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

What is the State? Max Weber defined it as the monopoly over the legitimate uses of force and violence. As Michael Parent further explains: "It is not the mediator an creator of policy as such. It is the purveyor, it is the protector of the status quo, of law and order. The difference between government and the state is the difference between the city council and the police, get it? Its the difference between the Congress and the CIA. Its a theoretical distinction about empirically overlapping actualities." Now, I am not in favor of even having a Congress. Municipal wasn't even the right word. Local self government, which is decentralized, directly democratic when possible, indirectly democratic (but with safe guards such as the immediate recall of any delegates who do not represent their constituents) is not Statist. A police force is statist, and there would not be any police force - citizens will stop criminals themselves. (In Kansas City, there was an experiment when police patrol was secretly discontinued in neighborhoods, and there was no effect on the crime rate). theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-101 Now, not only would there be local self government, but all institutions will be controlled by the people who participate in them (hence, the worker's councils). Now, the worker's councils would democratically control the workplace - town councils would make decisions within the community. Indigenous tribes which were basically anarchistic did at times need to make group decisions. Anarchy means without rulers, it does not mean without rules - hence, no police, no Presidents, Governors, Mayors, CEOs. People would collaborate. Libertarian Socialists are okay with local self government without the state. On the other hand, Anarcho Capitalists are okay with states without government. Anarcho Capitalists are okay with private defense companies because they say, "they defend people, and not areas." But of course, people live in areas, and their property has a geographical location i.e. area. Every piece of property protected by a private defense company is an area where someone has a monopoly over the legitimate use of force. Therefore, Anarcho Capitalists want thousands of states controlled exclusively by a class of people which can afford its own armies. The average consumer of defense services may have a home alarm system, but people who can afford their own army will act as despots. We're talking about real Neo Feudalism in the 21st century - tyranny from the top down, not freedom from the bottom up. My opponent mentioned private police, private courts. I assume the prisons will be private. Well, when your making a profit by keeping people in Jail, bad things tend to occur; bribed judges, and extraordinarily long sentences. For instance, look at this: www.inquisitr.com/211740/u-s-judges-admit-to-jailing-children-for-money/ Now, my first contention is about the origins of anarchism and Libertarianism. The first people to describe themselves as anarchists, or to (politically) describe themselves as Libertarians were in fact socialists. Murray Rothbard, the man who coined the term "Anarcho Capitalism" said, "that we are not anarchists, and those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." He explained that "all" anarchists have "socialistic elements in their doctrines." Now, my opponent has had 4 rounds to refute this point, but he has not because he could not. It is highly relevant, because if Anarcho Capitalists cannot be described as anarchists or libertarians, than how can they claim to bring about more liberty then those who are, in Rothbards words,"on firm etymological grounds?" My opponent would have needed to argue that anarchism and libertarianism are somehow authoritarian, and he has not made any such argument, because he knows that such an argument would sound ridiculous. My second contention is about wage slavery. At first, my opponent claimed that I was being insensitive to people who have been chattel slaves by equating chattel slavery with wage slavery. I did nothing of the sort. I pointed out that there have been numerous slave systems throughout history, and to equate any one of those systems to another system would be silly. I also pointed out that while chattel slaves are owned, and sold into slavery, wage slaves are rented, by the hour. My opponent could only talk about how insulting this was; he was not able to show you why or how someone could be free while that person is being rented by the hour, and being managed to boot. "Under capitalism people get paid roughly what they contribute to the production process." No, that isn't how a profit is made. Profit is made by "buying cheap and selling dear." That doesn't just refer to goods. That refers to the way labor is rented under a wage system. If input was equal to ouput, middlemen wouldn't be making fortunes due to capital gains and ridiculously unequal salaries. Now, I've already addressed my third contention (Capitalism and the State) in great detail. Clearly, Anarcho Capitalists are the statists, and Libertarian Socialists are against any state. "It is through the state that one can simply take, by force, what another has created and this is EXACTLY what my opponent plans to do." What is this, a conspiracy theory? I don't want to use the state to take anything by force. I want evolution. I want the market to evolve, and for worker owned cooperatives to gradually replace Corporations. Some more radical libertarian socialists favor worker takeovers, or expropriation. In my view, expropriation of an existing business is only warranted if that business is closing down. In Argentina, workers who otherwise would have lost their livelihoods due to the closing of factories, occupied, resisted, and expropriated these factories, and turned them into coops. I have no objection to that, because these factories would have closed. Expropriation itself is different from nationalization, because the means and ends are direct rather than indirect. In other words, workers act on their own, without any help from the state, and take over something which otherwise, mind you, would have been shut down. Now, other than that, I do not favor taking anything, I favor slowly evolving away from Capitalism, towards Libertarian Socialism. This entails starting up worker coops, and, if rather than shutting down a business, owners decide to put a business on sale, workers can put their money together, fundraise, and buy the business. That is what I favor. My opponent can put words in my mouth, he can argue against a straw man, but that doesn't mean a thing. "The reality is, that libertarian socialism, if enacted, would be an absolute hell hole, where people would toil for sixteen hours a day simply to scrounge a living out of the dirt." My opponent has been making this claim throughout the whole debate. He has not substantiated this claim with any examples of Libertarian Socialism being a hell hole. There is a good reason for this. The historical evidence suggests that Libertarian Socialism has been successful in the past. My opponent, for good reason, did not spend a moment talking about the Kibbutz, or about the Spanish Revolution.(Though the Fascists won the Spanish Civil War, Libertarian Socialism was widespread during the revolution and the economy did quite well). Contention 4: Freedom of speech. In a top down organization or society, there is less freedom of speech. This is especially true when you consider my third contention - rule by private armies could suppress free speech in and outside of the workplace. And to reiterate, though there will be voluntary self government and free association in a Libertarian Socialist society, there will be privately controlled states in a Anarcho Capitaist society. It isn't just freedom of speech; perhaps the greatest measure of freedom is one's control over work.