An AnCap system is superior to system x.

Opening - Yes, the sole purpose is for the protection (meaning defensive) of the society from foriegn threats. The routes that it takes to obtain that goal, however, are free to change, pending what is determined most efficient. I will go ahead and refute my opponent's arguments before presenting my own (though the may be tied together). A1 - "Free market for the win." R1 - My opponent states, "there is no correlation between output and customer satisfaction." However, this is begging the question. There is still a correlation between output and CS. After all, the people running the military, are still employees, and if they are not doing an adequate job, can be replaced. And as seeing as these individuals would likely be hired from private security companies (there would be a large number of private security companies since domestic issues would still be handled privately), there would be a lot of potential replacements just waiting to take the job (meaning replacing an individual that does not manage the resources sufficiently would be all too easy). A2 - "Why would they pay?" R2 - To this I say "Why would they cover?" It is well known that private insurance companies do not cover everything by default. If the risk of a foriegn invasion is high, insurance companies may drop that feature (and no longer offer it), as to take them off the hook. This ties into the "Free Rider issue" which will come up in my arguments. A3 - "Private defence; more efficient, more accountable" R3.1 - My opponent states, "In a Free Market, it is a given that strategic and technological advances are implemented as quickly as possible as various defence firms compete to satisfy the market, just as with any kind of business." However, this is again, begging the question. Technological advances are NOT implemented as quickly as possible, they are implemented when it is more cost effective for them to be implemented. This actually means that they are held off for as long as possible. Because when you bring out the next generation of technology, not only are your competeing with other companies, you are competing against your past products. If your current products continue to sell well and make you money, there is no reason to bring out the next generation. This can be seen easily with smart phone companies and computer companies. Particularly Apple. They have the technology to make the iphone much better than it is (as well as the ipod, ipad, and imac). However, they choose not to, because the current items continue to sell well, and to release their most advanced marterial is only going to cut into the profits of those past generations, and require them to spend more money on R&D (since they just played their entire hand). Free market competition means you only need to do well enough to win, not to do your best. R3.2 - Lastly, my opponent states, "Unlike a state defence force, a private firm can be taken to court and made to pay out damages." I have to ask why not? Of course a state defence force can be taken to court and pay out damages. Ours currently does, so there is no reason why this hypothetical one cannot. Now I will move on to my arguments. Free Rider Problem. National defense from a foriegn invader is not an individual issue. It is something that effects everyone, or no one. A nation does not invade and only attack some homes, and only concur some random patches of land. They taken entire sections, or the entire nation. If we are all paying into an insurance company, and they are providing our protection, what is my reason to also get that coverage? If I drop my coverage (which would only be a drop in the bucket to the insurance company), but everyone else continues to pay, I still get the protection (because an invading army is not going to single out my personal house and leave everyone else's alone), so there is absolutely no reason for me to pay. Now, we can take this to the other side. If no one (or almost no one) pays, why should I pay? My premiums alone are not going to provide the protection I need to fend off a foriegn army, and a foriegn army is not going to respect the fact that I am paying. Therefore, whether everyone else pays or not, it is wisest for me to not pay. Once enough people realize this, the entire national defense falls under the free market. Power in numbers A single, large military is more powerful than multiple small militaries. Even if the budgets are allowed to equal out. If you have 1 military that has a $50 billion a year budget, or 50 militaries that have a $1 billion a year budget. The single military will be able to provide better defence. And in years of peace, can devote larger sums of money to R&D for better equipment, to thus lower costs further (once the needed level of protection is obtained, efforts to maintain that level for lower costs would be attempted). Since character count is only going to grow, I will end this here and allow my opponent to make his case. Thank you,