Minarcho-Capitalism Should be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

I will not attempt to refute the claims you have made. Contention 1: Minarchism is strong where anarchy is weak. My opponent argues that under an anarchical system, police, firemen, courts, and other such useful structures for society would likely not exist or might not exist in an efficient fashion. Under this contention, there are three important things to consider: 1- The general stance of anarchists is to abide by the Non-Aggression-Principle, or the non-initiation of force. Breaking thing principle is inherently immoral, and is the most basic structure of how society should run. So, even if x is more practical than y, if x requires initiating force, y is morally superior to x. Under the basic mincarchist society, such structures as police and courts would exist through initiation of force, generally through taxation. Now, my opponent has stated a way around this, and if he can provide the solution (a solution that also avoids force), then he will successfully refute my counter claim. 2- No human is inherently good or bad. Rather, they have the potential to act on either morally righteous or malicious intentions. Given this, no structure of society will ever be flawless. Pointing out possible flaws in a societal structure does not immediately prove it is inferior. Rather, we ought to look at all possible structures and determine which one is truly superior. So, even if anarchy does include the issues that my opponent provided, are those combined issues truly inferior to all of the combined issues of a minarchist state? Given that my opponent has made the claim that he could craft a minarchist society without taxation, I would like to see his full argument for that society before I list out all possible flaws and then compare that to the anarchist society. 3- Are my opponent's claims accurate? In an anarchist society, would the societal organizations such as the police force, fire department, etc, necessarily be privatized or ceased to exist? I would argue that it doesn't have to be the case. Right now, in American society, these organizations exist, and we imagine that they exist because the people desire to pay taxes to allow them to exist. The issue is that everyone is forced to pay, and the benefit of an anarchist society is that every individual would have the option to donate the money to public organizations. The public fire department could either help only those who provide money (so it isn't unjust for them to opt out of not saving those who didn't donate), or a selection of the population could donate enough so that the society could function for everyone. Either option is morally superior to the minarchist state, where these structures would be forced on people. Contention 2: The impracticality of Anarchism. My opponent raises the issue that an inherent desire of certain humans is to conquest land. Given that conquerors will eventually desire to take over land, which societal structure provides the better solution? Under a minarchist state, an invading army would know exactly where to attack- the organized center of the army. Once an invading army conquers the central control of the entire state, they then have legitimate power over the entire state. This allows for an easier takeover of land and resources. Under the anarchist society, there is no central authority. If an invading army wants to conquer land, they can only conquer as much as they can control. Since there is no central authority or rule of law, they would need to create these structures as they continue to conquer. This method is fragile, as it then weakens out the army over time. Also, the ruled societies would not imagine their conquerors to be legitimate rulers, so there would always be the possibility of opposition. Also, imagine two societies side by side, a minarchist society and an anarchist society. If you were an invading army, would you consider going after the minarchist society, where you only need to take over the central government to have power over the entire land, or would you rather attempt to use all available men and station them over the entire land of the anarchist society, continually enforcing illegitimate rule over them? Clearly, the minarchist society would be easier to dominate.