Bring it On

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 Military: 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. Somalia: 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. http://en.wikipedia.org...(1991%E2%80%932006). 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. Ehow: http://www.ehow.com... Canada Revenue: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca...