Anarcho-capitalism would turn into anarcho-communism or socialism given enough time

REBUTTING MY OPPONENT My opponent's entire argument hinges on the idea that technology is replacing jobs and thus causing very few workers who would be able to rebel. Interestingly enough, my opponent ignored an article that was linked to in the article they used as a source. In fact, my opponent ignored all available evidence that suggests the contrary of what my opponent is arguing for, which is a cherry-picking fallacy[1]. In the article that my opponent chose to ignore, it points out that the idea that technology gets rid of jobs is malarchy. It shows a graph of the unemployment rate in the United Kingdom, and shows when new technologies came out. There is no correlation between the unemployment rate and the technologies coming out over the past several decades,[2] which if technology was causing unemployment, there would be correlation. In addition, they point out that employers don't have an interest in only staying small, they always want to grow their business. While robots can replace some jobs, they can't replace all jobs and some people would still be needed. Thus, the company would expand because productivity is up from having more robots, and that then creates more jobs. [2] The article that my opponent linked to has many issues with it because it doesn't establish causation and ignores evidence to the contrary, which is again a cherry-picking fallacy, but this time on the part of the writers of that article. First, it makes a quick assumption that because the unemployment rate is higher than it should be right now, that it's because of technology. However, it provides no direct causation, and ignores the fact that there can be other reasons why the unemployment rate is staying higher than it should be. Then, it ignores the fact that technology creates new jobs, such as when it claimed that "some 47% of present jobs in the US could be computerized in the next 10 to 20 years, according to an Oxford University study published in 2013." They ignore the jobs that would be created by computerization, which could be equal to or greater than the jobs lost by computerization. In addition my opponent claimed that the industrial revolution resulted in the loss of jobs, but this is also a deceptive claim. While it is true that certain jobs were no longer needed and those jobs were lost, other careers went up in demand. In fact in a study by economists at the consultancy Deloitte, they examined the number of jobs that have been lost since 140 years ago due to technology, and the jobs created by technology. The jobs created by technology outnumbered the jobs lost by technology. [3] All technology does is change which jobs people do, it doesn't get rid of the total number of available jobs. It gets rid of the undesirable jobs and produces more desirable jobs. While I could have argued that technology only creates jobs and presented only evidence of that, that would also have been fallacious. The truth is a combination of the two: it destroys some jobs, and creates other jobs. It just so happens that it creates other jobs at a higher rate than it destroys the old jobs, however. Next, my opponent argued that business owners would pay the few workers out there very well. But what evidence is there to suggest this? History shows that business owners will pay the minimum amount necessary to their workers, in order to keep as much of the profits as they can possibly keep for themselves. Again, just look at the 1800s when wages were terrible, working conditions were terrible, etc. The only reason these conditions are better is because the government set a minimum wage and many business regulations. The business owners wouldn't fix these problems, otherwise they would have done it some time in the hundreds of years we had capitalism without any government interference, but they didn't. History is not on my opponent's side. Also, if the scenario my opponent suggested is true, then the workers can't do anything about the business owner paying them so little or not providing a safe work environment, because there would be a high unemployment rate and plenty of people to replace them with who'd be desperate enough to work the lower pay and go through an unsafe work environment in order to survive to buy food. Eventually, those people may also demand a higher pay, but without the government, the business owner can then just fire them again and hire new people desperate enough to work for them. Finally, my opponent argued that the rich have no interest to create a strong state, but this is also not true. First, my opponent said "The rich have sufficient workers and technology to guard their wealth." But the workers are not reliable to guard their wealth, as workers can strike, or even overthrow the business owner. You would have to explain how technology guards wealth though, I don't see how it does. At any rate, the rich would be interested in a strong state because it's often the state that bails out the rich companies instead of letting them fail(no business owner wants to fail, so they would want a state to bail them out), why wouldn't a wealthy person be in favor of a state that won't let them fail?. It's the state that guarantees them to have private property as well and protects it. USING OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT AGAINST THEM Now, if what my opponent argued for was true, it doesn't exactly change anything. If technology was to cause a sharp increase in unemployment as my opponent implied, then there would also be a decline in business owners because they can't find people to sell their product to, since no one, or very few, would have a job earning money to buy their products. Thus, many more would go out of business. It's simple economics: if there is no one to buy your product, you go out of business. If all business owners did somehow replace all or most of the jobs with robots, then no one or very few people would be able to buy the business owner's products, and the businesses would die. Since the businesses would die, that means there's no more private ownership of the means of production, and capitalism is destroyed once more. So, even if what my opponent suggested was true(which as I pointed out it doesn't seem to be true), it would still result in the destruction of capitalism and the remnants of civilization would probably establish a non-capitalist society, one that is more worker-oriented in order to avoid that happening again. Sources: [1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com... [3] http://www.sciencealert.com...