Recently, I debated @ancap_outlaw on the topic of anarchy, if it could happen, and if it’s a good idea. I highly suggest watching the debate in its entirety as it was a fun debate to have. I say this because if I just told you he lost you would think I was just being condescending. Again, I suggest you check out the debate for yourself on YouTube and decide for yourself who actually won. Shortly after the debate, outlaw decided to take to his WordPress. Let’s see what he has to say.
Like most losers who are too arrogant to think maybe they lost, he decides to blame talking time for his garbage debate performance. If you watched the debate, you saw multiple times where he switches the topic or avoids the argument altogether. For example, we pointed out a situation where violence (particularly a shootout) would likely occur in his society, a situation that he conceded would happen but the shooting was justified. So what argument does he use to defend turf warfare? The American revolution because that was equal to two private security firms duking it out over a rape case. First off, this is a terrible example comparing a revolution from the British government to the situation presented to him. I’m left to assume he’s using this to avoid our arguments against anarchy. The second huge flaw is he’s bringing up something that happened nearly 250 years ago. I brought these two points up to him and explained the flawed logic in his argument. I asked him yes or no if he understands what argument he was presented with. He responded by pivoting away from my question. Another example was when I brought up that oil companies paying for a private military would cause the price of oil (or any good/service for that matter) to go up. When I explained this to him, he was silent for a few moments and then decided to go off on wasteful government spending. When I talked about the rape case and how he’d apprehend the alleged rapist, he proceeded to talk about how courts rule cases and not how they enforce these rulings. Ultimately, he admitted that a rapist would not receive any time in a private prison for his crimes. The point is outlaw repeatedly relied on pivots, topic changes, and beating around the bush to make his points. I’m not the type of debater that will let you ramble on for 15 minutes to explain something that was not relevant to the topic. My recommendation here is to simply answer the questions and concerns given and then we can get into the details of your response. You can watch this all for yourself live.
“Essentially, they were using the injustices of their own governments as arguments against my ideal society.”
My entire rape argument took places in HIS hypothetical ancap society. My entire argument for defense took place in HIS hypothetical ancap society. Neither analogy made any such reference to any sort of government. In the debate, he complained that our arguments were hypothetical. Well, what exactly do you expect? There has been hardly any society throughout history that has ever been an ancap society. His entire ideal society is hypothetical. The fact that he expects us to cite nonexistent ancap societies to base our arguments off of highlights his ignorance. In lamest terms, this is not an argument.
“They also stated my pointing this out wasn’t an argument, however, I fail to see how this is so.”
Hopefully, that clears things up for you.
“A society that guarantees these injustices will occur (one with government) cannot logically be superior or equal to one in which the victims have a fighting chance.”
I swear that was his next sentence. Awkward transition but whatever. Have you ever seen that ancap meme that says, “there’s a chance anarchy can lead to chaos, government guarantees it.”? Well, he used that argument in the live debate and decided to parrot this meme again in his essay. First off, neither government nor anarchy guarantees violence. Life guarantees that. I brought this point up in the debate and my opponent was left with two options. 1.) He could disagree and say the government is the source of all violence, implying a society that does not have a government will then not have violence. This is a nirvana fallacy (something outlaw used a few times to defend the illogical thinking of an ancap society popping into existence) where outlaw portrays a perfect world that accommodates his ideology. Using this argument will result in the use of a fallacy. 2.) My opponent could agree with my statement (as he conceded live) and avoid the use of a fallacy. But by doing so he refutes his own argument that anarchy is a chance that aggression does not occur. This will admit that violence happens in BOTH societies, guaranteed. It also concedes government itself is not the product of evil and simply a tool for either good or evil people to use. This meme of a statement that evil is guaranteed with a state while anarchy is a chance to escape this evil needs to die and certainly attempting to use this as a logical argument is flawed for the reasons described above.
“I do not maintain violence, murder, and war are IMPOSSIBLE in an anarchist society, I simply argue they are less likely, and not guaranteed to happen as in a governmental one. An anarchist society COULD be one with no violence, however, this is unlikely. “
This completely contradicts his debate performance. Which is it, outlaw? Is this utopian society completely free from all misery (nirvana fallacy)? Or do you accepts that these bad things are just as equally guaranteed in your ancap society as it is in a statist society?
“The security firm of the suspected rapist would lose its customers once word got out about the firm’s leader.”
This gets into my analogy. He again provided basically the same arguments he gave to us live which didn’t turn out too well for him. So what punishment will a rapist receive for his crimes? Slander. Yep. Rape a girl and instead of being thrown in a cell, she says mean things about you to her neighbors. For any logical person, this is obviously insane. This is basically open season for women. Besides the point that this is a pathetic punishment for rapists, it also assumes that having a bad reputation will result in a loss of business. Really? Two of the last four elected presidents has accusations of rape attached to their name. Donald Trump won the election and Bill Clinton is beloved by most democrats. I’m not saying either is necessarily a rapist, but people clearly didn’t care about some slander thrown their way. Michael Jackson had accusations of child molestation yet how many records did he sell? Why is it people didn’t care then but will magically care now? And these were cases that everyone knew about, forget some random girl. His argument that if someone does bad things people will no longer associate with them is easily refuted with the few examples I provided. If you really want to dig into it, you will find all sort of messed up stuff business people do and they face little to no loss of profit. Even if this wasn’t the case, a rapist deserves a much harsher sentencing than a loss of customers. Rapists should be locked away in a cell far away from anyone else he can harm.
“Essentially, my opponents wished for me to state exactly how an ancap society would function for a given scenario.”
This is just him whiny and conceding that he lack any argument. No situation posed was unrealistic. Private security, lack of a federal reserve, and lack of a military are actually pretty big stuff that you’d think he’d do some research on prior to the debate. He had plenty of time to prepare an argument to counter these concerns. He also could just as easily attacked any position of government yet he failed to do so in the course of the debate.
“They then ironically stated their given scenarios would result in a bloodbath”
Where is your counter arguments against this? At first, he tried to say that the rapists and his victim would sit down together at a table one day and go through which private court they wanted to go to, avoiding any such bloodbath. This is probably the single dumbest argument I’ve ever heard from an ancap. It’s honestly not even worthy of a response and outlaw conceded live that his argument was flawed.
“There is no possible logical way a government could exist without exacting violence upon its subjects.”
Again, my opponent has to decide if he wants to continue with his nirvana fallacy or drop this argument. Violence has existed since the dawn of man. It’s existed prior to government. Any small, irrelevant ancap society an anarchist may point to will have violence within it. I ensure you that dismantling the government wouldn’t lead to Heaven on Earth.
“If shootouts are bad in an anarchist society, they can only logically also be bad in a statist one, regardless if they are called shootouts or “war”.”
First, I’d like to point out that the only argument he’s presented is that the rapist wlosecustomers. The notion that he’s trying to compare a shootout (that he’s yet to refute would happen) with a war is a false comparison. It implies wars will cease to exist with the lack of a state. When I brought this up live, he conceded that wars would still be fought. Is war only bad when governments fight them? This is also a complete and utter Strawman argument. In fact, I specifically pointed out to him that you can be against certain wars and still believe in a government. No one defended the Iraq war or Vietnam war in the debate. Outlaw, if you’d like to debate foreign policy and which historic wars we support I’m down, but to argue that there’s any real comparison between war and an avoidable shootout is absurd.