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

I'm basically restarting this debate, because otherwise, it would have only been 3 rounds with the same rules (so really, two rounds of arguments, which would have been a bit lame. ) First, I'll define some key terms. 1. Anarcho Capitalism - (from Investopedia) A term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses. 2. Libertarian Socialism - (from All words. com) Any of a group of political philosophy, philosophies dedicated to opposing coercive forms of authority and social hierarchy: prominent examples being capitalism and the State; especially one that encourages the direct seizure by the people of the means of production with the aim of moving toward the creation of a radical direct democracy. 3. More - on balance, there is more freedom. 4. Free - enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another. Value - this debate will be a value debate. The value is freedom, so whichever side can show that the system said side advocates has more freedom will win the debate. Since the idea of libertarian socialism is fairly foreign to most people, I should elaborate on precisely what it is - thereby clearly setting the terms of the debate. In fact, I will not make any of my contentions in this round, and it would be good if my opponent also waits till the second round to make arguments. Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism, in fact the first anarchists - Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, and others were socialists. The first time the word libertarian was used politically (it had been used previously in a philosophical context during the enlightenment) was in 1857, by Joseph DeJaques - a socialist. Despite the left wing roots of libertarianism, the word libertarian has been taken so far from its roots, by people from Rothbard to Ron Paul, that many see libertarian socialism as an inherent contradiction. It really isn't. The Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR) used a few misleading words. 1. The USSR was not a union of Republics, and 2. they were not remotely socialist. Socialism is the abolition of as much hierarchy as possible, whether this is a hierarchical class system or hierarchical nation states. This is why "State Centered Socialism" is the inherent contradiction; this is also why libertarian socialism makes perfect sense. Mao, Stalin, Castro, and others may have been on the totalitarian left (and Castro still is) but the totalitarian left is not socialist; the libertarian left is. Socialism is worker ownership and control over the land and means of production. How is this done without a central government? Well, there are many examples of this being done without government - worker owned cooperatives, Kibbutz (until fairly recently), Revolutionary Spain during the 30s, and scores of indigenous (though, not industrial) societies which are free of government bureaucracy and which communally own and share land. A worker owned cooperative is a business which has worker owners who have all of the profits, and who democratically control the business. Larger cooperatives do at times need management, but worker's councils representing workers help run those cooperatives. If the world was to become anarchist, there would no longer be any nation states; there would be a fairly loose Global Confederation, a cooperative of worker owned cooperatives. The only function of this Confederation would be to facilitate economic cooperation among worker owned cooperatives throughout the world. There would also be directly democratic municipal government, all the people in a town or (in larger cities) neighborhood, can make local decisions, and these assemblies would work together at a global level in a different global confederation. Anarchy is complete self government, rules without rulers, and the abolition of the nation state/use of coercive force. As the coops become more widespread, and replace corporations, society becomes more socialist, without help from any nation state. But how does this democracy get stopped from becoming the type of mob rule which threatens the rights of the individual? Well, there would be free association, so if an individual wants to leave a cooperative or a commune, that individual would be free to do so. Capitalist business models (corporations) would never be banned by an act of law, but, as working people choose to start new worker owned cooperatives and also buy traditional businesses and farms and make them into worker owned cooperatives, society will become more egalitarian and more socialist, and more free at the same time. This greater freedom will be explored in greater depth during round 2, when both the Affirmation and the Negation will bring up contentions. Again, it would be nice if the negation only uses round 1 to accept the challenge, and perhaps address any definitions if they need to be addressed.