Rob says...
Everyone agrees that a person may own his personal possessions as his rightful property: his TV, his car, his CD collection. These are all things that a man may call his own and do with as he pleases. But for someone to own society’s productive resources and means of production is to put him into a position of power over the livelihoods of many others. It is a hierarchical relationship that restricts the freedom of those who are forced to seek employment for their sustenance on the owner’s terms
Just to clarify this wide flung piece of... "generality", what you seem to say is that should a person discover "iron" under his house, he is obligated to form a committee to decide how to use the iron mine. I assume that this was a particularly ugly house that nobody had previously wanted. Indeed, the neighbors thought he was nuts to live on such an ugly little fifth acre. The man tears down his house, builds a smelter and turns HIS iron into valuable 'somethings'. Is this legal?
And what happens when the nearest neighbor tunnels into "his" iron mine by shear effort in order to obtain Iron?
I am being facetious, because Anarchism is just another dressed up radicalized and virulent form of communism. It all comes down to property and economy. It is amazing that the people being used by the 'anarchists' don't see what fools they are.
Anarchy has no intellectual depth. It lands exactly in the same universal "commune" as communism when taken to it's logical and inevitable conclusion.
"Your Honor, I shall call no witnesses. This will be my testimony and my summation."
– Howard Roark, from The Fountainhead
As we approach the end, I would like to thank the judges for their patient and attentive audience throughout this debate and other members of the Debates forum who have refrained from interfering in this thread. I’m sure there will be much discussion to follow and I look forward to engaging any other spectators, free from the confines of the rules of this debate.
The following essay is a collage of direct quotations and paraphrases from several of Rand’s essays, including The Objectivist Ethics, Collectivized Ethics, Man’s Rights, and The Nature of Government, accompanied by some of my own analysis. I am not attempting to present Rand’s words or ideas as my own; they are hers and I have made every effort to present them genuinely and accurately. Rather, I am attempting to present them in a way which concisely addresses the issue at hand, namely, why people ought to find an Objectivist economy preferable to an Anarchist economy. My contribution to this essay consists mainly in its organization and not its ideas, although the building metaphor and the entirety of the Summary section are my original work, inspired by the fictional architect Howard Roark and his admiration of integrity in buildings and in men.
Dr. S
Round 3, My Testimony and my Summation
Let us start from the ground up and build a structure with enough integrity to make Howard Roark proud.
The Foundation – Ethics in General
What is ethics? It is man’s means of discovering and defining a code of values to guide his choices and actions.
What are values? A value is that which one acts to gain or keep. The concept presupposes an entity capable of acting in the face of an alternative. There is only one fundamental alternative -- existence or non-existence -- which all living beings face. It is the concept of existence that makes the concept of value possible.
What is the standard for choosing proper values? That which is required for an entity’s survival is determined by the entity’s nature, by the kind of entity that it is. A being’s life is its standard of value – that which furthers its life is good, and that which hinders it is evil. There can be no other ultimate standard.
Why does man need a code of values? Unlike plants and animals, man has no automatic or instinctual code of survival, no automatic course of action or set of values. He must willfully engage in the effort of employing his consciousness to answer questions about what goals to pursue. A being who does not automatically know what is true or false cannot automatically know what is right or wrong, what is to be valued. He does not have a choice in the standard of survival dictated by his nature; he does have a choice in discovering it and choosing his values accordingly. Thus, man needs to and ought to formulate a code of values. Living as a man requires this.
The Ground Floor – Objectivism: A particular code of ethics and virtues
Which sorts of values ought man pursue? Generally, those that his survival requires. One criterion is that they must be consistent with man’s nature – which is that of a rational being. Anything that negates rationality cannot be a value. For example, having one’s cake and eating it cannot be a value in man’s code of ethics – no man ought to act to attain that.
Can survival by brute force be a value? No, for it violates the rationality principle. Survival by force entails just as much of a contradiction as having and eating one’s cake. Those who loot and rob as their means of survival ultimately rely on the cooperation of their victims to produce that which they loot. It is only by the victim’s sanction that the looters continue to survive – but how long will a victim sanction his own victimization? This has always led to the fall of collectivist economies and always will. Eventually, the victimized producers pull the plug and the looters have nothing left to loot. They will have destroyed their only means of survival. They will have tried to have their cake and eat it. They have determined empirically time and again what Rand has stated theoretically: survival by force is irrational, and thus it cannot be in man’s proper code of values, and thus man and such a system of looting cannot ultimately coexist. One or the other is bound to perish.
What are virtues? Virtues are the means exercised for attaining values.
Which particular values are prescribed by Objectivism? Life is the primary value of any value system for man. Objectivism prescribes three secondary values: reason, purpose, and self esteem. It follows that Objectivism calls for man to exercise these fundamental virtues: rationality, productiveness and pride. Objectivism holds that without these virtues, man cannot achieve the secondary values, and in turn cannot ultimately survive qua man.
The Higher Floors – Sociological Applications of Objectivism
What principles of human interactions does Objectivism prescribe? Objectivism asserts that voluntary trade is the primary and only rational principle consistent with its ethics that dictates how individuals ought to interact. Trade here refers not only to material transactions but also to personal, emotional and spiritual interaction between individuals. Thus, love, friendship, respect, and good will may be “commodities” that are effectively and volitionally traded among willing individuals.
What sorts of interactions between individuals would Objectivism prohibit? Objectivism’s primary political principle is that no man – or group, or society, or government - may initiate the use of force against another. Force may only be used in retaliation. No man may obtain values from others by initiating force; retaliatory force is permissible because it does not seek to obtain unearned values.
What sort of government does Objectivism call for? The only proper, ethical purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means to protect him from physical violence – to protect his right to his own life, liberty and property.
The Penthouse Floor – Rights
What are rights? While the concept of ethics pertains to guidelines for individuals’ value-seeking actions, the concept of rights pertains to guidelines for individuals’ interactions. Rights are the principles applied to protect an individual’s ethics within a society. Rights are the means of subordinating society to objective ethics. A right is an ethical principle defining and sanctioning an individual’s freedom of action in a social context.
Which rights does Objectivism prescribe? Objectivism holds one fundamental right: a man’s right to freedom of action – free from physical compulsion or interference – in his pursuit of his life.
Would an Objectivist government be concerned with property rights? Objectivism claims that without property rights, no other rights are possible. The right to life is the source of all rights, and the right to property is its only implementation. Since man can only sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his own life. Any man who produces for others to dispose of his product is a slave.
If people have a right to property, am I entitled to own a car? No. Rights pertain to actions, not objects. You have the right to pursue a course of action to attain a car, such as seeking a voluntary employer to gain wages and a person voluntarily selling a car, or alternatively, acting to create a car yourself; but you are not entitled to the car itself. That is, not having a car does not mean that your rights have been violated. If you had such entitlement, it would necessarily entail that somebody would be physically compelled to produce it, which violates Objectivism’s fundamental right. The notion of property rights is not a guarantee than man will earn any property; it is a guarantee only that if he does, it is his right to use as he sees fit. A right does not include the material implementation by other men of the value being pursued; it includes only the freedom to earn it by one’s own efforts.
Can individuals’ rights ever be in conflict? No. Any alleged “right” of one man which necessitates the violation of the rights of another is not and cannot be a right. No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation or an involuntary servitude on another. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.” Thus, Objectivism does not entail any classes or castes; all men have the same rights, none of which have priority over any other.
Round 3, My Testimony and my Summation, continued.
The Roof – Objectivism on Economy
What sort of economy is consistent with Objectivist ethics and rights? Objectivism holds that property rights and the right of free trade are man’s only economic rights. An Objectivist economy would guarantee no other rights, for to have any further guarantees would necessarily violate the fundamental Objectivist right. Can’t an individual be guaranteed a well-paying job? No, not without entitling the unwanted employee to rob the unwilling employer of wages that he does not wish to pay. Can’t an individual be guaranteed a home to live in? No, not without physically compelling somebody to build it for him without sufficient pay to satisfy his right to free trade.
Can’t any economy improve upon that of Objectivism? Subjectively speaking, possibly yes, but only by necessarily violating a principle of Objectivist ethics or rights. You can’t make owning a home a right while simultaneously making freedom from slavery a right – having a claim to a home entails having a claim on somebody to build it for you. Unfortunately, life is not such that we can have the best of both worlds. Ideally, people could have everything they wanted without having to work to produce it – but then we wouldn’t have any economy to discuss at all. Realistically, you can entitle to people to goods or to the freedom from slavery, but not both. Objectivism holds that being free from slavery is a right, and owning a home is not; only the pursuit of owning a home is a right. Any set of economic principles, such as Social Anarchism, that holds that people are entitled to actual objects – such as productive resources, as my opponent would have -- and not merely the pursuit of those objects, necessarily denies that people have the right not to be enslaved.
Summary
To review, you must decide whether you agree with these principles:
1. Man has a right to be free to act toward sustaining his life. To deny him this right is to deny him his life and his nature.
2. Man has a right to be free from physical compulsion at the hands of other men. Man does not have a right to gain values from the use of force against other men.
Logic dictates that if you agree with the fundamental values and rights presented as the foundation of this building, taking the elevator to the top will put you out in a laissez-faire capitalistic economy. My essay has been an attempt to demonstrate this.
As you cannot enter the Sears Tower and take the elevator to the top of the Empire State Building, so you cannot accept the principles of Objectivism and find Social Anarchism to be an acceptable economy.
To accept Social Anarchism, or any set of economic principles not identical to those of Objectivism, is to deny one or both of the above fundamental principles.
Judge #1
After checking up on what is involved in debate judging, I tried to create some judging criteria and a score sheet to score this debate. The criteria I decided on were: 1) Evidence -- i.e., what the participants could come up with to support their positions; 2) Logic -- how well their conclusions followed from the evidence; 3) Clarity -- how clear the presentations were; and 4) Effective use of resources -- i.e., how well the participants were able to utilize the format for their presentations, e.g., the fact that the presentations were to be written rather than oral, the space limitations, the additional point "rebuttal" posts, etc.
Frankly, I found that I was somewhat able to use this scoring system, but it proved to be less informative than I had hoped. The scores I ended up assigning to the various parts of the debate did not disagree with my impressionistic judgements, but I have some unease in my confidence that the scores I assigned are the cause or the result of my overall impressions.
To jump ahead to the conclusion, I find I have to award victory to rwingett.
Rob's opening statement was light on citation of evidence, but was overall a very clear statement of where he planned to take the debate. In contrast, Dr.S really did not make an opening statement at all, but simply reacted to Rob's, and at that, only to the comments about Ayn Rand, with virtually no mention of Emma Goldman at all.
Rwingett's rebuttal noted explicitly that in a comparison debate both sides were obligated to contrast the two positions, which he had done and continued to do. Dr.S not only failed to address this point in his own rebuttal, which various of the judging how-tos pointed out as a significant loss of points, but again neglected to present any kind of holistic argument, instead presenting only the kinds of rebuttals that should rightly have been reserved for the mini-rebuttals that Dr.S had negotiated for in the first place. The fact that he spent more than 5 sentences on each struck me as an insufficient excuse for this failure. Dr.S could and should have edited down these responses and certainly should have presented an overall rebuttal that addressed rwingett's thesis, and in particular, some points where Rand's Objectivism would contrast favorably with Goldman's Anarchism.
Rwingett's summation answers Dr.S's points from Round 2, but also continues to contrast Anarchism with Objectivism in terms of their goals and their consequences. In his summation, Dr.S continues to neglect Goldman entirely and instead constructs something that, reasonably, should have been an opening statement. Anarchism is mentioned only in the context of "any set of economic principles" that differs from Objectivism.
Overall, I would have hoped that both debaters would have brought in more real-world evidence than either one did, but I do have to admit that the limitations of the format were very restrictive. Nevertheless, I found that rwingett was able to at least allude to various historical phenomena. In contrast, the only external "evidence" that Dr.S presented consisted of quotations from Rand's books and one Wikipedia discussion of the Prisoner's Dilemma (a point that rwingett should have answered, but did not).
I cannot truly say that I found either presentation completely satisfactory, but like a chess game or sporting event, the result is not a matter of either side producing a stellar or mistake-free performance. It is rather a matter of which side performed better than the other. In this debate, I judge that both participants were reasonably clear and reasonably logical. Rwingett brought up a better selection of external evidence. Both participants scored at least one unanswered point, but rwingett's point about the need for comparison and contrast struck me as significantly more central than Dr.S's point that rwingett got the wrong strategy for the Prisoner's Dilemma, which would also have been answered easily from his own reference if rwingett had said that he was really referring to the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, where a cooperative strategy is appropriate. Of course, rwingett did not do that and loses points for the failure, but I cannot consider this point to be nearly as telling as Rob's point. Most critically, I have to judge that rwingett was much more effective in his use of the format with a real opening statement, rebuttal and summation where Dr.S completely failed to produce an "opening statement" until the end, when it was least effective.
I rule for rwingett by a landslide.
--
Judge #2
Rwingett opened with a nice comparison of the two philosophies. His comparative historical framework might have succeeded in disarming an unprepared opponent.
Dr Scribbles' reply scored two critical points that determined the course of the debate: Rwingett's caricature of Objectivism didtorts the philosophy, and Rwingett offers rhetoric over substance. Dr.S. then undercut his own contention slightly with meaningless metaphors--references to nose walking and having the cake that has been eaten. After this initial exchange, Dr.S. had the lead.
In the next round, each debater exacted concessions from his opponent. We learned that Rwingett has not read the fundamental literary texts of Objectivism. Dr.S. might have gained more from this concession if he had pushed harder to ascertain the degree of Rwingett's ignorance of Ayn Rand's philosophical tomes, but it remained a nearly decisive concession: Rwingett's understanding of Objectivism stems from secondary sources (perhaps sources produced by opponents of Objectivism, although Dr.S. failed to pursue this opening). Dr.S. now had the upper hand.
If the debate concerned only the merits of Objectivism, Dr.S. would have been a clear winner. However, the debate concerned two competing philosophies, and this difference determined the outcome. The debate concerned (Ayn Rand's) Objectivism vs. (Emma Goldman's) Anarchism.
As damaging as were the concessions made by Rwingett, Dr.S. made concessions even more damaging (although he did not explicitly acknowledge them). While Rwingett's knowledge from secondary sources proves inadequate, we are left wondering whether Dr.S. has even secondary knowledge of Anarchism. He failed even to offer a caricature of Anarchism of the sort Rwingett gave us concerning Objectivism.
Rwingett put forth a compelling example of Anarchism in practice in 1930s Spain, and Dr.S. failed to address this example, choosing instead to attack the weaker example of the Federation of Egalitarian Communities. Dr.S. thus squandered his early lead, and even fell behind.
In the final summations, Rwingett honed in on the utter failure of Dr.S. to engage Emma Goldman's advocacy of Anarchism, as well as his failure to address the Catalonian experiment (Republican Spain). For his part, Dr.S. buttressed his positive assertions in favor of Objectivism with a montage of quotations and paraphrases, but he failed to address the comparative aspects, and ignored the very terms of engagement that he had set in his opening shots.
Rwingett is the clear winner.
--
Judge #3
I chose Dr. Scribbles in part because he clearly outlines the core tenets of his position. In addition he does not try to use emotionally laden language - "appeal to emotion" is a logical fallacy, no? His definition of "Rights" is superior both intuitively to me and practically in that it defines actions, not access to material wealth. It was a more logically constructed position which I find superior to Rob's emotionally laden argument. Rob did make a small mistake with the "Prisoners Dilemma" mistake, but it wasn't that big. Rob's references to real world anarchistic communities helps deal with the "which is actually practical" question. I agreed with DS's observation that the line between productive resources and personal possessions is basically impossible to define.
--
Judge #4
It is my opinion that, in ignorance, the scope of the debate was somewhat too broad. Rather than pitting a pro versus con stance on a single topic, two competing economic philosophies were pitted against each other, which resulted in a rather unwieldy dimension for argument. For their attempts at such discussion, both debaters should be applauded for their efforts, for it was a monumental task. In terms of my judging style, I looked for accurate presentation of the philosophy espoused by the debater and the degree to which the posited it as superior to the other. Summarizing my perception of the blow-by-blow postings, I say:
Rwingett’s opening post is an elegant prose which, while failing to define Anarchism in a concrete sense, touches upon two main issues which (from my studies) encapsulate its foundation: the concepts property and corporate responsibility. Of the postings, I feel that this one read the most elegantly. I thought it was a fine introduction to the debate and made me look forward to greater extrapolation on the points just touched upon in brief.
DoctorScribbles’ response is in his usual style, critical and analytical (and, by his comments in the second paragraph, unapologetically so!). And, while I feel that he dedicated far too much time on the proper spelling of Roark’s name, he brings to bear the credibility of his opponent’s understanding of Objectivism. I feel the Claim #2 had the potential to be particularly damaging, but what ended up happening was merely counter-assertions which we had to rely on as true (given that Dr. S was the Objectivism expert). By my judging, Claim #3 was the essential meat of this posting, in contrasting Rwingett’s presentation with definitions and explanations, I feel the reader was introduced to some (but not all) of Objectivism’s economic framework. Most damaging, however, was the proper analysis of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
I felt Round 1 went strongly for DoctorScribbles.
Although, I did not think that the approach of dissecting Rwingett’s first post was really the province of an opening statement, retrospectively, I felt that the strategy worked. Rwingett’s second post seemed both apologetic and off-track. Whereas he presented lots of nuggets in his first post which I thought would be fleshed out -- a discussion of property and corporate responsibility -- he turned to attacking Objectivism theoretical application. I feel that this presentation has a good deal of merit; after all, Objectivism purely applied is really only in books and amongst various Objectivist philosophers trying to make their way amongst looters and thieves. His presentation of viable examples of Anarchism gives credence to anarchical plausibility, but it did little to further his argument as to the economic benefits of such a system. Indeed, we know that, too, there are more malicious dictatorships than Objectivism communities, but that doesn’t make them more beneficial.
Rwingett makes the observation, however, that ‘He is not arguing the merits of Objectivism vs. Anarchism at all….’ Although I don’t quite agree with the assessment, he is noting that problems with the formatting of the debate that I mentioned at the beginning of my analysis.
After what I felt was a much weaker effort, I was expecting Dr. S to pounce, but I thought the follow-up response was similarly lacking. That an anarchical society could exist within a capitalist one doesn’t necessarily entail that the latter is superior. Also, I did not feel that his reference to Galt’s Gulch was a strong one, because it only existed in an ‘in nomine’ capitalist society, but was, in fact, one that violated fundamental rules of capitalism (in its movement towards socialism). Point 3 I felt was simply a counter-assertion (and I think he knew this by his ‘I know you are but what am I’ comment). I felt that only Point 4 was really substantive, because it brought to question an essential philosophical framework: when does the use of personal property cease to be a personal endeavor. That is, he points out the very confusing distinction between personal possessions and productive resources.
I voted that Round 2 went weakly to DoctorScribbles.
*I note that neither debater made full use of their Round 2 options.
Garnering up momentum from a lackluster second-round performance, Rwingett swings on the offensive, rightly noting that Dr. S has not engaged Anarchism directly. Again, I feel that the problem with this debate -- that its scope was simply too vast and demanded too much background knowledge -- contributed to this problem. Rwingett rightly observes that the FEC’s existence within a capitalistic framework does not comment upon its economic suitability. But, since the promises of the first post, its essential elements remained unexpounded. That the differences between possessions and resources are self-evident was, I feel, a missed opportunity to undermine Dr. S’s objections to Anarchism. Instead he mocked the analogy, rather than tackle its essential question.
However, there are several powerful paragraphs which raised some important criticisms of Objectivism, namely that if ‘choice’ is constricted too narrowly, it ceases to be a meaningful term. That, if in the context of an Objectivistic framework, acceptable possession leads to preventing people from choices, the ‘force’ which Rand expresses is forbidden takes a less visible and more insidious nature, where it is force by coercion. It is this very precarious balance between freedom and restrictions that Objectivism has difficulty negotiating in application and I feel the objection was rightly raised.
In response, I was expecting Dr. S to present a scathing dissection of how Objectivism ought to be rightly applied such that it does not end up some perverse from of socialism, or to jump on Rwingett’s weak response to the concept of property within Anarchism. Instead, his summation was actually an opening argument! And, while it gives us a tour of Objectivism’s greatest hits (and a creative, elegant and informative one, at that), it seemed rather out of place in the context of this debate. The debate was to be judged by the debater’s ability to present his material in contrast with the opponent’s material, and I feel that this essay was almost tangential to the discussion. I feel that a summary of half this posting’s length and how this framework is superior to Anarchism. Or, if this posting had been first and his later postings would have built on it (rather than how it unfolded), I would have been much more amenable to the summary of Objectivism. Also, Dr. S failed to address the main (and significant concern) of coercive force that one can utilize to constrict meaningful choices upon another.
I vote this round as a strong win for Rwingett.
In summary, because I feel both debaters succeeded in many venues, and both presented their material cogently and competently (and with an impressive command of language), I really wanted to vote this a draw. But, on the elements of debate, I feel that DoctorScribbles had the slight edge in making the better case for his philosophy.
I am very glad that both debaters participated in this effort; I learned a lot about both philosophies, and appreciate their hard work. I really feel both have much to be proud about in their presentations and thank them heartily for their work.
--
Judge #5
Before briefly explaining the basis for my verdict and announcing my decision, I will offer several observations for both the participants and the community at large. First and foremost, I recognize the great efforts which were expended by both participants. My decision should not be interpreted as a discounting of the time spent researching and writing by losing party. Second, upon reading the entirety of the debate, I cannot help but express some regret that the topic was so vague in conception and broad in scope. This is especially true given the strict length restrictions in the format. Perhaps this is why the debate topic that seemed to arise naturally was really something like “Objectivism: Good or Bad?”
I will now detail my thoughts of each post, and then I will announce my verdict.
Round 1 (rwingett)
The participant highlights that in terms of freedom of choice, Objectivism differs from Anarchism, principally in that the former permits the ownership of property that can be used to produce goods. The participant insists that this inevitably leads not only to an inequality of wealth but more importantly to an inequality of choice. Those who are unable to acquire productive property are forced to trade their labor to survive, while those who by some means possess the property may choose to work or not to work. The participant claims that such an inequality of choice restricts of freedom of those without property and leads to exploitation the workers. Because Objectivism fails to prohibit ownership of property, it is complicit in the restriction of freedom and therefore it should not be favored over Anarchism with does prohibit ownership of productive property.
Strong points:
Clearly lays out his criticism of Objectivism.
Gives some indication that Anarchism would be supported through cooperation and that it is rationally sustainable by rational agents..
Weak points:
Fails to tell the audience much of what Anarchism is or how it operates. More importantly, it fails to tell us how Anarchism restricts property ownership (itself a limitation of freedom) or to what outcome such a restriction leads. On these counts rwingett’s first post is woefully vague.
Round 1 (DoctorScribbles)
The participant draws attention to the vagueness of his opponent’s first post and attempts to dispel what he contends are some inaccurate characterizations of Objectivism put forth in it.
Strong points:
In supporting claim 1, the participant blasts his opponents misunderstanding of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. This was a devastating criticism not only because it is shows that Rwingett was grossly mistaken, but also because cooperation by rational agents was one of Rwingett’s principal defenses for Anarchism in the first post.
In supporting claim 3, the participant does an adequate job of demonstrating that Objectivism does not necessarily support enslavement of one group in society and also that Objectivism supports, at least in principle, a cooperative society.
Weak points:
In claim 1, the participant made too much of his opponent’s misspelling of Roark. At most, it revealed that Rwingett had not read ‘The Fountainhead’; however, reading that text was not a prerequisite for the debate, nor did the text play a fundamental role in Rwingett’s first post.
In claim 2, the participant should have made much more of defending Rand from accusations of supporting a class system. He makes mention of an essay, but does not quote from it. A good quote would have gone far to parry the only real criticism raised by Rwingett.
Without a doubt, the greatest weakness of this post is that it fails to launch any counter assault upon the Anarchist position. Given that Rwingett failed in his first post to layout any meaningful account of what the Anarchist position is perhaps this weakness is mitigated.
Round 2(rwingett)
Makes a point that DoctorScribbles did not discuss Anarchism. He then attempts to repair is misstep in Round 1 by offering to describe what Anarchism is. He spends considerable space giving us a lesson on Spanish history in the 1920’s-1930’s. I suppose this was an effort to demonstrate that Anarchism can work in practice. The participant then presses forward with his criticism of Objectivism’s permission of property rights and the inherent limitations on freedom that that necessitates.
Strong points:
Highlighted DoctorScribbles failure to attack Anarchism. Used this well to recover from the first round.
Continued to attack with the property rights issue, reminding us that his opponent had not sufficiently countered this criticism.
Weak points:
Despite the lovely history lesson, I am still unsure what Anarchism actually is! I’ve been assured that it provides the greatest freedom but have no clue how. Rwingett should have skipped the section on Spain (DoctorScribbles never asserted that Anarchism could not work in practice.), and instead should have spent time actually describing Anarchism.
Round 2(DoctorScribbles)
The participant points out that the FEC is actually a group within a capitalistic system. Capitalism thus permits all the freedoms of Anarchism while offering extra non-Anarchistic choices. Dismisses the property rights issue by claiming that Objectivism does not explicitly limit choices except in the case of using force. Again highlights the vagueness and lack of substance in his opponent’s description of Anarchism. Makes a point that Rwingett’s first post fails to distinguish productive property from personal property by overlooking the dual-use of many items.
Strong points: Pointing out that the FEC is an agency within a capitalistic system was strong to the extent that Rwingett had criticized Objectivism for allowing a capitalist system.
Pointing out the Rwingett’s ill-formed sense of property was essential in weakening the property rights argument. He wisely further presses by pointing out that Anarchism explicitly restricts people from using their ‘personal’ property for productive means. This especially highlights Rwingett’s failure to make clear what Anarchism actually is.
Weak points: Blurs Capitalism and Objectivism, which contradicts DoctorScribbles claims that Objectivism does not necessitate Capitalism.
Failed to appreciate Rwingett’s point that while Objectivism may not explicitly limit the choices of the “property-less” class, it nevertheless permits institutions that do (or so Rwingett claims) limit their freedoms.
Round 3(rwingett)
Rwingett reminds the audience once again that DoctorScribbles has made no attempt to show why Objectivism is superior to Anarchism. At long last, Rwingett begins to lay out what Anarchism is and is not. He makes some attempt to differentiate between productive possessions and personal possessions, and he closes by repeating his objection to capitalism and, according to him, by necessity also Objectivism.
Strong points:
It was essential for Rwingett to give us something concrete about Anarchism. This was his strongest post, and it is unfortunate that it was not his opening post.
Weak points:
Rwingett makes an appeal to the audience concerning the difference between personal possessions and productive resources claiming, “I think this distinction is clear to everyone but [DoctorScribbles].” It is not.
Round 3(DoctorScribbles)
DoctorScribbles gives us a long and informative overview of Objectivism. He manages to turn the tables a bit on Rwingett’s accusation that Objectivism leads to the exploitation of the “property-less,” by pointing out that Anarchism exploits the industrious.
Strong points:
Excellent description of Objectivism. Again, why wasn’t this his first? If the participants had opened with the third round posts, we might actually have understood what they were talking about!
DoctorScribbles manages to take some more bite out of Rwingett’s exploitation argument.
Weak points:
Why did DoctorScribbles never openly attack Anarchism? If he had, this judgment would have been much easier.
How can you have the closing post and not take some serious pot-shots at your opponent’s position.
Final Overview
DoctorScribbles successfully refuted his opponent’s assault on Objectivism. In the process, the audience was given a good description of what Objectivism is. On the other hand, he almost wholly failed to discredit Anarchism.
Despite previous attempts, Rwingett never provided much solid information about what Anarchism actually is until his closing post. Even that was just a start. Rwingett also struggled to show that Anarchism is viable in practice. This was particularly harmful given DoctorScribbles never brought up such a criticism. Had Rwingett spent less space attacking Objectivism and Capitalism and more promoting the essential philosophy Anarchism I would have found in his favor.
Judgement: A very close decision in favor of DoctorScribbles.
---
To summarize
Judge #1 -- Rwingett (significantly)
Judge #2 -- Rwingett (significantly)
Judge #3 -- DoctorScribbles (significantly)
Judge #4 -- DoctorScribbles (closely)
Judge #5 -- DoctorScribbles (closely)
I heartily thank all judges and especially the two debaters. I feel that congratulations
are in order for both participants for a job well-done, in their hard work and conscientious
efforts. It seems lame and perhaps to say that there are no losers here, but I really believe
that: I hope that this debate is a model for more to come, because I, for one, really enjoyed
and learned from it.
On the judges' behalf, and on my own, I thank you and am,
Appreciatively yours,
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWe'll never hear the end of this. Who's ready for the meta-debate?
I heartily thank all judges and especially the two debaters. I feel that congratulations
are in order for both participants for a job well-done, in their hard work and conscientious
efforts. It seems lame and perhaps to say that there are no losers here, but I really believe
that: I hope that this debate is a model for more to come, because I, for one ...[text shortened]...
On the judges' behalf, and on my own, I thank you and am,
Appreciatively yours,
Nemesio
Wow. These critiques are very informative. Thank you from me to all of the judges, and to the foreman in particular, for the time you have dedicated to reading and judging the debate. It is greatly appreciated. Your comments have made the debate worthwhile. I will be happy to return the favor and serve as judge on any organized debates in the future.
Congratulations to RWillis on a closely judged debate. If you are intereseted, I would be glad to negotiate a second round of this debate in which we could incorporate the above critiques into new and better presentations.
I'm happy to leave the commentary anonymous. If any of the judges or any other spectators would like me to rebut any of the critiques or elaborate upon any misunderstandings of my presentation, I will be glad to respond to particular points upon request. Otherwise, I shall not respond to the critiques other than expressing my gratitude for them. Your request will not be construed as information that you were the author, and my rebuttal should not be construed as a lack of appreciation for your critiques.
Dr. S
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt's on, but I want to defend the claim that the odd judges were right, and bbarr can defend the decisions of the even judges 😛.
I think you and royalchicken should compete in the meta-debate. Do you want "Judges 1 and 2 were right" or "Judges 3, 4 and 5 were right"? We'll need a new panel of judges.
The debate might have been much more interesting if both participants had observed that the United States since the election of 1980 has been moving slowly and deliberately towards Objectivism, and that when this concerted effort finally reaches its lofty goal, we will be living in a state of anarchism.