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

"Socialism is fairer than capitalism"What is your definition of fair in this context? who is the determiner of what is fair?It is for the judges, i.e. the individual people of the world to decide which system is fairer and which system is preferable to live in.Is the fact that Lebron James a better basketball player than me enough to give me the right to break his legs so that we are on equal footing? This is a complete strawman attempt. But if you must look at Socialism this way then socialism is forbiding the Basketball player to take steroids so that Lebron James and you are on equal footing. BUT it is the capitalist who wishes to break the legs of the lower and middle classes (i.e. the few looting from the many) so that they may buy private jets and multiple sports cars (which they certainly do not need). Nothing has been proven better to rise people out of poverty than capitalism. Think about the industrial revolution. Not to say that the Industrial revolution was bad, but the primary reason why Europe advanced so much was due to their vast colonies and imperialism. For every one rich european, there were five poor africans and asians. Even within Europe, most of the wealth was concentrated into the hands of the few.I do not know how Con thinks the lives of ordinary people during the Industrial revolution got better. If anything, the squalor of worker's houses and the inhumanely long working hours (which were as long as 16) and got only one day of rest. The employers purposely payed their employees as low as possible (10 modern day US cents an hour, or 10 $ a week)[1].Despite what Con says, this was not an improvement from before. Due to the terrible living standards, life expenctancy actually fell to a mere 25 years in Liverpool, England. Whilst other industrial cities are a better, the falling living standards and life expectancy is a pattern repeated in every industrial capitlist city, all the way up to 1860.But i'm interested in your attribution of 22 000 children dying and 1 Billion in poverty to capitalism. My only question is: WHAT capitalism? There's no capitalism in Somalia. There's no capitalism in north Korea, in Liberia.There may be no Capitalism in North Korea, but Liberia is a capitlist country, most businesses are controlled by people of Lebanese, Indian and Chinese descent.[3] Besides, it is the capitalist countries in Europe that exploited Africa and Asia and made them into the poverty stricken areas they are now. In a free market, there is no barriers to entry to any given field. There would be more competition, and therefore a true monopoly would be less likely.Incorrect. In a free market, there would be no GOVERNMENT barriers to entry in any field. However, there are natural barriers present. One such barrier is when there is 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.But why such a fate to a small company? Because the larger company can lower prices and can afford to make a temporary loss for a while until the new company loses all its customers and runs out of business (the company being new, cannot afford to make lossses), then the large company will be able to make huge profits as they now control the market, monopoly. An example of a non coercive monopoly would be if say phone company x owns a bigger share of the market than phone company y.Over time in the total free market society, the company x will eventually run company y and any other competitors out of business and we will see the problem of monopoly.The government is the only entity that can truly claim a monopoly on the provision of certain goods and services be they roads, police/law courts, healthcare in my country etcThe 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. After all the judges and doctors just want money to survive the world where anything and everything requires money. The doctor and the judge do not have any legal obligation to be fair with the masses and the majority of them, if not all, would give preferential treatment to the wealthy few. Its sickening to imagine a world where the amount of money you have determines whether or not your life is worth saving, yet that is the anarcho capitalist system. In capitalism, rich and poor is more often than not based on being born into the right family, so your life will have more worth if you are born lucky, which is already the case (without the total free market, the total free market will make the situation ten times worse).I swear i'm not being asinine when I ask this, but does that not sound even slightly ridiculous to you?[In reference to my mcdonalds example]Secondly, you say that in an an[archo]cap[italist] society competition would be eliminated because presumably smaller companies wouldn't be able to compete etc etc. The mcdonalds example is quite exactly what would happen in an anarcho capitalist society. Is con suggesting that monopolies are impossible? I explained in the last round and this round why monopolies are inevitable in an anarcho capitalist society. Small businesses cannot compete with big businesses without anti-monopoly regulation.Another problem with anarcho capitalism is price fixing or collusion"Business collusion is an agreement between businesses that fraudulently prevents other businesses from being able to compete in the open market. Price fixing violates competition law because it controls the market price or the supply and demand of a good or service."[4]Without competition law, anti-monopoly laws and governemnt in general, this is an inevitability in anarcho capitalism. The affects? You will get ripped off and must pay a higher amount of money for products. Keep in mind that collusion and Price fixing could occur in hospitals, schools and courts. I simply cannot stress this enough, anarcho capitalism will allow price fixing and business collusion to maintain high prices to educate children and save people's lives.But one of the core issues here is that, in a free society nobody can force you to buy McDonalds or Coke if you don't want to.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.Some competitors will arise, or they'll find another means.Rise of competition in a monopolistic industry is nothing short of a miracle. Also, please specify by what you mean by 'another means' If Target offers a higher wage than Walmart, the employee is completely free to work there instead. And if there are no other job opportunities, then he/she should be grateful to have a job period.Target cannot hire an unlimited number of people can they? Also now that Con brings this up, would it be fair that Target employees get a higher wage than Walmart for doing the exact same job? Many times, the employee is bound by contract or has no other job opportunities (under no fault of his own). Con says that he/she should be grateful to have a job. That is easy to say, when you are not working 16 hours a day making 10 dollars a week. Not to suggest that pre 1860 working conditions will come back in a modern day anarcho capitalist society, but defintely wages will reduce and working day will be longer and harsher. Now that person can simply not work at that company, but if the person is unemployed, he cannot feed his family or provide medicine for his children when they are ill because in anarcho capitalism, survival requires money. Anything and everything requires money. So much so that Money trumps morality.The soviet union was socialist. All citizens were equal. Well, all equally poor and miserable. They had equal opportunity... to go straight to the gulag. The progress made by the Soviet Union is outstanding. Things were far far worse under Czar Nicholas II, the worker and the peasants were subejcted to harsh feudal like conditions and lived in conditions similar to the English lower class in Liverpool in pre 1860. It took the Communists from 1917 to 1961 (44 years) to go from a third world country to a space faring super power being the first country in the world to send people to space.Now I agree that, especially under Stalin, there was political repression with the gulags and lack of freedom of expression. However, this is not a factor of socialism (USSR was socialist economically but that does not mean that everything about it is socialist). No part of government ownership of means of production requires people to be sent to the gulag or to live in terrible conditions.I could infact argue that Slavery was a product of capitalism. The drive for cheap labour and profit encouraged the rich to enslave people and treat them as property. Unlike the gulags, this IS a direct factor of capitalism and the drive for profit that is a core of capitalism. Con is quick to denounce government intervention into the market as immoral, however it is the governments that abolished and freed millions of slaves.And don't tell me [USSR] isn't " real socialism."...Now, I know that immediately you are going to Point to various country's like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and various othersDo not make assumptions before I make my argument.Sources:[1]http://firstindustrialrevolution.weebly.com...[2]http://www.economist.com...[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]http://business-law.freeadvice.com...