Anarcho-capitalism is impossible.

Thanks hailtothethief. ==Definitions== My opponent's definition from Merriam-Webster's dictionary I agree with, stating that "Anarchism [is] a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups." I disagree with my opponent's definition of anarchy as "Anarchists seek to diminish or even abolish authority in the conduct of human relations." According to the book Anarchy Now!, anarchists each hold their own set of beliefs and often have different political agendas (there are anarchists with a communist agenda, anarchists with a capitalist agenda, anarchists with an environmentalist agenda); the only thing ALL anarchists agree on is the desire to be free from government oppression. Anarcho-capitalists are distinct from other anarchists in that they still believe in capitalism and in capitalists. Contrast this with definitions like my opponent's and this website's http://www.infoshop.org..., which try to claim that all anarchy is rooted in breaking down hierarchies, including getting rid of capitalists. Many anarchists are socialist and they cannot conceive of an anarchist that still believes in capitalism, just without government, but that is exactly what anarcho-capitalism is. So of course my opponent is confused and thinks he can prove that anarcho-capitalism is self-contradictory: he uses an anarcho-communist's definition of anarchy and then shows how this anarchy (i.e. anarcho-communism) is incompatible with capitalism. But that is tautological; communism is by definition "not capitalism." And definitions are of course, subjective; language is imperfect and is supposed to express the ideas of the speaker. When debating whether anarcho-capitalism is possible, you need to, of course, use the anarcho-capitalists definition of anarchy, which is only compatible with the Merriam Webster's definition. Otherwise, you are not really even trying to understand what anarcho-capitalism is; you're engaging in a flawed semantics debate. This reminds me of J.Kenyon's debate with charleslb – if you define capitalism as "an economic system that exploits and enslaves its workers," you're not even really trying to have a debate about the issue. My opponent's definition of authority is pretty silly. Using his definition of authority, then, his definition of anarchy is a system that lacks "invention, advice, opinion, influence, or command." In this context, authority, from Random House, means "persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government." ==Rebuttal== My opponent says he's discussing social hierarchy. First of all, look back to the definition: anarchy allows people to form voluntary associations. If that means joining a social club with a president, vice president, and regular members, thus creating a social hierarchy, that's their choice, which means it's still anarchy as long as they are not FORCED into said social hierarchy. In addition, my opponent's value judgment that a boss is higher in the social hierarchy than a worker is not inherently true; that's his subjective opinion. Some people gain more satisfaction in life from working shorter hours and having a strong family life. If a worker works short hours and enjoys his family, and the boss works really long hours and has a horrible home life, some people would place the worker above the boss in the hierarchy of "life satisfaction." Building hierarchies is meaningless and proves nothing about an-cap. In addition, under an-cap, people can choose not to work; they can choose to become bosses themselves (self-employed); they can choose to join a commune or live on a kibbutz, where everything is owned jointly; they can even start a business where every single worker has a joint stake (i.e. collective ownership). Anarcho-capitalism allows people to do whatever they like, as long as they don't violate the non-aggression axiom, which includes deciding not to participate in the capitalist system and instead create their own anarcho-communist system. My opponent somehow claims that state ownership is still capitalism because state "companies" still run like private companies, but this simply isn't the case. The government can enforce its monopoly rights and prevent entrants from competing, like in the provision of public services currently (police, firefighters, utilities, etc). That's not capitalism or private ownership. My opponent argues that a workplace is a private government because they dictate your hours and conduct. However, the workplace is a voluntary association – you can quit at any time. You cannot quit the government – they come after you if you stop paying your taxes. Thus, the hierarchy argument has been put to rest, since it is merely my opponent trying to use an anarcho-communist's definition of anarchy and apply it to anarcho-capitalism. This doesn't prove that it's impossible to have no government but still have capitalism. In fact, Somalia proves that it's possible to have no government and still have capitalism, since the government there only controls one city block worth of space. That's not really a government since it cannot coerce anyone to do anything and doesn't have a monopoly on the use of force. The Desirability Debate Whether something is desirable is a different debate than whether it's possible, but I'll continue debating the Security Question just for the sake of argument. My opponent says that the cartel will succeed because it can sign a contract, but Company B will merely break the contract in step 2. Without a government to enforce the contract, company A still has no faith in said contract, so it will refuse to cooperate with Company B, knowing Company B will backstab it. Even under an-cap, where contracts are enforced by voluntary trade associations and voluntary court systems, neither would have any part in enforcing a contract that violated the non-aggression axiom and helped private companies to steal from the rest of that court's clients. So under an-cap, there is no one to enforce this devil's contract. My opponent talks about a security monopoly, but I already showed how competition undercuts monopolies. If a security firm gained a monopoly by extorting citizens, another company would rise up, charge slightly less to protect citizens, and reap all the profits, since citizens would save money by hiring the protective security firm. As more firms enter the market and compete, not only does monopoly extortion become impossible, but the market price for security services decreases. My opponent starts talking about non-security monopolies, but these will be much harder to form under an-cap because without government interference in the free market (in the form of guaranteed patents), competition will prevent monopolies. Microsoft can only maintain it's monopoly because even if I spent 1 million programming hours improving Windows, I would not be able to sell my improvements on the free market due to patent protection. So without patents, monopolies become less likely. But some monopolies do provide so much efficiency in the provision of goods that citizens still benefit, even if they pay the monopoly price. Monopolies do not have some sort of infinite ability to extort citizens. If Microsoft started charging $1000 for Windows, people would switch to Macs or open-source operating systems, or start pirating Windows. There are still limits on a monopoly's ability to raise prices, since if the price becomes too large, entrants can reap huge profits, even with large startup costs. Somalia According to a study by Peter Leeson of West Virginia University, Somalia is better off today under statelessness on 18 indicators (including life expectancy and security) compared to 15 years ago prior to its government's collapse. http://tinyurl.com... Negated.