A Libertarian Socialist society would be more free than an Anarcho Capitalist society.

That my opponent can liken a voluntary relationship such as that between employer and employee with slavery shows a total naivety about both slavery and the market place. Needless to say this is a gross insult to the millions or tens or even hundreds of millions of people who throughout the sad history of our species were owned by another. What would the slaves who worked sixteen hours in cotton fields, being whipped mercilessly and watching their women get raped think when you equate your lot in life, that is working at Starbucks serving cafe au lait to pretentious yuppies with theirs? And of course the reality of our modern society is that you are NOT forced to work. At least where I am from there are plenty of places which give out free meals, shelters, one can sleep in the rough or even survive in the forests. You can go on welfare, steal, go to jail, work for yourself, live off savings... there are in fact countless alternatives to working for a living. And you get your choice of thousands of different occupations, thanks to capitalism and the division of labour society. And all of this leaves aside the fact that there is no socio economic system in which one CANNOT 'work or starve'. Does my opponent imagine that the collective would allow me to freeload, to mock them all day and eat from the common store without working? At least state socialism - terribly flawed as this ideology is - attempts a solution to the problem of economic calculation. Anarcho-socialism, or syndicalism, or libertarian-socialism does not. What you would have is absolute chaos, anarchy in the pejorative sense. On the market, consumer demand informs entrepreneurs through price signals exactly how much of what is needed wear. If people start eating more ham sandwhiches, then the price of pigs, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, mustard etc. goes up and entrepreneurs can make profits by bringing these things to market. Likewise with anything else. But how exactly are these anarcho-syndicalists council's supposed to determine how much of what to produce, or where to send it after it's been produced, without a price system derived from market activities to inform their actions? It would be total guess work and the economic system as a whole would quickly collapse. Weber's definition of the state as a monopoly on force within a given geographic area is apt. I would be tempted to amend it to include a monopoly on arbitrage as well and I must also confess that I have a soft spot for Oppenheimer's definition of the state as the organization of the political means. There are two ways to obtain wealth. The first is the economic means, that is production, exchange or anything that occurs voluntarily on the market. The second is to forgo the trouble of production and simply take what another has produced - the political means. This is why anarcho-capitalists hate the state. The state does not prop up capitalism. It is the complete opposite of capitalism. For all the pejoratives hurled it's way, capitalism is really nothing more than a series of mutually beneficial trades between individuals. Far from protecting private property, the state with it's never ending taxes, regulations and confiscations is the greatest enemy of private property and the most steady encroacher thereupon. It's important to understand that no one knows what form a truly voluntary society would take. Nock posits that any increase in state power (that is, when the government expands it's scope and takes over or monopolizes a new area or industry) comes with a corresponding decrease in social power. The inverse is also true. As we eliminate the state society will step in to do the things which the state was doing that we all want to continue. Yes, there would be police and courts, of some form, although exactly what form is impossible to say. But the very point is that they would not be a MONOPOLY on force but a market on force. Different police forces would be a check on each other, to ensure that rampant criminality did not get unpunished and to allow consumers to boycott if they feel their rights are being violated by one particular agency. Freedom of speech, like all rights, is derived from property. I do not have the right to go into your house and lecture you about capitalism. All I have is the freedom to use my body in any way I please. The notion that an inferior would be free to speak their mind to a superior in your system is ludicrous. When the state - and what you in fact agitate for is a state, you just want to call it a worker's council instead - controls everything then those who have power within the bureaucracy are all powerful. One wrong word and then you will not be able to draw from the common store, you will be labelled a subversive, accused of hoarding or some other bogus crime and put to death. When you own nothing, control nothing, you are utterly at the whim of those who control everything. One merely has to examine the history of all societies in which goods were communally owned in order to see this occurring. My opponent wants to tell you that this time will be different, that those were not really examples of socialism, that what he promises is utopia but the reality is there is only economic freedom and when that is taken away you are simply a slave to those who wield power over you.