Anarcho-capitalism is impossible.

Thanks for the topic hailtothethief. I don't honestly know why no one would take this debate, which is partially why I did. There's no use bickering with the instigator in the comments section. As in any debate, definitions must be justified with dictionaries and must be rooted in the real world, and are thus up for debate. ==Definitions== Random House Webster's College Dictionary defines anarchy as "a state of society without government" and "a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society." Princeton's Wordnet defines capitalism as "an economic system based on private ownership of capital." Princeton's Wordnet defines impossible as "something that cannot be done." My opponent points out in the comments section that anarchy, from the Greek, means "without ruler." This is entirely correct. However, Google Dictionary defines ruler as "A person exercising government or dominion." Without ruler means without government. My opponent mistakenly believes "without ruler" to mean "without hierarchy." However, hierarchy is a way of organizing things that does not necessary place value judgments on them (e.g. that higher is better or stronger). In fact, hierarchies can be a web, rather than a ladder, and can include only horizontal linkages, for example the hierarchy of species classification. Thus, we can see from these definitions that in fact, the opposite is true – capitalism is not possible without anarchy, since when a government exists, the economic system is based on hybrid ownership, not private ownership, of capital. ==Burden of proof== I should merely have to answer my opponent's objections to an-cap; summarizing Rothbard here to defend my own case would just be tedious, especially when my opponent may immanently forfeit, as new members often do. He has the burden to show it's impossible; by definition, disproving all objections to a possibility being actualized would prove that that possibility is possible. Anything is possible, unless disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. ==Rebuttal== R1) The false argument for hierarchy An-cap is all about the non-aggression axiom, which allows for voluntary associations to exist, but not involuntary ones (i.e. the government forcing you to accept their sovereignty). Choosing to sell your labor is a voluntary association, meaning that even though my opponent has created a hierarchy, this does not mean that working for someone is not anarcho-capitalism. Hierarchies are all, by definition, fictional orderings created by humans. I could say that a grasshopper should be placed above a human in my hierarchy of zen; that proves nothing about an-cap. It's my opponent's own personal value judgment, which is clearly informed by Marxist ideology. Which leads me to the second absurdity with this argument, which is that it sounds more like an endorsement of anarcho-communism than a proof that anarcho-capitalism is impossible. I ask my opponent if he believes that anarchy is possible (just under collective ownership) and he obviously believes capitalism is impossible, so is his only argument that if you finagle the definitions, that the two are incompatible? Lastly, my opponent clearly acknowledges that anarcho-capitalism is POSSIBLE, i.e. that it can exist, but argues that it may be undesirable, by creating hierarchies. There is a difference between the possibility of something and its desirability. R2) The Security Objection My opponent argues that private firms may create a monopoly (properly termed a cartel, since collusion of multiple businesses is not a monopoly) on the use of force, thus recreating a government. There are two main problems with this. The first is that cartels can rarely be maintained because cooperation nearly always breaks down, through cheating. Let's consider a game theory game, and work in reverse as you are supposed to do in game theory. Scenario: Company A and Company B collude to pay a security firm to extort money from private citizens and call it "taxation" Step 2: Company B realizes that it can pay the security firm a bit more to back-stab and destroy Company A, allowing it to keep all the extorted tax revenue. Doing so doubles its tax revenue, meaning it can afford to give the security company a significant amount of money and still turn a profit on the back-stabbing venture. The Company is stealing from citizens and violating the non-aggression axiom so it clearly has no morals. It chooses to backstab. Step 1: Company A must decide whether to enter a cartel with Company B. Knowing Company B will backstab it, it decides not to collude. The second problem with the cartel is that private security firms have an incentive to undercut the arrangement. Let's say Company A and Company B hire Security Firm A to extort "taxes" from 311 million Americans. Let's say they pay Security Firm A the reasonable sum of $20 billion a year. Let's say I want to start a security firm, called Security Firm B. I offer to protect American citizens from all aggression (including aggression from other security firms) for the reasonable fee of $100 a year. Currently, Americans are being extorted by Security Firm A ("taxed") for 50% of their income, which is approximately a total of $7 trillion a year. Clearly, Americans will pay the $100 a year, which amounts to profits of $31.1 billion a year. I am making a lot more money than Security Firm A, which lets me buy lots more guns and soldiers. Suddenly the cartel fails. Thus, the free market has solved our security problem. As security firms compete to offer better and more fair protection services to the public, the price will decrease and the services will improve. Look to Somalia, whose security has actually improved in the absence of government (compared to security under its former government) by allowing security competition between private firms. Negated.