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

I extend my unrefuted first contention. Contention 2: "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? " First, there is this pesky use of personal pronouns, and by using such pronouns, my opponent is assuming that I am complaining about MY lot in life. I'm not a wage slave, and I'm not complaining. Second, there is another assumption, which is that I am equating wage slavery with chattle slavery. I am not doing anything of the kind. These are two different types of slavery. Third, there is the red herring, that this is about a guy in Starbucks serving cafe au lait to pretentious yuppies. What about the migrant farm laborers who are paid below minimum wage? What about the people in meatpacking factories who cannot go to the restroom? When we're talking about Capitalism, the economy is so globalized that it is important to look at exploitation on a global scale. So for instance, the people in other countries who still work in sweat shops, the children in Pakistan who are forced to work in order to pay off debts (Nike is involved in the exploitation of those children) the estimated millions of people who are still chattle slaves. "Even though slavery is now outlawed in all countries,the number of slaves today remains as high as 12[5] to 27 million,.[6][7]" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery. And those are just the chattle slaves, the people who are forced to work for those who own them. Millions of human beings are still owned, and billions of people are rented. This is a degrading system - though it doesn't have to be this way. Next, my opponent goes into all the ways wage slavery is voluntary. "You can go on welfare, steal, go to jail, work for yourself, live off savings." Well, first of all, there are work requirements for welfare, and second, social welfare would not exist in an anarcho capitalist society. Even with welfare, private charity does not solve the problem of poverty, which causes 1 in 6 AMERICANS to go hungry. Steal - well that's a good point. When you live in a society where you can either go hungry, or rent yourself as a wage slave, or steal, there will be plenty of crime. Go to jail, again, that's great - either starve, lose freedom as a wage slave, or lose freedom behind bars. Live off savings - if you have savings to live off of. Typically, poor people DO NOT HAVE MONEY. Employ yourself, well that's a good point, in a libertarian socialist society, people can employ themselves in worker owned cooperatives. That is the way people can, working together, choose to liberate themselves. (In a Capitalist system, some have the skills and capital necessary to employ themselves, but this isn't an option for everyone. In a Libertarian Socialist system, people can work together and employ themselves.) "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?" Let me be clear. My opponent is right. Work or starve, on some level, is a necessary choice. At some point, coercing people into working is a necessary evil - otherwise, society would cease to function. Take a Kibbutz. In order to join a Kibbutz, people have to work for the Kibbutz. The thing that is unnecessary, is work for an employer and rent oneself at a wage which is lower than the value of your own labor whilst you surrender your freedom to those who manage you - or starve. Is work necessary? Yes. Is wage slavery necessary? No. "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." *where Now, this is just silly. First of all, during the evolutionary phase from Capitalism to Syndicalism, Worker owned coops and syndicates do respond to the market. In Revolutionary Spain, Syndicalism was very effective - economically speaking. In fact, in some cases, productivity went up 25%! Now, say you have a completely Libertarian Socialist society, and there is no longer any such thing as money. Well, the thing my opponent is forgetting is just how democratic this society will be. People can be in assemblies and say what they need, and the workers councils will take that into account. This coordination is not top down, it is bottom up, and therefore, it will be better suited to meet all of our needs. Now, free market Capitalism creates demand with slick advertizing. When people are placed above profits, and when people directly control the society they live in, demand will be organic, in the sense that people will know what they need, and what the worker coops should produce. The worker councils and coops will be aware of this. Contention 3: "The state does not prop up capitalism. It is the complete opposite of capitalism." So, Corporate welfare doesn't exist. Public Universities don't exist. The enforcement of contracts do not exist. The police does not exist. Bailouts - the socialization of losses and the privatization of profits, do not exist. This is an alternative universe. When speaking about modern, neoliberal Capitalism as we know it, we have to acknowledge the vital role the state plays in propping up big business. Now, Anarcho Capitalists typically make the distinction between "Crony Capitalism" and "free market Capitalism". It appears that my opponent is not even making this distinction. In response to my point about private defense forces, my opponent says, "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." Well, there might be different private police forces, but they will be controlled by the same socioeconomic class - the people who can afford their own private armies. And there will be a market, for violent, suppressive "defense" forces which cannot be held accountable - there are already examples of this. The Pinkerton army was used to violently break up strikes. Paramilitary groups in Central America are still being used to do this today. What will prevent this, the market? So long as there are people or companies willing to hire thugs, there will be a market for the use of violence against the powerless - the economcially powerless, for instance -- those who do not have the means to hire thugs. Contention 4: Freedom of speech "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." Sigh. My opponent is conflating private property rights over the means of production (factories and shops, for instance) with personal property rights. I do not believe in private property rights over the means of production, since this leads to wage slavery. I do strongly believe in personal property rights, over one's own home, family heirlooms, etc. No one has the right to take another person's home, but workers should have the right to collectively control and own a factory. Otherwise, they are not free. "The notion that an inferior would be free to speak their mind to a superior in your system is ludicrous." The notion that there would be an inferior or a superior in my system is ludicrous. In small shops, worker's councils will consist of every worker. In larger businesses, representatives could be recalled at any time.