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

Clearly, you are equating chattel slavery with wage slavery. That's why you use the word slavery. Of course such a position is idiotic and you are wise to run away from it; I suggest you change your vernacular to reflect how your position has evolved. It is not wage slavery because it is not slavery in any sense of the word and to equate the two is to spit in the face of everyone who has ever been a slave or everyone who is a slave today. What about migrant workers, who, horrors! work for less than the minimum wage. Well what about them? Why is it that people break the law, take tremendous risk to our own lives in order to work these ostensibly terrible jobs? The reality is, they're not terrible jobs, not by the standards of people who live in nations where laissez-faire capitalism never had the chance to take hold. These horrible demeaning jobs that you would no doubt like to legislate out of existence are in fact a tremendous opportunity for people to earn money, to send money back home to take care of poor relatives, people who are poor not by the absurd standards of western society where owning your own house and car and having air conditioning is "poor" but where you don't have food, or clothes or soap poor. The real crime isn't that employers hire these people but instead the minimum wage itself which doesn't increase wages but mandates unemployment specifically for those who are low skilled and generally poor. This is of course well understood in economics but my opponent, like all of his ilk, does not understand the first thing about economics yet feels qualified to lecture all day on economic topics. As far as SOCIAL welfare, it absolutely would exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. It is STATE welfare which would be abolished. Social welfare, unlike state welfare, is personal and not a right, it is targeted and can easily be withdrawn if it is being abused. As for the work requirements for welfare, that's a joke. Money is one of the most important inventions of mankind. If you eliminate it you are back to barter for trade, and of course the problem with barter is the double coincidence of wants. Presumably your answer is to have all goods put into the common store, but then there are insoluble problems here, as was discovered in soviet russia, in the early experiments in communism implemented by the Christian millienialists, in Cuba and everywhere else. Who exactly deserves what? Inevitably the people who are in power, the people who are in charge of the common store get whatever they want and there is little left over for anyone else. Why anyone believes this foolish nonsense despite the absolute disaster it has always been when it is implemented is beyond me. Advertising doesn't create demand. It does serve the very important task of letting consumers know what is on the market. You can advertise a crappy product all you want and you won't sell much. Entrepreneurs make profits by bringing things to consumers that they want and can use. The distinction between 'personal property' and private property is a very convenient fiction for communists who suddenly realize how absolutely critical private property is and need some way to smuggle it back into their system. You can summarize it by saying private property is everything owned by everyone else, personal property is everything owned by me. And that is the core of this philosophy - what is yours is mine and what is mine is mine. Just loot what other people have, because we want it, and we can take it, and who gives a damn about how hard they worked to create it. It's easier to rob than it is to work.