Anarcho-Capitalism (Con) vs Democratic Socialism (Pro)

I do not want to break the legs of the poor and middle class, I want them to be free and do well in life.The reality of total free market capitalism will severly hinder their progress in life. Hopefully by the end of the debate, you dear reader, will see why. "Socialism this way then socialism is forbiding the Basketball player to take steroids so that Lebron James and you are on equal footing." But the thing is me and Lebron will never be on equal footing, whether he takes steroids or not. But that gives me no claim on his abilities.Even then, the point of Basketball, or all, sports for that matter is to compete and win. However, life is about the pursuit of hapiness and the capitalist world has unfortunately forced people to pursue material wealth and to compete for it rather than to co-operate to make the world a happier place. The socialist world will result in the end of the need to do jobs you don't like for years just to make more money, since all people will be guaranteed a basic living as long as you contribute to society one way or another. Studies show that in the USA (a famous market economy), 70% of people hate or atleast dislike their jobs[1]. This is a worldwide problem as well as pointed out by source [2]. This is evidence that people, although MAY (huge emphasis on may) get wealthier and join the upper class due to capitalism, are not guaranteed to be happier. please explain the statement " the few looting from the many"Take the example of the industrial revolution. Few rich factory owners prospered whereas the lower class, and colonial subjects of European empires suffered and were effectively looted of their labour (in the case of the lower class workers) and resources (in the case of colonial subjects). Whilst this might be an outdated example, we must still learn from history and apply it to the modern day world. A scenario like that is possible and perhaps inevitable in the Anarcho Capitalist world.So the question is not about whether someone who is rich needs a new yacht or private jet. If they have the means to justly acquire such things, whether they buy it or build it themselves then it's no different than a poor/middle class person paying for their expenses.We do not have unlimited resources on this planet. If we are producing private jets for a poor people when those same resources (capital/money) could be used to feed the world's starving, you know there is a problem with this system. Con brings up that people justly acquire their wealth. Did most super rich people acquire their wealth justly?The short answer, no. The long answer: See, if everybody got equal opportunity, then almost everybody would be rich because everyone has some talent to contribute to society. But only a very small amount of the world is wealthy. There must be something about these people that made them so wealthy. Most wealthy people are wealthy because their parents were wealthy or were born in a wealthy country (or marreid a wealthy spouse). That's right, people are entitled to have a better life than you for being born in the right place and to the right family, or for being a gold digger! What a fair system Capitalism is! <sarcasm>Yes, you can become wealthy in an anarcho capitalist society even if you start poor, but it is VERY HARD considering that there are already people in the top who want to keep their wealth, chances are 1 in a million even though you may deserve it more than the people who simply inherited wealth from parents (or worse, married a rich spouse).You may love being a police officer and putting bad guys in jail, but you are not going to make much money off of that (even though you save people's lives) compared to being a Lawyer, a job you absolutely hate. Therefore you are given a choice between having a sad but wealthy life (which is worthless) and a poor but relatively happy life (better, but it is still very unfair). Seriously, the capitalist system is against humanism and individualism.Now in terms of the industrial evolution, initially life expectancy dropped. However, around the mid 19th century that started to reverseIn the early industrial revolution (not evolution), Britain was very free market (Focus is on Britain because it was the first industrial nation). As such, rich factory owners were free to employ child labourers and work people for an inhumane number of hours (as long as 16 per day) with little pay. This and the terrible worker's housing caused the drop in life expectancy, why then did it rise?The primary reason is the following: Market regulation (a step towards socialism, and away from free market/anarcho-capitalism)."legislation limiting child labour in factories was introduced in 1844, 1847, 1850, 1853 and 1867. After 1867 no factory or workshop could employ any child under the age of 8, and employees aged between 8 and 13 were to receive at least 10 hours of education per week."[3] The regulation against child labour saved the lives of many children (as you all probably know, working conditions were quite dangerous back then), therefore improving the life expectancy results after 1860. "With the protection of the law, many [kids] could now avoid the exploitation of their childhood and gain an education."[3]It is rather ironic that the industrial revolution, which Con wanted to help the case of capitalism, has ended up hindering the case of anarcho-capitalism. Liberia is most certainly not a capitalist country. It ranks 141 out of two hundred or so countrieswhen it comes to economic freedomNo country in the world is a total free market, or a total command economy (socialist central planning). Besides, economic freedom as used in the source [economic freedom index where Liberia is 141] does not correlate with extent of free market. Corruption is used as a factor when assessing economic freedom. You can have a corrupt free market and a corrupt command economy. Therefore let us not take this assessment from economic freedom index into account. The fact that most firms in Liberia are owned by people with foreign ancestry show that the nation has private property and is not a command economy.And the idea that capitalism produces slavery is simply incorrect. In many cases it was the government that institutionalized slavery, and they caught escaped slaves in the south, returning them to their ownersGovernments can institutionalize slavery yes (European colonial empires were quite capitalist and not socialist), but you must realize that plantation owners are not government officials and many of them worked slaves to death because of the drive for profit, THE FUNDAMENTAL core of capitalism. Only government regulation (aka abolition), brought freedom to the slaves, again this was a step away from anarcho-capitalism as there was an abolition of private ownership of means of production (in this case slave labour) by the governments of the world.The abolition of government which is required in ANARCHO-capitalism brings with it, the abolition of laws. These laws include anti-slavery and anti-child labour laws. Therefore, a company can use slaves and child labour in the laizze faire capitalist society. Con has still not proven how anarchism is going to work."would it be fair that Target employees get a higher wage than Walmart for doing the exact same job?"Let me be clear: as long as no coercion is applied, then yes, it is "fair" ( although I hate that word) . Who are you to interfere with a voluntary contract between consenting adults?If this is considered fair in anarcho capitalism, you just lost any chance of making me an anarcho capitalist. Who are you to say that this person deserves a higher wage because he was lucky enough to get the right employer and not because of merit? Con's statement goes against the principles of meritocracy.Now with regards to collusion and price fixing, companies that collude are not forcing anybody to do anything. People can still choose to trade with them or not.The results of such malpractises by businesses are:1) Undeserved and Unnecessary exploitation of the consumer2) Anti human principles, such malpractises are likely to find their way to hospitals, schools, law enforcement, even judiciary3) higher prices even on necessary products like food, water, clothing, medicine.Need I say more?Would you stop caring about the welfare of the less fortunate [in anarcho capitalism]? I wouldn't.1) Con's arguments highly make me doubt this statement (I sincerely don't mean to make an ad hominem)2) Con is one person who may do good things to less fortunate. Bill Gates is also only one good person, but for every one good rich person willing to help the less fortunate, there are a hundred who do not care about them. If they did care, poverty and hunger would not be a problem right now, socialism may not be required (it would still be better but not the necessity it is now).If a judge/arbitrator had a reputation for being biased towards a certain group of people, be they white people, black people, heterosexuals or homosexuals, rich or poor, people would not want to transact with them,What if that same judge had ties with the media (which may also fall into a monopoly market) and the media therefore, did not showcase the injustice the judge does and rather praises him. Corporations tend to expand into several companies, this is not an unlikely scenario. It is simply a case with letting a baby play with fire, too much power and trust being given to people whose primary goal is to make money. Con himself says I don't think that you can give nearly unlimited power to a specific group of people and expect them to not abuse it.Sources:[1]http://www.ryot.org...[2]http://www.forbes.com...[3]http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk...