same time be what anarch is.
Besides, government violates people's bodies in many ways, such as through limiting speech, which overwhelming majority of governments today do. Then the more obvious violations such as forced education, forced circumcision, taxes, as well as managing private lives of citizens, such as protecting parents who use violence against their children in form of spanking.
the law cannot be respected without force
Sure, but in ideal society, there would be no one violating other people's bodies, thus force wouldnt exist. In case someone does violate another person's body, then force can be used to remove violation. But this brings us to an important point, which is that government is the one violating people's bodies. Law of anarchy is not the same as law of government. Law of anarchy protects people's bodies from being violated, where government and its laws act to violate people's bodies.
Government is the source of force, and anarchy merely argues for abolishment of all force, thus also abolishment of government. This doesnt mean that force cannot be used to defend against force. After all, to abolish force, it is often necessary to remove force with force.
We force education, because it's what is good for the people
So you violate bodies because you think its good for the people. That doesnt make it any less of a violation.
One was made to hurt
Government is indeed made to violate people's bodies and take away choice.
Thus, you cannot choose a system which never gave you a choice to begin with.
By your logic, it is wrong for a parent to give a child curfew
Yes, parent doesnt own children.
because no matter how much respect you give a criminal
Anarchy isnt about respecting criminals, but respecting the body of a person who isnt violating bodies of others.
Round 4
Con
#7
That is logically impossible. Anarch is literally defined as someone who doesn't violate other people's bodies and expects others not to violate his either in return.
The definition of anarchy is literally not defined as that. The agreed upon definition is "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." You said this to make the point that non-archaists are incapable of respecting body rights. This is nonsense. In our society, with enforcement of law, people do respect each other's body rights, and if they don't, there is discipline. Our society is like anarchy, but people who violate body rights and forcefully jailed so they can no longer do so.
This definition is unachievable. You are very big on protecting "body rights." Well let's consider your society, where there is no forced law, because everyone respects it, so it's not needed. But it's in human nature to strive for personal benefit. Let's say someone murders another person for whatever resource. Now what do you do? You can't actually enforce the law. That goes against anarchy. Your society falls apart because of one bad player.
We force education, because it's what is good for the peopleSo you violate bodies because you think its good for the people. That doesnt make it any less of a violation.
That isn't violation of body rights. There not hurting the students or touching their body at all.
By your logic, it is wrong for a parent to give a child curfewYes, parent doesnt own children.
If a child wants to drive a car, you shouldn't stop them. You don't own your child; it would be wrong to force it out of the car.
Government is just forced respect for basic human rights. We need government. Otherwise, we're defenseless from threats from the outside and inside.
The tough reality is that government has its flaws, but it's a necessity for the prosperity and safety of the people.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con opens with a reasonable declaration. He builds up anarchy, only to expose the fatal flaw of those damned anarchists!
Pro seems to miss this, and pretty much just says if the anarchists are all good, then bad things won't happen. Plus the government sucks (I would have learned heavily on this). .
Remember that for proposal debates a quality opening round must address the Why and How.
If the Why is missing, they are easily countered by the lack of benefit.
If the How is missing, they are easily countered with impracticality and limited resources.
ANyways, con shows how anarchy leads back to government, with the need for innovation and more importantly: food.
Pro gives a reply focused on the government sucking for violating rights, but ends on the issue of food that it's ultimately a choice (this is not building toward anarchy working).
I feel for them in the next round, since I see how never happens also means never works, but it's a good comeback that basically it's hypothetical of could it work even if it couldn't happen (which is conceded to, more like pushed away from the topic under discussion).
Pro getting into the No True Scotsman was interesting, but that was also pushing anarchy further into the realm of fairies.
...
With no sense that pro's anarchy could even hypothetically happen, a lot of meaning starts to be lost. While con could have hit harder, he showed that society with governments works and implied that without do not.
Yeah, I guess that works.
You're right. I understand there are a few variations of Anarchism, and how about you can choose to argue for any of them. We will go by the Oxford language definition.
"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."
Does that work for you?
Probably should have defined anarchy in description. I really dont want to argue over definitions here.