Bring it On

As a note, from hereon I will be shortening 'anarcho-capitalism' to AnCap.Contention: Impartialty in an AnCap court systemMy opponent's point here is that due to a profit motive, it would be unlikely that a court system could be truly impartial in matters of the law. The main reason for AnCap court impartialty would be because of the profit motive, the point my opponent brought up allegedly as a problem for an AnCap society. For instance, AnCap courts would not be government courts run for profit, they would not have jurisdiction over everyone in a given territory regardless of their reputation or record. In an AnCap society, courts would most likely be third party arbitrators agreed upon by the parties involved. For instance, part of my contract with Defense Agency X would be that in the event of a dispute with someone who uses Defense Agency Y, we would go to Court Z. This is obviously not only beneficial to me and my defense agency, but anyone else who would like to be prepared in the event of a legal dispute since if we cannot agree on an arbitrater, the difficulty of dispute resolution would be increased exponentially. In this case, one voluntarily decides what court one would be subjected to in the event of disputes. Since a Court runs on profit(customers), it would be in their financial interest to remain as impartial as possible. Though bribes would exist(as they do in every governmental court system as well, such is human nature), arbitraters would have a stronger incentive not to accept them as in the event that they are caught, their credibility as an impartial arbitrater is gone.Contention: Military agencies and agreementIn this point, my opponent argues that it would be virtually impossible for all members of a society to agree how to split funds to provide a common army for their territry. But this point shows a misunderstanding of AnCap. People do not need to necessarily fund a common army. Defense services can easily be provided on an individual or corporate basis.IndividualIt isn't too hard to imagine companies arising in which individuals pay some voluntarily agreed upon fee for protection from aggression, similar to the way insurance contracts are set up. In this way, individuals who feel they need defense services decide upon one of available market options who agree to defend them against an array of threats for a nominal fee. As with arbitraters, a reputation for fair and objective service is incentivised via the profit motive. Who's going to hire an agency that will stir up trouble just to attract work?CorporateIn this form of defense services, an owner of a business, street, etc. either hires an independent defense agency to protect consumers and ensure a crime free environment in their place of business(who wants to go to McDonalds and get shot?) or provide their own defense services. Either way, it is in their financial interest to create a safe environment for potential consumers. Contention: Deregulation in an AnCap societyMy opponent here argues that in the abscence of laws against illicit substances, potentially dangerous weapons, or other potentially hazardous materials, they would just be available on the street and societal havoc would become rampant. I will deal with this point on two front, insurance and regulation in an AnCap society.1- Weapons: Insurance against harmIf my opponent is arguing that in the absence of regulation, store ownes would sell rocket launchers and turrets to random people off the street, we must look at the intrinsic makeup of an AnCap society to see the solution. In AnCap, it is a given that there would be no government to enforce regulations on things an individual can buy such as guns or other potentially harmful products. Now since the effects of market transactions would be left wholly up to individuals, it would be in their best interest to purchase some form of insurance just like people do now in the event of a harmful occurence(sustained injuries or in case one is sued). There would also likely be factors to affect insurance rates and premiums just like there is today. In an insurance plan, owning a nuclear weapon would likely drive up one's premiums enough so that it would completely bankrupt anyone but the richest few to obtain one(since they would have such a massive amount of possible liability). This factor would apply though to a lesser extent to other potentially harmful products, varying by their degree of potential harm. Since the burden of paying these extra premiums would fall on each individua, it would be in their best financial interest to keep a weapon strictly for defensive purposes(if hey have one) or perhaps for sport(hunting).2- Food, drugs, etc: Regulation of qualityRegulation need not be government issued. While it would not be legally enforced in an AnCap society, it would most likely be in a companies best interest to do most of the things the government already forces them to do(listing side-effects, health information, and other helpful information would be profittable for a company to give to it's consumers. Why? One, because in the abscence of government enforced regulation and there still being consumer want for regulation, private regulatory industries would likely develop. These would not be compulsory, but a company seen as offering safer products would be more trusted than a company with no qualifications. Obviously, there would be people who will fore-go this option and opt for unregulated products for whatever reason. Of course that is their choice in the face of regulated options. As with court systems, impartialty would be economical as a regulatory company known for skewing their results will not be performing the functions consumers want, reliability and objectivity.Contention: Immorality in the abscence of victimless crimesIn this point, my opponent argues that a government is needed to stop "immoral" acts such as pornography. First, I would like to ask my opponent what is specifically immoral about pornography to make it need outlawing? No one is necessarily hurt and if anyone is, then my response to your first and second contentions can be applied. Also, I would ask for more specifications on what else is considered "immoral" here as it is hard to argue against the effects of something I don't know about. If you are referring to any victimless crime than here would be my response.Contention: AnCap provision of "public goods"My opponent in this point did not really provide an argument against the idea of an AnCap society providing "public goods"(some of which it already does to an extent(hospitals, education, roads, libraries). So far in my opponent's argument, he has provided no argument proving that private enterprise cannot supply these. I will have to ask for him to supply a reason why these things can absolutely not be provided privately.Contention: Environmental protection in AnCapThis point by my opponent argues that in the abscence of the government there would be no one to protect the environment. However, he again misrepresents or misunderstands the necessary economic makeup of an AnCap society, namely private property righs. If a lake is owned by Person A and Company B is pollting it, Person A has a legal claim against Company B, just like if it had been trespassing on his land or doing anything else to violate his property rights. As such, Person A would have a valid claim in court to stop Company B from polluting his property. When one applies this to a privately owned world, one exands this concept in practice but not in principle.ConclusionThrough lack of space I am unable to respnd to all of my opponent's points. I will try to respond to his points on monopolies and currency next round if possible. Due to the nature of this debate, it is unsurprising. I would also like to point out that my opponent has yet to show why his system works any better, he only provided one paragraph claiming it would fix the problems he mentioned.