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

In my last round, there was one issue which I wanted to address before I ran out of characters. My opponent claimed that the worker's councils were states. That would be like saying management in a Capitalist company is a state. Will there be some municipal government in the form of assemblies? Yes, but self government at a local level is not a nation state. Anarchy means without rulers - it does not mean without rules. The difference is, under Libertarian Socialism there is self government, while under anarcho Capitalism, there is entrenched plutocracy. This plutocracy can private defense forces to keep the masses in line. Let's go down the flow. Contention 1: should be extended yet again. Contention 2: "Clearly, you are equating chattel slavery with wage slavery. That's why you use the word slavery. Of course such a position is idiotic and you are wise to run away from it". There have been many systems of slavery throughout history, and to equate any of those systems with each other is often a bad idea. Now remember, this is a type of slavery which nearly everyone in 19th Century America talked about, from the farmers and artisans who wanted to avoid it, the slave owners who wanted to feel better about chattel slavery, the wage slaves themselves, and Abraham Lincoln. I am not running away from the word because there is something wrong with people renting themselves for wages. My opponent has yet to demonstrate why it is not demeaning for people to rent themselves for wages. He has yet to show you that these wages are equivalent to the work people put in. He has yet to show you why a paternalistic system of "scientific management" is necessary. He has not, because he cannot. All my opponent tries to do is call it an insult to the chattel slaves who picked cotton. Cars may be owned or rented, but why should human beings? "What about migrant workers, who, horrors! work for less than the minimum wage. Well what about them? Why is it that people break the law, take tremendous risk to our own lives in order to work these ostensibly terrible jobs? " Why? Because NAFTA forced Mexican farmers to compete with subsidized American food. (But the State doesn't prop up Capitalism!) Free trade in action, displacing people as we speak. The fact is, that 1 in 6 people in America's workforce are food supply workers. Here are some quick facts about people who work in the food supply: 79% of these workers do not have a paid sick day,(43% of all Americans don't have a paid sick day) and 58% of them do not have health insurance. 10% work more than 10 hours a day, the majority works 60 hours a week, 81% never got a promotion, 52% didn't get safety or health training, and wages are lower for minorities and women than they are for white males. Speaking of low wages, 86% of the people in the food supply live in poverty and face high levels of food insecurity. Imagine, handling food all day without being sure if you can eat. www.triplepundit.com/2012/06/new-report-poor-working-conditions-among-food-workers/. The reason why the "horror stories" aren't worse is because Unions have, since the 19th Century, been making working conditions better than they once were. People have had to struggle, and the struggle clearly isn't finished. 12.5 to 27 million people work as chattel slaves,(in 2013) and over 6 billion people work as wage slaves. www.hermes-press.com/new_slavery.htm Contention 3: Under tyrannical "anarcho" Capitalism, police forces, and whole armies will be privately controlled and could oppress the masses. Not only has this been done in the past by the Pinkerton Army, but it is still being done in Central America by paramilitary groups which have been hired by the highest bidder. Contention 4: There is far more freedom of speech in a cooperative than there is in a corporation. In a cooperative, people work together, democratically manage their workplace, and are more free. My opponent compared anarcho syndicalism to Soviet Communism! There is not a connection between the two systems. Corporations, in their odd way, resemble the Soviet government. There is a CEO (the Premier or Party Chairman) the board of directors (the Central committee), and a long line of bosses and bosses of bosses. The trouble with Soviet Communism, and the problem with Capitalism as well, is that there is way too much hierarchy. Hierarchy leads to a society and workplace which is less democratic, and less free. There is far more freedom of speech,and freedom to be creative, in a system where people manage themselves. "The real crime isn't that employers hire these people but instead the minimum wage itself which doesn't increase wages but mandates unemployment specifically for those who are low skilled and generally poor." Arguably, unemployment serves a function in a Capitalist economy, giving employers more leverage over their employees. Furthermore, there are ways of reducing unemployment without reducing wages. This is irrelevant, in any case, because minimum wage laws won't be needed in a society where working people own the means of production. "Presumably your answer is to have all goods put into the common store, but then there are insoluble problems here, as was discovered in soviet russia, in the early experiments in communism implemented by the Christian millienialists, in Cuba and everywhere else." For many decades, the Kibbutz in Israel was a place where there wasn't any money, and it worked quite well for a long time. Now, let me clarify. As there is more Libertarian Socialism, more people may choose to live in communes without money. Others may choose to work in worker owned coops for money. Now, there would still be markets, but instead of having corporations in these markets, there would be worker owned cooperatives. The key difference between Anarcho syndicalism/Libertarian Socialism and Capitalism is that workers would own and control the means of production. Life would be more democratic and more free. Capitalism is rule from the top. People are managed and controlled, and they are rented for wages which do not fully compensate their work. Soviet Communism is rule from the top. A central government would have the keys to the store - so to speak. Anarcho Syndicalism/Libertarian Socialism is rule from the bottom up, 1 person, 1 vote. True economic democracy. "The distinction between 'personal property' and private property is a very convenient fiction for communists who suddenly realize how absolutely critical private property is and need some way to smuggle it back into their system." a. I am not in favor of communism. b. There is a difference between a house and a factory. You live in your house. People work in your factory. You can either democratically control the place you work in, or you will be controlled. "Just loot what other people have, because we want it, and we can take it, and who gives a damn about how hard they worked to create it." Is my opponent describing Capitalism? Under Capitalism, people may work very hard, but they still see money which they earned wind up in a wise investors pocket.