Anarcho-capitalism can work

A CLARIFICATIONMy opponent finds one of my clarifications to be "confusing," so I will explain further: There is a difference between justifying a given proposal and justifying believing in a given proposal. The latter is a much more philosophical question, centered mostly on epistemology. The former is what we want to be discussing, if I'm not mistaken; we want to evaluate the stance itself rather than one's decision to believe in it, correct? ---WHAT DOES "(TO) WORK" MEAN?As promised in the prior round, I will first elaborate on the crucial idea of "(to) work" in the context of this debate:When something "works," it is able to act as a means to its intended end. For example, when one says that a lawn mower "works," one would likely mean that it can be used as an effective means of achieving the desired end (i.e., mowing the lawn.) With this in mind, what do we mean when we say that anarcho-capitalism does (or does not) work? More specifically, what is the end that ought to be reached in order to deem it "working" or not? FRAMEWORKS Well, we can go about answering the question above in a number of ways. From an economic standpoint, we could say that the end is efficiency, a use of resources that promotes the maximization of limited goods and services [1]. From a Smithian standpoint, we could say that the end is general human utility within the system [2]. And we could also divide political systems into categories and use them to define the desired ends; for example, the end of an authoritarian government would be to maintain the control of the ruling class, so an effective authoritarian that does just that would be "working" (based on this semantic approach.) And lastly, an underlying end would be for the system to be able to exist at all.THE OPPONENT'S BURDENBecause my opponent has chosen to take on full burden of proof, he has to prove that anarcho-capitalism CANNOT "work" under any practical circumstance. Because there are myriad ways of evaluating the "working" of the system after it has been implemented--some of which I have described in the last paragraph, the opponent has the option of doing one (or both) of the following to meet his burden of proof: I. Prove that an existing system of anarcho-capitalism cannot work UNDER ANY CONDITION and WITHIN ANY FRAMEWORK (such as those described in the last paragraph), and/or II. Prove that the system of anarcho-capitalism CANNOT EXIST, UNDER ANY CONDITION, in the first place. (Though they are very heavy burdens, the latter would probably be easier to meet.)--- POINT-BY-POINT RESPONSE"While one might advocate that crime would be punished via returning the stolen property, this is not possible in many cases (i. e., it is impossible to return someone's life.)"Yes, this is certainly true... though someone's life is not property, by standard definition."While one might argue that 'an eye for an eye' is acceptable, I believe that in a system where laws are based only on property rights, the only person who would have the right to do that would be the victim, which is not always actually possible."Well, in criminal court all crimes are charged as crimes against the state rather than against the victim. In an anarcho-capitalist society, crimes would be solely conducted as crimes against the victim, and private police and courts would only act on the infringement of the victim's rights rather than the breaking of state rules. "Some might suggest having corporation-run police and courts. While I do believe that would still be infringing on property rights, it also allows crimes committed against those too poor to afford legal counsel to go unpunished, as well as makes it easier for corporations to get away with crimes."The opponent would have to elaborate on the definition of the term "property rights," as he is using it, before I respond to the first critique in this statement. And the crimes against the poor would not go unpunished and corporations would not get away with more crimes; unfortunately, the opponent has not elaborated on these claims, so I do not know on what grounds he makes them.---RESPONSE As it stands, the government has a monopoly on violence, so there is no incentive to produce good results. In an anarcho-capitalist system, there would be a competition for producing good crime-solving results. Courts and police would be evaluated based on fairness by private "inspection" companies, which, in turn, would compete for the public's approval of its inspection results. In this way, people would be assured a more quality-driven system of justice. ---CONCLUSIONAgain, let us remember that the FULL BURDEN OF PROOF rests on the opponent. The opponent has indubitably failed to:I. Prove that an existing system of anarcho-capitalism cannot work UNDER ANY CONDITION and WITHIN ANY FRAMEWORK (such as those described in the last paragraph), and/or II. Prove that the system of anarcho-capitalism CANNOT EXIST, UNDER ANY CONDITION, in the first place. So far, the opponent has (very vaguely) critiqued the FAIRNESS of an anarcho-capitalist system of justice. However, in order for this to support his argument, it has to be built on the premise that anarcho-capitalism is intended to be a means to an end of "fairness" (see my lengthy discussion regarding "(to) work.") Is it a necessary end for every framework? This has not been proven by the opponent, failing to meet option I. And option II. is not met, because a critique of fairness does not challenge the system's capacity to exist.With this considered, I would like to ask to vote for Pro.Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal.--- SOURCES [1] http://cowles.econ.yale.edu...[2] http://www.csus.edu...