The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
15 Points

Bring it On

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/25/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,262 times Debate No: 18415
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (4)




Greetings to the contender,

I have titled this debate "Bring it on," as the contender will suggest three to five controversial topics (and also identify the stance that s/he will take). I will then select one of the topics and prepare a case.

We will use round one merely as the selection phase. Round 2 will initiate the debate.

If you have any queries, I will address them in the comments section. Good luck to my opponent!


Much thanks to Pro for instigating this debate. Here are the topcs I will be choosing.

That Hoppe's argmentation ethics is a justified theory of rights.- I would be Pro

Hoppe's argumentation ethics is a revision of Jugermas' discourse ethics, taken to libertarian conclusions(non-aggression principle, self ownership)

The existence of objective secular morality- I would be Con

Secular objective morality would be an objective moral standard in the abscence of a deity.

That Anarcho-capitalism is a preferable system of social and economics organization than [insert political system here]

I will allow my opponent to decide which political system he is to argue is superior. Anarcho-capitalism is defined as "a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty in a free market.[1]

I am much looking forward to this debate.

Debate Round No. 1


I'm glad that you've accepted! This debate shall be enjoyable.

I have selected "Anarcho-capitalism is a preferable system of social and economics organization than [Mixed Market Capitalism]", which I will debate as con. I was tempted to select mercantilism, for I certainly could create an interesting case, but I believe that pinko would desire to debate a current economical system in an austere manner. : )

Thence, I've selected to advocate that Mixed Market capitalism is more feasible and preferable to Anarcho-capitalism, which is, as Wikipedia notes, "...a contradiction of terms" (Anarcho-Capitalism, Par. 1).

To commence my debate, I might draw one's attention to a failed exemplar of Anarcho-Capitalism. Consider Somalia, which is divided into a series of provinces that are ruled by clan lines, warlords, pirate chiefs and organized crime lords. The so called "Government" of Puntland province has attempted to rid Puntland waters of "illegal (foreign) fisherman," and, in order to do so, it has contracted three different private organizations to act as a "Coast Guard". As in anarcho-capitalism, a private firm is allotted responsibility for the safety of Somali waters, rather than a government sponsored organization (since there is little government power or money in Somalia). All three of these private firms (Hart Security, SomCan and now Saracen International, sponsored by a company known formerly as Blackwater) have been desirous, unscrupulous and detrimental to the country.

Without further ado, let us define "Anarcho Capitalism" and "Mixed Market Capitalism," though this debate shant be about semantics.

1. "Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as “libertarian anarchy” by anarcho-capitalists, “market anarchism,” “free market anarchism” or “private-property anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty in a free market" (Wikipedia).

2. "Mixed economy is an economic system in which both the state and private sector direct the economy, reflecting characteristics of both market economies and planned economies" (Wikipedia).

In essence, in mixed market capitalism, the government will provide environmental protection, healthcare, public services, public educational institutions, communications network, municipal water, utilities and facilities (thus contributing to economic stability) by using tax dollars. The government will also regulates/deregulates certain industries, protects stakeholders' right, maintains competition and also enacts monetary policy and fiscal policy. The private sector will provide competition and the majority of products and services.

With anarcho capitalism, there could be a government, but it has no place in the free market system. Rather, the free market would be fuelled entirely by the concepts of supply and demand. If one private organization doesn't perform, then an individual can try the next one. There are no safeguards in place and self preservation is placed in the hands of the individual.

Let us first address briefly why anarcho-capitalism can not work.

1. Law enforcement, security and the courts are private agencies. How can a court remain impartial if one private individual offers more money than the other? It can't, and thus there is bribery and a conflict of interest. Suppose that an individual has a personal vendetta against the other. The first person is affluent, and the other is not. The first person can hire the private law enforcement firms to harass and eventually trump up some reason to arrest the second. Then, the second individual is tried in a court that happens to have received a generous "donation" from the first individual, and the second individual is thrown into prison indefinitely, as nobody can appeal on the habeas corpus, Charter of Rights or Bill of Rights (since the market is governed by private law).

2. The military and defense are also private agencies. How could any number of individuals agree on how to split money in order to fund and army? Would it not be better to adopt feudalistic policies or Swiss rules and have every individual possess his/her own weapon and serve for a small portion of the year. If the defense of a nation were left to mercenary groups, then it would quickly crumble in time of war or economical strife.

3. A deregulated system would never be feasible. Consider the havoc and turmoil if weapons, potent substances, liquor and any other hazardous product were easily available on the street? Consider the percentage of people who use cocaine in the United States, according to the alcohol and drug guide.

"14.4% of people have used cocaine
40.3% of people have used marijuana
1.3% of people have used heroin"

Imagine the addiction problems a nation would have if substances (as well as others, such as Ethiopian Khat, which plagues the majority of the male population in Somalia) were freely available? The violence and turmoil increase without reliable police enforcement and regulation?

4. Immorality would skyrocket, as pornography and other "victimless crimes" would not be illegal. As a result of said repercussions, divorce rates would increase, the family unit would deteriorate, education would decline and communities would cease to function as a united, "enlightened" society.

5. Powerful corporations would ruthlessly gain power and quell opposition. There are government laws in position to prevents the trusts and monopolies that both Canada and the United States experienced in the late 1800s, but there would be no such prevention in an anarcho-capitalist economy. Do readers actually question that avaricious and powerful individuals would, to use the colloquialism, "play nicely"? If J.D. Rockefeller were a proverbial "kingpin" in an anarcho-capitalist society, do you truly believe that oil, petroleum and natural gas companies would compete? I think not. Standard Oil would share the profits only with itself or its subsidiaries.

6. The public would be dependant upon the private sector to provide sanitized water and sewage services, maintain roads, build hospitals, educate children, stock and maintain libraries etc. How exactly would a society pay companies that exist to gain profit to perform such a diverse variety of menial tasks? If one had to pay $7.00 or more for every visit to the library, would one do so?

7. Who would control currency and prevent inflation or deflation? Not the state, as there should be no state involved in the economy. Is the public going to depend on an oligopoly of powerful banks to issue money and balance the economy - in a system where "victim-less" crimes and "crimes against the state" would not exist?

8. Who would protect the environment? And How? Even in a mixed system, many companies break environmental laws and engage in illegal activities such as toxic dumping. How would this dilemma be controlled and the environment conserved if there were only private environmentalist groups who wield no real power (albeit militarily or monetarily, if the group is wealthy). One knows that any company will exploit resources, personnel and the environment to cut costs and remain competitive.

Now, while every one of points are consequences of an established anarcho-capitalist system, a mixed market system, and the government (particularly a stable government such as in Canada, United States or the United Kingdom), prevent such consequences from occurring.

1. Alcohol and Drug Guide:

2. Victimless Crime:

3. Anarcho Capitalism (Definition):

4. Public Sector Definition:

5. J.D Rockefeller:


As a note, from hereon I will be shortening 'anarcho-capitalism' to AnCap.

Contention: Impartialty in an AnCap court system

My opponent's point here is that due to a profit motive, it would be unlikely that a court system could be truly impartial in matters of the law. The main reason for AnCap court impartialty would be because of the profit motive, the point my opponent brought up allegedly as a problem for an AnCap society. For instance, AnCap courts would not be government courts run for profit, they would not have jurisdiction over everyone in a given territory regardless of their reputation or record. In an AnCap society, courts would most likely be third party arbitrators agreed upon by the parties involved. For instance, part of my contract with Defense Agency X would be that in the event of a dispute with someone who uses Defense Agency Y, we would go to Court Z. This is obviously not only beneficial to me and my defense agency, but anyone else who would like to be prepared in the event of a legal dispute since if we cannot agree on an arbitrater, the difficulty of dispute resolution would be increased exponentially. In this case, one voluntarily decides what court one would be subjected to in the event of disputes. Since a Court runs on profit(customers), it would be in their financial interest to remain as impartial as possible. Though bribes would exist(as they do in every governmental court system as well, such is human nature), arbitraters would have a stronger incentive not to accept them as in the event that they are caught, their credibility as an impartial arbitrater is gone.

Contention: Military agencies and agreement

In this point, my opponent argues that it would be virtually impossible for all members of a society to agree how to split funds to provide a common army for their territry. But this point shows a misunderstanding of AnCap. People do not need to necessarily fund a common army. Defense services can easily be provided on an individual or corporate basis.


It isn't too hard to imagine companies arising in which individuals pay some voluntarily agreed upon fee for protection from aggression, similar to the way insurance contracts are set up. In this way, individuals who feel they need defense services decide upon one of available market options who agree to defend them against an array of threats for a nominal fee. As with arbitraters, a reputation for fair and objective service is incentivised via the profit motive. Who's going to hire an agency that will stir up trouble just to attract work?


In this form of defense services, an owner of a business, street, etc. either hires an independent defense agency to protect consumers and ensure a crime free environment in their place of business(who wants to go to McDonalds and get shot?) or provide their own defense services. Either way, it is in their financial interest to create a safe environment for potential consumers.

Contention: Deregulation in an AnCap society

My opponent here argues that in the abscence of laws against illicit substances, potentially dangerous weapons, or other potentially hazardous materials, they would just be available on the street and societal havoc would become rampant. I will deal with this point on two front, insurance and regulation in an AnCap society.

1- Weapons: Insurance against harm

If my opponent is arguing that in the absence of regulation, store ownes would sell rocket launchers and turrets to random people off the street, we must look at the intrinsic makeup of an AnCap society to see the solution. In AnCap, it is a given that there would be no government to enforce regulations on things an individual can buy such as guns or other potentially harmful products. Now since the effects of market transactions would be left wholly up to individuals, it would be in their best interest to purchase some form of insurance just like people do now in the event of a harmful occurence(sustained injuries or in case one is sued). There would also likely be factors to affect insurance rates and premiums just like there is today. In an insurance plan, owning a nuclear weapon would likely drive up one's premiums enough so that it would completely bankrupt anyone but the richest few to obtain one(since they would have such a massive amount of possible liability). This factor would apply though to a lesser extent to other potentially harmful products, varying by their degree of potential harm. Since the burden of paying these extra premiums would fall on each individua, it would be in their best financial interest to keep a weapon strictly for defensive purposes(if hey have one) or perhaps for sport(hunting).

2- Food, drugs, etc: Regulation of quality

Regulation need not be government issued. While it would not be legally enforced in an AnCap society, it would most likely be in a companies best interest to do most of the things the government already forces them to do(listing side-effects, health information, and other helpful information would be profittable for a company to give to it's consumers. Why? One, because in the abscence of government enforced regulation and there still being consumer want for regulation, private regulatory industries would likely develop. These would not be compulsory, but a company seen as offering safer products would be more trusted than a company with no qualifications. Obviously, there would be people who will fore-go this option and opt for unregulated products for whatever reason. Of course that is their choice in the face of regulated options. As with court systems, impartialty would be economical as a regulatory company known for skewing their results will not be performing the functions consumers want, reliability and objectivity.

Contention: Immorality in the abscence of victimless crimes

In this point, my opponent argues that a government is needed to stop "immoral" acts such as pornography. First, I would like to ask my opponent what is specifically immoral about pornography to make it need outlawing? No one is necessarily hurt and if anyone is, then my response to your first and second contentions can be applied. Also, I would ask for more specifications on what else is considered "immoral" here as it is hard to argue against the effects of something I don't know about. If you are referring to any victimless crime than here would be my response.

Contention: AnCap provision of "public goods"

My opponent in this point did not really provide an argument against the idea of an AnCap society providing "public goods"(some of which it already does to an extent(hospitals, education, roads, libraries). So far in my opponent's argument, he has provided no argument proving that private enterprise cannot supply these. I will have to ask for him to supply a reason why these things can absolutely not be provided privately.

Contention: Environmental protection in AnCap

This point by my opponent argues that in the abscence of the government there would be no one to protect the environment. However, he again misrepresents or misunderstands the necessary economic makeup of an AnCap society, namely private property righs. If a lake is owned by Person A and Company B is pollting it, Person A has a legal claim against Company B, just like if it had been trespassing on his land or doing anything else to violate his property rights. As such, Person A would have a valid claim in court to stop Company B from polluting his property. When one applies this to a privately owned world, one exands this concept in practice but not in principle.


Through lack of space I am unable to respnd to all of my opponent's points. I will try to respond to his points on monopolies and currency next round if possible. Due to the nature of this debate, it is unsurprising. I would also like to point out that my opponent has yet to show why his system works any better, he only provided one paragraph claiming it would fix the problems he mentioned.
Debate Round No. 2


I shall also abbreviate my references to Anarcho-capitalism to "AnCap." And I could also refer to "Mixed Market Capitalism" as "MixCap," in order to save characters. I also would like to compliment my opponent on an impressive display, and I shall proceed to negate each of his points before advocating Mixed Market Capitalism.

In order to oppose my opponent's main point, which is, in brief, "profit motive," I must ask how an individual or small group of individuals would afford all of the necessary private services etc. Taxes only consume quite a small portion of one's salary (31.1 percent of GDP in Canada - less in the US) (MSN), but the necessary number of private firms and utilities would demand the entirety of one's salary. Every company wants profits, and none will work for no (substantial) pay. If one can't pay a company to remove their waste services, no company will come to do so. If one can't pay for filtered, purified water, then one isn't going to receive such water. If one can't afford the mobile/land line bill, then one won't get telephone service. And so on.

So therefore, an AnCap system would encourage "survival of the fittest," with those too weak or too poor cast aside. Who truly would care for the mentally ill, the physically handicapped, the sick etc. in a society where every individual needs to spend every penny for oneself simply to survive? There would be no "comfort level" as known today, because people would be too preoccupied with guaranteeing that they are safe and protected. There will be very few who can afford to plan for the future, as available funds might be absorbed in any number of urgent incidences that a government may have prevented.

1. Partiality in the AnCap court system.

My opponent asserts that the very reason why independent courts would be unreliable ("profit motive") is an motivator ideal, and thence "strengthens" his arguments for AnCap. Let us review why courts are state sponsored and Judges are public servants. Courts are sponsored by the state and judges are paid by the state in order to ensure that no conflict of interest occurs - that impartiality is maintained. If a judge is paid comfortably by the State, s/he has no need for "further payments".

Secondly, the state will proffer a defense attorney in criminal cases to those who can't afford one (rest assured, there still would be criminal courts in an AnCap system... though they would be corrupt and useless in achieving justice).

My opponent acknowledges that the courts would be prone to bribery, though he also insists that bribery is common in every system. While bribery (or "kickbacks") may occur in nations such as Canada and the United States, it isn't tolerated, acceptable, legal or common. In fact, anybody found to be guilty of attempting to bribe a public official will find him/herself in severe trouble. The same goes for the public official (up to fifteen years in prison, massive monetary fines, removal from public office etc.). Who would punish these individuals in an AnCap system? Supposedly the mutual agreement of two parties, but I doubt that parties would embargo corrupt courts. The crime lords and wealthy would favour them and insist on cases occurring there. No mutual agreement could be had except in the case of forthright individuals of a similar monetary status. The impoverished and the poor would be trod over in such a system, as has occurred in history and other nations.

Military Agencies:

There are several issues here. An agency would never "stir up trouble to attract work," but it would cause much strife while working. There would be no limitation on militant mercenary agencies' actions. Without a state funded military guided by stable governments and rights and freedoms, any mercenary group can act in arbitrary, primeval and brutal manners. If the client wishes someone (or many people) to be liquidated or summarily executed (and can afford such a demand), then what prevents the mercenaries from doing so? Furthermore, how would one stop a more powerful warlord or entity? How would one survive against a united nation? One could be oppressed under a warlord who had an attack helicopter while your "agency" only had small arms and automobiles. Would one have to group together under clan lines, as in Somalia? We see how well that has worked.

My opponent also asserts that corporations would need to hire bodyguards to safeguard their establishments and the clients. Would this not cost more (and be more impractical) than simply paying taxes for a unified army or police force that maintains peace on the street? In an AnCap society, we're referring to legally unrestricted forces carrying weapons. They may have the interests of the client in mind, but, in their role, they may be forced to engage in an avoidable bloodbath, if a state military or police force was present.


My opponent asserts that insurance would balance arbitrariness. But, in an AnCap society, who needs to purchase insurance? Would it not be greater insurance to simply possess a nuclear weapon? Who's going to bother, accost or cross in any way the man who possesses a nuclear weapon? I think that the individual needn't worry about insurance premiums, since he could simply liquidate any insurance company who overcharges him, anyway (as well as a good portion of society in the immediate vicinity).


TheFree Dictionary defines immorality as, "1. The quality or condition of being immoral. 1. esp. in sexual matters; licentiousness; profligacy or promiscuity. A "...reason that causes the increased divorce rate is the high level of temptation" (Common Causes). Also, intoxicants and illicit substances are proved to have adverse effects on the family structure. Therefore, my argument stands in that "immorality" would flourish in an AnCap society, eventually causing it to cease functioning.

On to Mixed Capitalism Pros.


Very simply, in developed Western nations, the government provides stability, and it provides a balance that prevents all of the dilemmas that I have specified above regarding AnCap.

- The government, in Canada, the USA and many European nations, has established a Federal Reserve, Bank or Treasury to manage Fiscal and Monetary Policy in the nation (which my opponent was unable to address, because private industry could not capably manage inflation or interest rates. Nor could it adopt and issue a standard currency that every individual accepts. Hyperinflation would occur, as in nations such as Somalia.)

- Maintenance of public services and roads. Private industries would only maintain public services and roads if it suited their interests (ie. another company paid them to do so). Therefore, many roads would fall into disrepair, and wouldn't be plowed or tended, thereby causing millions of individuals much strife. The government tends even lonely gravel roads.

- Discrimination is less likely to occur in a MixCap system, as legal systems prohibit or discourage it. Discrimination is likely to flourish in an AnCap system.

- Regulation of industries, prevention of monopolies and trusts. Thereby guaranteeing that the law is upheld and citizens protected.

- Maintaining Order.

- Fielding an Army and equipped police forces.

- A MixedCap system boasts truly impartial judiciary systems, as the Justices are paid by the state and encouraged to abstain in any conflict of interest.

- One major benefit is that an extensive private sector does exist and safely proffers services, products, information and interests both basic and pivotal.

- Public welfare, education and health care are provided for all individuals in many MixCap systems. Therefore, those underprivileged who can't cope by themselves or can't afford to survive in a cutthroat AnCap system will be provided for.

- Philanthropic organizations are able to flourish and assist those in need.

Due to lack of space, I will post my sources in the Content Section.

I'm looking forward to Round 3.



Cost of privatized services

Here my opponent argues that in an AnCap society, paying for things like drinking water or waste collection would clearly demand "the entirety of one's salary". Therefore only those able to pay for such services would have access to them. He claims that individuals would need to "spend every penny for oneself simply to survive". But where is the qualifier, the reasoning? Why does my opponent think this is at all likely? I personally have no idea as he merely assumes this point instead of providing evidence or reasoning to back it up. I surely agree that it would not be an enjoyable situation(though my opponent also provided no arguments for positive rights to these services in the first place) but as it stands I have no evidence to refute on this point.

Impartiality in the AnCap court system

My opponent in further elaborating on his argument against impartiality in an AnCap court system, claims that impartiality is mantained(he never showed that it has been) because Judges are paid by the State and not by the defendants. However this largely ignores my point that a governmental court system still does not stop corruption(bribery[1], prostitution[2], drugs[2]) and that an AnCap system would offer negative incentives to such behavior as judges do not automatically have jurisdiction over a given territory like in our present day statist system.

My opponent next explains that bribing public officials is illegal and possible punishable by a prison term but that there would be no such system for punishing Judges found guilty of accepting bribes. He carefully sidesteps my entire court argument by simply claiming that corrupt courts would be less frequented than fair ones. Why? Because "The crime lords and wealthy would favour them and insist on cases occurring there. No mutual agreement could be had except in the case of forthright individuals of a similar monetary status." No qualifier again and my opponent again skips past the point of mine that a mutually agreed upon arbitrator is mutually beneficial for both parties as it makes conflict resolution easier. Also, as mentioned earlier, no Court would automatically have jurisdiction over any territory or case except by consent of those arbitrated over. Therefore my opponent's point here is essentially moot.

Military Agencies

"Without a state funded military guided by stable governments and rights and freedoms, any mercenary group can act in arbitrary, primeval and brutal manners." My opponent's point here is essentially that without a government to protect freedoms, who is to stop military contractors from pillaging and destroying those that get in their way? Of course as military contractors do not automatically have a job and the fact that they necessarily rely on consensual business to stay in the black. My opponent then claims that one could simply send military contractors to kill someone or some people and that there would be no one to stop them. If my opponent wishes to ignore the fact that not only the psychopathic can hire protection that is fine. My opponent next claims that if a warlord attacks with superior fighting power, who will save you? Actually the exact same argument can be applied to a governmental military. If a rival country attacks with a military power of ten times that of your country, what do you do? Does this disprove the concept of governmental miltiaries or provide a credible argument for a world government? Of course not so why should it only apply the other way around as a "refutation" of anarchism?

Corporations and defense

My opponent then claims that it would just be cheaper to pay taxes than to have to hire private security to protect one's assets. But again, my opponent uses no justification and merely assumes that this service would cost more. Why I ask? He then moves on to ask what if the bodyguards engage in a bloodbath since they are caring unrestricted weaponry. Of course if a security agency is known to gun down clients wherever they happen to be, how many corporations are going to believe this is good for attracting customers?


My opponent's alleged "reutation" of my insurance argument is that someone with a nuclear weapon could just "liquidate" any insurance company or anyone he wants really. However the same can be applied to a government system. What if someone had 100 nukes aimed at the capital and the government had none? My opponent is in effect framing problems with no bearing on their likeliness.


I thank my opponent for expanding on his immorality argument as now I can refute it. He argues that illicit substances and intoxicants have adverse effects on family structures and thus society would likely break down if they were not legally prohibited. Of course I fail to see how this is an argument against AnCap. If one smoke pot but doesn't hurt anyone then there is no problem. However if one were to get particularly baked and go rob a convenience store, the private defense of the store can deal with it, his being under the influence would not necessarily come into play legally. Also, as to the availability of illicit substances leading to adverse effects on the family structure, my opponent again brings no qualifying evidence to back it up.

Mixed Capitalism

Here my opponent provides his case for the superiority of a mixed market economy.

Fiscal and Monetary Policy

My opponent provides little argument as to specifically why an AnCap system would lead to hyperinflation. His only piece of supporting evidence is that it happens in Somalia, an alleged example of AnCap. Of course Somalia is not an AnCap society, but in a Civil War. As such I would ask for evidence to refute besides just bold assumptions.

Public Goods

My opponent here makes a sweeping assumption that companies would be unlikely to mantain roads because it would most likely not be in their best interest. Of course he claims this in apparent ignorance of the fact that roads are still a commodity like any other. He has provided no reason to think otherwise. Unless he can think and post a reason, there is no reason to assume that roads would not be kept in at least moderate condition by companies in an attempt to attract consumers(travellers on their roads).


My opponent here claims that discrimination is less likely to occur in a MixCap society, since it is illegal to do so. However, not only would market forces hinder companies from discriminating too much(if you don't hire African Americans, someone else can hire them for less as they now have one less competitor to compete with over their labor) but in a society made of complete private property rights, the prohibition of discrimination would be immoral as Pro has not demonstrated that anyone has a positive right to obtain services or goods from someone by virtue of simply being.


The idea of the government preventing monopolies of industry is contradictory. For what is the government if not a large monopoly. A monopoly being the domination of a market by a single supplier(usually with some kind of force involved), the government is a clear cut example of a monopoly for it's respective services(at the least law and defense). For is someone allowed to opt out of taxes or government protection if one lives inside a certain geographical location? No, and thus the concept that the government ought to stop monopolies because monopolies are bad is at best inconsistent and at most contradictory.

Welfare, education, healthcare

The usual objections to these can be provided I guess though one need not be an AnCap to agree with them. One could argue that welfare creates dependency and lack of incentive, point to the superiority of private education as compared to public[3], or the fact that increased government involvement in healthcare leads to higher prices for consumers since private suppliers must offset the increased price of regulation by charging higher rates or providing less quality services.
Debate Round No. 3


Unfortunately, I somehow lost my original arguments for round 4. Due to frustration and time constraints, this argument is going to be somewhat more abbreviated.

To begin with, my opponent agrees with me that an ancap system would not be, "an enjoyable situation". Therefore, he has clearly acknowledged that a MixedCap system, in which millions of people are "happy" or joyful, is superior to an anCap system, which could not feasibly function. Said people experience job security, a comfortable wage, motivation and encouragement in a stable and safe environment. None of this can be had in an ancap system. I think Marx described an arncap system best when he described "survival of the fittest".

My opponent requires proof, so let us consider the possible wage for a comfortably employed person in a mixed-cap society. Lets say that the average middle class person eanrs $75,350 a year. (Ehow) That person pays 37% income tax (Canada Revenue) or about $27,879.50 to fund everything that the government endeavours to provide or do.

Now, taking a brief look, a top notch private mercenary or security firm would cost over $1,000 per mercenary, per day (How much does it cost to hire). "During the Iraq War, top-level Blackwater operatives could expect salaries upward of $200,000 per year" (How much does it cost to hire...). This number far supercedes the financial capacity of an individual or even a respectably sized company.

The one must factor in utilities (also assuming that prices would be inflated, compared to now), food, water (which would have to be purified by a private firm who can charge what they wish), insurance (as pro proclaims will be necessary), a vehicle, housing, roads, education, medical service, access to libraries, access to public buildings, defense in court and even the necessary bribes to traverse from one area to another (as one can be sure that bandits will establish checkpoints along unguarded roads). It seems to me that there would be no money for the simplest comfort, as even needs can barely be afforded.

The Court System.

My opponent automatically assumes that the majority of course in Canada and the US are corrupt? Does he not believe in the workings of justice? Impartial judges and juries deal with thousands of cases daily. To assert that they are all corrupt is slightly naive.

My opponent somehow believes that if the defendant would pay the judge. Does he not then realize that the judge's purse and decisions would be sympathetic to the defendant?

A court system deters corruption, prostitution, drugs etc. and ensures that those who commit said crimes will be duly punished. As I'm sure you're aware, the justice system is about deterrance, rehabilitation, rejuvenation and retribution


I already made several ideal points that stand regarding the military, so I will merely address my opponent's argument about a rival nation's larger military. The simple fact of the matter is that a nation with a standing army acts as deterrant. It has a trained and equipped fighting force - it therefore has power. We have seen nations' fall, but they oftentimes can resurge. If an individual's armies fail, do you think that they'll be alive or well enough to resurge? I doubt it. Do you think that they can call on allies or emergency finds in the time of war? Certainly not. Do they have the economy to engage in a standing confict? No.


My opponent doesn't comprehend the situation in Somalia. Somalia is divided according to clan-lines. The clans of southern Somalia wage war due to aggression and a power vacuum. Due to the disputes, there is no real central government. Several states have established their own form of near powerless government, such as Puntland province and Somaliland. For example, in the Puntland, the President was unable to pay any public officials in 2008, thereby dissolving any semblance of structure. My opponent excuses Somalia, due to the fact that small portions of it have erupted in civil war - is one of my points not that an anarcho-capitalist system will result in conflict?

Public Roads.

I did not say that companies wouldn't maintain roads - I said that they would only maintain major roadways beneficial only to themselves, thereby excluding most of the elaborate labyrinth of roads in a nation. As the readers can see, companies only exist to profit. Snowplowing or paving extraneous roadways would not suit that mission.

And that is all that I have time for. Thanks for the debate.

I have proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mixed Capitalism is superior to anarcho capitalism, a failed system. Therefore, I urge you to vote for myself. : ) Thank you.


Canada Revenue:


Wages and affordability

Private Contractors

In this argument, my opponent claims that in an AnCap system, a private security firm would likely charge "over $1,000 per mercenary, per day". Of course he does not give any proof of this point but apparently completely makes the number up. His next claim is that Blackwater operatives in the Iraq War could make "upward of $200,000 per year" and that most individuals and corporations would not be able to afford this. However my opponent apparently lumps in all private security firms irrespective of their primary function. Blackwater(Xe services) has been contracted by the U.S. government to protect high profile diplomats, public officials, embassies, etc. These are people who would be able to afford these services obviously, regardless of whether they were provided by the government. However, just like any other commodity(bananas, cars, houses), defense would likely have a range of prices according to different factors(quality, type of defense, etc.). Not all private contractors will charge $1,000 a day or $200,000 a year and my opponent has provided no reason for readers to believe so. Assuming that every defense agency will cost as much as the most expensive one is like assuming that every car will cost $100,000 just because the best cost that much. My opponent here is blatantly ignoring the market forces that cause all other commodities produced to not have unform prices.

Utilities, food, water, etc

My opponent also makes several fallacious points when referring to other servies. He continuously ignores market structures and how they cause prices not to be uniformly high(assuming the industry is not new and budding such as particle acceleration). He assumes prices for utilities would become inflated with no justification. Basic economic analysis would actually show the opposite. As monopolies on services(by the government) would be done away with, competition among multiple suppliers would lead to overall lower prices and better service since one need not buy from a corporation one does not wish to. My opponent also claims that water ourifiers could charge as much as they wish. Again, no justification. Why is water purification different from food services? Both are needed to survive but we see that most people can buy food for little money. Again, my opponent provides no reason whatsoever to why water purification services are any different from other services where sellers do not charge as much as they wish. My opponent also claims bribes would most likely be necessary for the use of checkpoints along unguarded roads since bandits would probably hold them up. Of course the behavior of the bandits is simply trespassing(using and profiting off of the already owned road). As such, it is in the road owners best interest not to allow this to happen as since people will look for a cheaper route, it will become uneconomical to use his road and thus he will lose money. As my opponent so adamently keeps pointing out, profit is the only reason corporations exist so why wouldn't the owner of the road try to stop bandits from profiting off of his services?

The Court System

I did not, as my opponent claims, say that all American and Canadian court systems are corrupt. I merely pointed out that, contrary to my opponent's point, a socialized court system does not get rid of corruption. This along with the point that it would be uneconomical to be a corrupt judge in an AnCap system makes my opponent's corruption point moot. My opponent then makes the same claim that the arbitrater in a dispute would likely be biased in favor of whoever is paying him. Again, I will point out that since the plaintiff and defendent would need to agree on who the arbiter is in the first place, they would both be paying him(most likely through their defense firms). Thus there would not be a conflict of interest unless one of the people tried to pay the judge a little extra to get the ruling they wanted in which case I refer my opponent to my point about corruption being uneconomical since arbiters are chosen for their reputations for fairness and objectiveness.


My opponent doesn't fully address my point about larger rival military countries as the same as his point about larger rival military contracters so I will just address what he does say. First, he claims that even if a country falls due to military conquest, it will often times resurge. Of course, my opponent ignores the many, many countries who have not done this such as poorer countries ravaged by military conquest and war such as Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He asks if an individual can come back after his defense firm has given out. I'll ask him the same question. Can a country come back after being completely destroyed by foreign militaries? This is the same principle just applied to a larger scale. My opponent is trying to put a private defense firm in the worst situation and expect it to get out while ignoring that States are not immune to the same problem.


Again, I will repeat myself. Somalia is not an AnCap society. It merely has a weak central government due to a Civil War and various rebel forces. My opponent claims that my point about it being in a Civil War helps his point that an AnCap society would lead to violent disputes. However, Somalia did not erupt in Civil War after it's central government lost much of it's power. Somalia broke into Civil War because of disputes as to how the government ought to operate(Somalia Democratic Movement, Sonalia National Alliance, etc). Somalia is not violent because there is no government, it is violent because no one agrees as to the proper make up and function of the State.

Public Roads

My opponent again does not understand the purpose of mantaining any roads in the first place. Roads are a service. People want and need roads to get from place to place and thus it is in one's economic interest to maintain roads that one owns or has built in an effort to get people to use them. If I own a small grocery store am I not going to sell anything because I'm not as big as Walmart? I assume most people don't want to drive on an all grass road, so mantaining one's road actually is something one would do in order to make a profit.

I enjoyed this debate with my opponent and urge voters to vote fairly according to who they believe best defended their points. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
Wish I had this article in time for the debate!!!

Average tax payments (in Canada's Mixed Capitalism society) per year for the following:

$186.57 for public safety, correctional facilities etc.

$601.39 in old age securities

$317.30 for International trade and foreign affairs

$450.52 for National Defense and armed forces (Significantly less than even $900 per day for a mercenary... that would be $10 an hour for only 9 hours).

$502.38 for Crown Corporations (Canada Post, VIA Rail, Royal Bank etc.)

$942.84 for health and social programs

Looks a lot cheaper to pay your taxes. : )
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
Water is more valuable due to the increasing scarcity of clean water. Also, one needs water to grow food. If one company accumulated all of the purifiers and processing facilities in a given area, it can dominate the area and charge what it likes. Competition, if any, will not be major enough to prevent monopolization and inflation.

About the roads argument... I live on a dirt, back road that leads to no company. In an AnCap society, there wouldn't be any care for my road. There'd be no care for any road that doesn't benefit a certain company. I'd have to plow it, myself, with a one man snowblower. O_o AS mentioned, there is a labyrinth of such back roads that aren't even on a map.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
What about food is different from water(except for the time we can go without it) that makes water a commodity which needs to be provided by the government while food is not?
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
Thanks for the RD, Falcon.

My opponent's roads arguments (and water, actually), reminded me of the Medieval Knight (or band of knights) guarding a bridge and refusing to let travellers pass without a "small fee," or combat. In an AnCap society, what's to prevent companies from controlling water sources, and thus controlling the world? People can survive only three days without water, but weeks without food. Interesting thought process. heh
Posted by 1stLordofTheVenerability 6 years ago
Holy mackerel, I forgot to insert a couple of sites I had researched on mercenaries!

Qaddafie's mercenaries, or my debate source material "How Much Does it Cost":

* Note, these are African mercenaries, or people who don't experience the same standard of living as in the West. Western mercenaries would invariably require more, as well as insurance, health benefits and maybe even financial security for their families in the event of death.

Another informative site:

Global Security reinforced my assertion about $1,000 a day, "These private security contractors can earn up to $1,000 a day". In an AnCap society, they may accept less, but they also couldn't be controlled.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
RFD: For the purposes of this RFD, 1st Lord is Pro, Spinko is Con, as indicated in the big boxes above their names on either side of the debate (regardless of the fact that 1st Lord is taking the Con position on anarcho-capitalism).

1) Private Contractors: Pro shows that the ability to afford good private contractors actually depends on the amount of money that an individual has. Con just says that there are cheaper defense contractors which is outweighed by Pro's point that more expensive is better.

2) Utilities: Con doesn't address the fact that the government provides utilities at low prices because they need to provide the basics to people and that is more important than profits. Con's arguments is that the prices may decline under Ancap but leaves out the fact that the prices of basic needs are at the mercy of profit-making corporations.

3) Courts: Con rightly points out that corruption exists no matter what but Pro shows a clear reason why it is more in Ancap; because people pay the court to do their arbitration, the motivation to rule in favor of the higher payer is much greater than in a Mixcap sysytem.

4) Military: Con compares countries to individuals. There are a lot of other factors which need to be taken into account when making such a comparison.

5) Insurance: I think Pro dropped this point along with a couple of others.

6) Somalia: Con wins this point. Though I believe that Somalia is an Ancap society, Con adequately explains the violence as being due to civil war than Ancapism.

7) Roads: Again, Con's point is stronger. Companies will build whatever roads the people want because that is how they make their profits.
Posted by mcc1789 6 years ago
Better :)
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
Is that better?
Posted by mcc1789 6 years ago
Hey Social, the last link for your sources appears to be dead-just a heads up. The NCES one.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pros argument of personal morality was pretty weak. Spinko showed that profit was enough of a motive for an Ancap society to work. pro droped arguments. CFRR.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought this debate was very close until the last round. Up to that point Pro made very good points that I agree with, but he did not quite substantiate them as Con frequently pointed out. Con refuted those points and Pro did not seem to be able to elaborate any further on them and wound up repeating the same message, ending the debate with more questions then answers. Though Con provided very few sources his argument did not require them while many of Pros statements did, yet were unsupported
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Great debate! Overall, Spinko tried to show that profit was enough of a motive for an Ancap society to work but didn't prove that well enough. 1st Lord showed why Ancap wouldn't work and by extension, why Mixcap is superior to Ancap. Spinko never contested 1st Lord's assumption that a society has to work in order for it to be superior. 1st Lord also had more convincing arguments showing why MixCap is better on balance. Conduct because Pro dropped a sh!tload of his arguments. More in comments.
Vote Placed by Kinesis 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Though there were points at which I thought 'whoa' at SP's arguments, and not in a good way, his counterpoints and arguments were more thorough and detailed than 1st's. There were also some arguments that I thought were pretty bad on Pro's part, especially the personal morality part. Pro was also guilty of spamming arguments in the first round.