Anarcho-Capitalism (Con) vs Democratic Socialism (Pro)

In reference to my statement about Lebron James, you said "This is a complete straw man attempt." I really don't think it is. Or at the very least, it wasn't intended that way. I don't have a right to his basketball talents anymore than the socialist has a right to the fruits of his talents. "Socialism this way then socialism is forbiding the Basketball player to take steroids so that Lebron James and you are on equal footing." But the thing is me and Lebron will never be on equal footing, whether he takes steroids or not. But that gives me no claim on his abilities. And please explain the statement " the few looting from the many". This is not what I am advocating for. I don't want a homeless guy stealing from Bill gates, but I also don't want Bill gates stealing from the homeless guy. Theft is theft, no matter who does it. And no, I do not want to break the legs of the poor and middle class, I want them to be free and do well in life. And what is it with leftists getting hung up on the issue of whether or not a rich person needs a private jet or sports car? Even when I was on the left, I never really understood this. Do we really need most things we have today? Is reading, playing video games, sports, music, computers and cars pre requisites to human survival? No, and yet I don't hear you calling us back to the caves to wear animal skins and hunt woolly mammoths with spears. Hell, you don't NEED to eat if your goal is death. You don't need a television set, and yet if I break into your house and steal it I think you'll call the police. So the question is not about whether someone who is rich needs a new yacht or private jet. If they have the means to justly acquire such things, whether they buy it or build it themselves then it's no different than a poor/middle class person paying for their expenses. Now in terms of the industrial evolution, initially life expectancy dropped. However, around the mid 19th century that started to reverse, and you started seeing a greater access to fuel, etc. "Liberia is a capitalist country, most businesses are controlled by people of Lebanese, Indian and Chinese descent."Liberia is most certainly not a capitalist country. It ranks 141 out of two hundred or so countries when it comes to economic freedom. It was also a country racked by civil war and destruction, much like Somalia. Not exactly a Anarcho capitalist paradise. Certainly nothing that i'm advocating for. Now talking about Asia, In india in 1990, 51% of the population lived in absolute poverty. Now it's about 22 percent. In 1981, something like 65% of the Chinese population lived on less than a dollar a day. Guess what the number was in 2007? It's hard top believe, but about 4%. What is the cause? The cause is that over the past 30 or so years, the general trend has been toward free trade policy for these countries. When talking about monopolies, you say that "an extremely large company that controls almost all of the market. If a new company wants to start up, they will definately fail. Therefore, there is no competition and no incentive for the monopolizing company to improve their products." and this is because of predatory pricing. But people are buying from that company because they want to in the first place. If they really don't want to buy their products because they don't LIKE them, or they think the owners are scumbags or whatever, the company can either improve or go out of business because a competitor will arise with a better and more appealing way of doing things, and the company can either adapt or die. Now maybe this was unintentional, but it seems to me that you somewhat skipped over my point about how using government to fight monopolies makes no sense, because government is in it of itself the biggest coercive monopoly in existence. Apple may have a rather large share of the tech market, but Apple doesn't have the ability to tax. It doesn't have the federal reserve. It doesn't have the military industrial complex. The difference between Apple and the state is that Apple interacts with you on a voluntary basis. The state is coercive by nature. You have the choice to buy Apple products or not. You don't have a choice with the state. If you do not consent to having your property stolen and therefore refuse to pay them tribute in the form of taxation, then men in blue costumes will come to your door and lock you in a cage. And if you resist this aggression, they may kill you. However, if I am somehow misreading this and you actually did address this, I apologize. "The privatization of the Justice and Healthcare system is what would happen in an anarcho capitalist society (obviously) and such a situation is horrendous. This would mean that those who are born into a poor family are doomed. It is inhumane to suggest that people with more money have the right to preferential healthcare and a justice system biased towards the wealthy and powerful." The idea that in the absence of government, the switch in people's brain that makes them care about poor will just go away seems pretty ludicrous to me. Would you stop caring about the welfare of the less fortunate? I wouldn't. There would still be charity for those unable to pay. And personally, if I was taking my business to a particular security agency, I would want it to do some pro bono. Many other professions do this. Now you talk about how that a free market in law and law enforcement would inevitably favor the wealthy. Now an important thing to understand is that in a free market, your reputation is everything. If a judge/arbitrator had a reputation for being biased towards a certain group of people, be they white people, black people, heterosexuals or homosexuals, rich or poor, people would not want to transact with them, so I think that there would be a market for an objective decision. "Is con suggesting that monopolies are impossible?" When I said the quote that you posted, I was simply re stating your position as I saw it. I don't know how you interpreted that to me saying monopolies are impossible. Now with regards to collusion and price fixing, companies that collude are not forcing anybody to do anything. People can still choose to trade with them or not. This does not prevent competitors from entering the field. As long as no force is being initiated against people, then I see no problem. "sure you do not have too, but if that is the only company available and there are no substitutes, you must buy from that company. This is true for all industries as well." If people are sick of coke's antics, then they will either have to change their methods of doing business, or someone with a more attractive way of doing things will arise and people will go to them. And by "another means" I was simply reiterating the point that unless coke was serving the demands of it's customers, other companies will arise to meet that demand, or another tasty carbonated beverage will become preferred. I wasn't referring to one specific thing. "would it be fair that Target employees get a higher wage than Walmart for doing the exact same job?" Let me be clear: as long as no coercion is applied, then yes, it is "fair" ( although I hate that word) . Who are you to interfere with a voluntary contract between consenting adults? With regards to the soviet union, it was the government's incorrect allocation of resources that caused the massive famine in the Ukraine. And you can say it was simply political repression that caused the millions of death ( many of which by starvation), but that's because they had that enormous amount of power to begin with. I don't think that you can give nearly unlimited power to a specific group of people and expect them to not abuse it. And the idea that capitalism produces slavery is simply incorrect. In many cases it was the government that institutionalized slavery, and they caught escaped slaves in the south, returning them to their owners.Aside from the fact that it is arguably the most evil institution in history, Slavery is economically destructive, because it discourages investment in labor saving devices. "Do not make assumptions before I make my argument."( referring to my statements about European socialism). I'm sorry, but that's usually what people bring up when talking about socialism. It wasn't exactly a huge leap, so I figured why not bring it up preemptively. I'm excited for round four. I kinda want to talk a little more about the specifics of how I think things handled currently by government could be better handled by the free market. I would like to get into the specifics a bit more before this debate is over. http://mises.org... http://fee.org... http://mises.org... http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...