Anarchy

(P1) Here my opponent and I seem to have had a communications error. In the last round he provided four scenarios that could possibly play out in a certain hypothetical situation we had been discussing. Out of the four, the last one seemed like the only bad one and so I assumed that was the one that he was arguing would most likely happen. Something weird happened though. He was actually arguing that a situation would occur that is a basic tenet of free trade. He argues that: //"The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly. "// In this case, how does this situation create a government? My opponent argues that this is a monarchy. However what exactly is the definition of a monarchy? Wikipedia defines it as: ""a form of government in which the head of state reigns by some kind of perceived divine sanction. It is usually hereditary and there is usually only one monarch"" The scenario that my opponent described though is not in line with any form of "divine sanction". This is also different from a monarchy in that the relationship is completely voluntary. A characteristic of a monarchy is that there is an autocratic ruler who has compulsory power over his or her subjects. One is not forced to work for the manufacturer. It is simply in their interest as a means to an ends. That was quite a miscommunication in that my opponent seems to believe that voluntary associations among individuals who form a mutually beneficial trading partnership is what a government is. Is this a government? Wikipedia defines government as a "compulsory political institution". The very fact that individuals have a choice in the matter is proof that it is the very opposite of a government. (P2) Here it is clear that my opponent has lost. He concedes that is in people's best interest to trade with each other and because of this my opponent argues: //"MY opponent thinks that just because their are benefits to being "fair" that everyone will magically act that way. "// Of course it doesn't magically mean they will, it just logically means that they will. An anarcho-capitalist society is built around self interest and egoism. The reason it works is because people who trade fairly benefit through mutual partnerships. That is the way capitalism is set up. People's wants and needs can be taken care of because the people with access to wealth and resources have enough self interest to trade with others to quantify that wealth. Labels and human behavior Next my opponent brings up a meaningless point. He misunderstands what I mean when I refer to individuals or groups of individuals as corporations. The only thing that I mean by this is that it is a person who is motivated by self interest(Or a group of individuals who worth in unity to accomplish the goal of quantifying their material wealth). My opponent argues that because we are speaking of human behavior, labels mean nothing. But the labels that I give to certain groups denote a specific relationship that they have with other individuals or groups of individuals. This is necessary in a debate such as this one. I only wish that over the course of this debate, my opponent and I could have communicated better. My opponent also seems to have taken this debate without much knowledge on how an anarcho-capitalist society works. However even as my opponent and I did not communicate very well, I am confident that voters will see that. Good luck to my opponent in the voting period.