The debate is not about if Anarcho-Capitalism might eventually fail, but if it would never work at all.
If a system collapses rapidly or leads to horrible results, did it "work" ? Enough with the word games, you are just trying to win without putting forth any effort.
There is currently nothing to imply it was anything other than a copy/paste job from someone else.
The original author DeathWolf666, has not posted any statement of a name change.
As they were dealing with problems of eventualities, my second point concisely responded to the entire
Gish Gallop.
Actually you are a lazy, intellectually dishonest cretin looking for ways to reframe my arguments rather than dispute them.
If any lasted a greater amount of time than "never," the resolution is negated.
The resolution is that it will never work, not that if it's attempted it will collapse immediately or fail to even get started. Debating you is pointless because you are a cheap pseudo-intellectual weasel trying to avoid having to actually win by debating.
My point stands uncontested. Pro did provide a link, but the link was off topic (attempting to prove they did not live up to modern libertarian ideals, is different from implying they were not anarcho-capitalists).
Celtic Ireland was tribal, and had "kings" according to the article I posted. Also, Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of extreme right wing libertarianism, rather than just "small government" they would eradicate the government entirely. That being said, the article was absolute over kill, because not only are they not Anarcho-Capitalists, they weren't even Libertarian Capitalists.
"It didn't last very long" does not prove "never" as would be required by this debate resolution. Further, it did not
fall for any of pro's listed reasons.
It still had make-shift government functions, but I will grant it didn't fall for the reasons I specified, but only because it never got the chance to. In smaller communities it can last a lot longer especially since they had outside support and they still technically were subject to Colonial Rhode Island law so it wasn't lawless.
Albemartle (23 years): I'll grant that it was not a pure sample. While similar, it was libertarian instead of properly anarcho-capitalist.
"My point stands uncontested. Pro did provide a link, but the link was off topic (attempting to prove they did not live up to modern libertarian ideals, is different from implying they were not anarcho-capitalists)."
You are a hypocritical and intellectually dishonest debater.
"It didn't last very long" does not prove "never" as would be required by this debate resolution.
the resolution is that astronauts will never make it to the moon, therefore if any rocket so much as exits the earths atmosphere the resolution is negated, even if it falls back to earth crashing and burning afterwards.
Irrelevant to anything other than measuring if environmental protections work. China is the world's
worst polluter, but it works; not liking the way something works, is a far cry from showing that it does not work at all.
Any system that destroys the environment does not work, for the same reason that removing weeds by detonating a nuclear bomb in your garden does not work. Sure, the weeds are gone...but so is the garden.
Also for 99% of it's citizens, China's system does not work as they are living in abject poverty and slavery.
If they don't work they won't last (and are unlikely to form at all), so this point was in my favor without any need for refutation.
Actually, no. A monopoly may "work" for a monopolist but it doesn't work for society, which should be obvious. Also since the goal of Anarcho-Capitalism is a free market and to be free from institutional control over your life, and monopolies both inhibit free market activity and have power over people's access to the means of production, it definitely does not work for Anarcho-Capitalism. The more monopoly there is the less Anarcho-Capitalist it is, because the free market is destroyed and the rich become the government.
Irrelevant as being nice is not required for a system to work.
It's not about being "nice", it's about not murdering someone and stealing all their shit rather than engaging in free market activity because there is nothing to uphold law and order in an anarchic society.
People on average are not thieves and murderers; it does not take the presence of a state sponsored police officer to stop people from raiding and pillaging the local farmers market en mass. You see something you like at a friend's house, they could probably not prove in court that you stole it, but it remains in their possession rather than yours. Thus the existence of private property does not rely on the government.
If there was no law, then you would be able to get away with a lot more, thus many people would. In fact, so many people would, that it would cause others to resort to the same thing just to survive, and it would begin a vicious cycle of serial killing, serial looting shinanigans.
These exist in any system, and do not prevent them from working. As anyone who's been to a dance-club or rock concert probably notes, it's usually private rather than state issued protection. Were the state to do a perfect job on this, private security companies would not exist.
ONLY private ones would exist, and they would not be beholden to law but to whoever pays them. Private security agencies are still subject to law when there is a government.
This would cause the system to not work, because it would destroy the free market and turn anarchy into tyranny.
"Eventually... The One Percent": While I could explain the flaws in the assumptions, pro has pre-refuted this point by insisting"who owns what would be decided very often."
The latter in no way refutes the former. You should probably not be smoking crack before you post in a debate.
"It Would End Up...": Pro chose to insist that this (along with point #6) in no way indicate something did not work (R2, P2). That eventual failure is "not even part of my argument" converts this into a virtually a concession that something lasting long enough"end up..." means it worked.
The way you debate makes me seriously wonder if you have a learning disability.
We both agree where the debate ultimately came down to and are both perplexed at why neither debater defined 'work' but where you and I differ is in how close this debate was. This is actually type1's closest debate other than his flat earth debate, in my opinion. Ragnar severely underperformed.