Argument: Anarchy has nothing to contribute but violence.

Anarchist groups may claim to contribute to political discussion and propose a viable alternative to states, but too regularly they contribute very little more than violence, they regularly hijack legitimate peaceful protests and by acting in a violent way detract from those protests. [1] In order to be able to contribute to society they need to be able to show that they have something to contribute. People will not listen if the movement is associated with violence so anarchism will never have an opportunity to contribute while it practices violence.

[1] http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23896753-what-went-wrong-at-the-millbank-riot.do

Candidate 1: "States are never truly representative of the people.

Even if we ignore all of the totalitarian regimes in the world, democracies do not truly represent the people. Politicians all too often promise progressive changes and then fail to deliver, for example Obama’s failure to close Guantanamo Bay [1] and Nick Clegg breaking his promises over tuition fees [2]

The interests of politicians in democracies are far too often tied to the interests of the rich and powerful; people like Rupert Murdoch have unprecedented access to politicians which is quite simply not available to the average person [3]

Demographically heads of state are very rarely representative, The USA has never had a female or Hispanic president, the UK has never had a non white Prime Minister and 66% of UK ministers have been privately educated [4] . These people can never truly have the people’s interests at heart.

[1] http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6842054/obamas-guantanamo-failure.thtml

[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8078454/Spending-review-David-Cameron-and-Nick-Clegg-apologise-for-broken-promises.html

[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politic"
Candidate 2: "Community action is a more powerful tool than the state for providing goods.

Forcing people into community action, as the state tries to do, detracts from real community action. People naturally try to help one another out and do what they can for their communities but when the state tries to undertake this action itself it always wastes a huge amount or resources and sends the message that the job is done. In a stateless society people would know that they have a responsibility to care for their fellow man and take all the steps they possibly can to do so. This action will be more direct, enthusiastic and relevant than any taken by the government because those organising it will inevitably be in closer contact and have more of a stake with the problems they are trying to solve."
Candidate 3: "Violence is not intrinsic to Anarchy Whilst there are many violent anarchists there is nothing about anarchy that means that violence need be a part of it. Many anarchists identify themselves as Anarchist-Pacifists and are against any and all violence."
Candidate 4: "The state is a meaningless metaphysical entity that is unnecessary and indeed detrimental for our lives.

There is nothing that states provide for us that we cannot provide for ourselves by working together as communities. All the state seeks to do is oppress the people, forcing us to obey laws and pay taxes we did not consent to. In many cases the state goes out of its way to deprive people of their basic needs, for instance when the state evicts squatters from houses that were being left unused, the UK for example is moving to criminalize squatting [1] ; or when the state has property laws that keep wealth in the hands of the few whilst the many struggle to survive as has been the case in the United States, particularly in the 19thCentury when President Hayes argued “There can be no republican institutions with vast masses of property permanently in a few hands, and large masses of voters without property”. [2]

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/21/plans-to-criminalise-squa_n_932333.html

[2]"
Candidate 5: "Even in societies with a state, anarchist groups provide a voice for the oppressed.

Even if the state is never overthrown anarchism will always have something important to say. Anarchist groups were at the forefront of resistance groups in world war two, and today they are at the forefront of protests against the state whenever it tries to take even more from the worst off in society, for example in anti cuts protests in the UK. [1]

Anarchist communities like Freetown Christiana in Copenhagen exist as centres of peace and culture, by standing outside of society it provides a useful commentary on society as well as being an example for how people can live more freely without a state.

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8409048/TUC-protest-march-anarchists-on-the-rampage-in-London.html"
Candidate 6: "This is an unfair portrayal of Freetown Christiana. Soft drug use is something that the people of Christiana have decided is not immoral or illegal and is something that they tolerate in their society. They should not be criticised for people who do things which are totally within the rules of Freetown Christiana society."
Candidate 7: "COUNTERPOINT

These could still be provided in a different way. These issues can be dealt with quite sufficiently within small communities, in the case of a fire people the whole community would likely assist in fire-fighting duties whilst equipment could be owned communally.

Anarchist communities do not necessarily have no rules, these rules can be adequately enforced by the community and the community can collectively decide what to do about rule breakers."
Candidate 8: "The state has far too often been an instrument for facilitating wars and other acts of violence.

The state has, throughout history, been responsible for an immeasurable amount of violence and destruction. From ancient times where states were the primary instrument of enforcing laws so that people could keep slaves, to the actions of imperial nations like Britain, to the holocaust to all of the pointless wars fought throughout history, states have a long record of slaughtering and ruining the lives of countless numbers of their own and other states people. William Eckhardt estimates battle deaths since 3000 BC at 151million while Beer came out with a much higher figure of 1.1 billion battle deaths (NB both use dodgy calculations and of course in either case the total military deaths let alone civilian would be much higher).1

These actions are always taken because they are in the interest of the ruling class, but the ruling classes are never the ones directly involved in these conflicts, they instead use the state as an instrument to coerce other people to fight their battles for them. In a stateless society the people might need to fight against oppression but they would never be forced to fight for causes that have nothing to do with them.

[1] http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/22/4/437.extract"

Violence is not intrinsic to Anarchy Whilst there are many violent anarchists there is nothing about anarchy that means that violence need be a part of it. Many anarchists identify themselves as Anarchist-Pacifists and are against any and all violence.
