Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

"First, the notion that the free market "has proven itself in practice" is meaningless when one considers that it never has been practiced. Theory is all we've got." Though record of an entirely free-market cannot be found, surely my opponent would agree that nations leaning farther towards a free-market can observably be seen as more prosperous than those which are not. Besides that, yes, it is simply theory. "It presumes either a natural impossibility of force-- contradicted by millenia of human history-- or something else being in place." Do you assume that this thing which need be in-placed is government? Preventing force by implementing force...that makes a lot of sense. The great mass of the atrocities throughout human history of which you speak were caused by government. "But what does it mean to allow competition in retributive force, which is the unique purpose of a government? It means-- that multiple parties can in the same context determine the outcome of a court case, or some equivalent thereto at will." This is a very common misconception about Anarchy. Competing courts does NOT mean over-lapping of contradicting laws or legal actions. A person would choose to enter into contract with a certain court system or not. If they do, they are bound by it's laws. If they don't, they are bound by no laws but take risk of having their rights abused by others. With law as voluntary, you are free to weigh the risks involved and make a decision on what you see to be in your best interest. You may choose to enter whatever system you like, maybe Socialist, maybe Capitalist, or you could keep to yourself, and you could do it all without having to move to a new area. If someone doesn't like your system, which many do not, yet they live in it, they would either have to move or deal with it. This doesn't sound pleasurable at all. But in my system, they merely need to be refunded their last contract then buy a new one and still keep their beloved home. Addressing the war issue: Though my system would stop war between nations, it would open the door for war between business. I must say, though neither are good, the latter is a much better thing than the former. Not only would they be on a much less disastrous scale but it would also insure that the good-guy usually wins. How? Because whichever side is more beneficial to the market will have more money than the other. Again we see, letting the free-market work will bring more economic efficiency and ultimately more happiness for all. "two conflicting laws cannot at once reign supreme at the same time." Again, my system does not imply this. Every individually makes a choice about the laws governing their own property. No conflicting laws. "It is not an initiation of force for a government to defend it's jurisdictional property. If a government does initiate force by doing something else, they should be rebelled against, but whichever party disposes of them acquires the jurisdiction." Jurisdiction cannot be owned, only the tools to implement it. And the tools which government possess to implement such are not of legitimate ownership, having been forcibly taken from individuals.