Sure. I’ll debate an anarchist. What’s the topic?

My debate with any anarchist would consist of a series of asks for the content of a constitution (contract) of terms, how such a polity could be brought into being; and how it would survive competition for trade, population, territory, and control. This invariably results in the anarchist avoiding the questions, making false or wishful claims about human nature and behavior, and counterfactual claims about history.

I don’t need ‘exposure’. So would this involve wasting my time, and require me to back a naive, intellectually dishonest opponent into a corner, thus only exacerbating my reputation as ‘a meanie’, or would, once (deterministically) falsified the opponent retreated into ‘well it would be nice’, or ‘one can hope at sometime it’s a possibility’?

Leave a Reply