Bring it On

Wages and affordabilityPrivate ContractorsIn this argument, my opponent claims that in an AnCap system, a private security firm would likely charge "over $1,000 per mercenary, per day". Of course he does not give any proof of this point but apparently completely makes the number up. His next claim is that Blackwater operatives in the Iraq War could make "upward of $200,000 per year" and that most individuals and corporations would not be able to afford this. However my opponent apparently lumps in all private security firms irrespective of their primary function. Blackwater(Xe services) has been contracted by the U. S. government to protect high profile diplomats, public officials, embassies, etc. These are people who would be able to afford these services obviously, regardless of whether they were provided by the government. However, just like any other commodity(bananas, cars, houses), defense would likely have a range of prices according to different factors(quality, type of defense, etc. ). Not all private contractors will charge $1,000 a day or $200,000 a year and my opponent has provided no reason for readers to believe so. Assuming that every defense agency will cost as much as the most expensive one is like assuming that every car will cost $100,000 just because the best cost that much. My opponent here is blatantly ignoring the market forces that cause all other commodities produced to not have unform prices. Utilities, food, water, etcMy opponent also makes several fallacious points when referring to other servies. He continuously ignores market structures and how they cause prices not to be uniformly high(assuming the industry is not new and budding such as particle acceleration). He assumes prices for utilities would become inflated with no justification. Basic economic analysis would actually show the opposite. As monopolies on services(by the government) would be done away with, competition among multiple suppliers would lead to overall lower prices and better service since one need not buy from a corporation one does not wish to. My opponent also claims that water ourifiers could charge as much as they wish. Again, no justification. Why is water purification different from food services? Both are needed to survive but we see that most people can buy food for little money. Again, my opponent provides no reason whatsoever to why water purification services are any different from other services where sellers do not charge as much as they wish. My opponent also claims bribes would most likely be necessary for the use of checkpoints along unguarded roads since bandits would probably hold them up. Of course the behavior of the bandits is simply trespassing(using and profiting off of the already owned road). As such, it is in the road owners best interest not to allow this to happen as since people will look for a cheaper route, it will become uneconomical to use his road and thus he will lose money. As my opponent so adamently keeps pointing out, profit is the only reason corporations exist so why wouldn't the owner of the road try to stop bandits from profiting off of his services? The Court SystemI did not, as my opponent claims, say that all American and Canadian court systems are corrupt. I merely pointed out that, contrary to my opponent's point, a socialized court system does not get rid of corruption. This along with the point that it would be uneconomical to be a corrupt judge in an AnCap system makes my opponent's corruption point moot. My opponent then makes the same claim that the arbitrater in a dispute would likely be biased in favor of whoever is paying him. Again, I will point out that since the plaintiff and defendent would need to agree on who the arbiter is in the first place, they would both be paying him(most likely through their defense firms). Thus there would not be a conflict of interest unless one of the people tried to pay the judge a little extra to get the ruling they wanted in which case I refer my opponent to my point about corruption being uneconomical since arbiters are chosen for their reputations for fairness and objectiveness. Military My opponent doesn't fully address my point about larger rival military countries as the same as his point about larger rival military contracters so I will just address what he does say. First, he claims that even if a country falls due to military conquest, it will often times resurge. Of course, my opponent ignores the many, many countries who have not done this such as poorer countries ravaged by military conquest and war such as Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. He asks if an individual can come back after his defense firm has given out. I'll ask him the same question. Can a country come back after being completely destroyed by foreign militaries? This is the same principle just applied to a larger scale. My opponent is trying to put a private defense firm in the worst situation and expect it to get out while ignoring that States are not immune to the same problem. SomaliaAgain, I will repeat myself. Somalia is not an AnCap society. It merely has a weak central government due to a Civil War and various rebel forces. My opponent claims that my point about it being in a Civil War helps his point that an AnCap society would lead to violent disputes. However, Somalia did not erupt in Civil War after it's central government lost much of it's power. Somalia broke into Civil War because of disputes as to how the government ought to operate(Somalia Democratic Movement, Sonalia National Alliance, etc). Somalia is not violent because there is no government, it is violent because no one agrees as to the proper make up and function of the State. Public RoadsMy opponent again does not understand the purpose of mantaining any roads in the first place. Roads are a service. People want and need roads to get from place to place and thus it is in one's economic interest to maintain roads that one owns or has built in an effort to get people to use them. If I own a small grocery store am I not going to sell anything because I'm not as big as Walmart? I assume most people don't want to drive on an all grass road, so mantaining one's road actually is something one would do in order to make a profit. I enjoyed this debate with my opponent and urge voters to vote fairly according to who they believe best defended their points.