Bring it On

Cost of privatized servicesHere my opponent argues that in an AnCap society, paying for things like drinking water or waste collection would clearly demand "the entirety of one's salary". Therefore only those able to pay for such services would have access to them. He claims that individuals would need to "spend every penny for oneself simply to survive". But where is the qualifier, the reasoning? Why does my opponent think this is at all likely? I personally have no idea as he merely assumes this point instead of providing evidence or reasoning to back it up. I surely agree that it would not be an enjoyable situation(though my opponent also provided no arguments for positive rights to these services in the first place) but as it stands I have no evidence to refute on this point.Impartiality in the AnCap court systemMy opponent in further elaborating on his argument against impartiality in an AnCap court system, claims that impartiality is mantained(he never showed that it has been) because Judges are paid by the State and not by the defendants. However this largely ignores my point that a governmental court system still does not stop corruption(bribery[1], prostitution[2], drugs[2]) and that an AnCap system would offer negative incentives to such behavior as judges do not automatically have jurisdiction over a given territory like in our present day statist system. My opponent next explains that bribing public officials is illegal and possible punishable by a prison term but that there would be no such system for punishing Judges found guilty of accepting bribes. He carefully sidesteps my entire court argument by simply claiming that corrupt courts would be less frequented than fair ones. Why? Because "The crime lords and wealthy would favour them and insist on cases occurring there. No mutual agreement could be had except in the case of forthright individuals of a similar monetary status." No qualifier again and my opponent again skips past the point of mine that a mutually agreed upon arbitrator is mutually beneficial for both parties as it makes conflict resolution easier. Also, as mentioned earlier, no Court would automatically have jurisdiction over any territory or case except by consent of those arbitrated over. Therefore my opponent's point here is essentially moot. Military Agencies"Without a state funded military guided by stable governments and rights and freedoms, any mercenary group can act in arbitrary, primeval and brutal manners." My opponent's point here is essentially that without a government to protect freedoms, who is to stop military contractors from pillaging and destroying those that get in their way? Of course as military contractors do not automatically have a job and the fact that they necessarily rely on consensual business to stay in the black. My opponent then claims that one could simply send military contractors to kill someone or some people and that there would be no one to stop them. If my opponent wishes to ignore the fact that not only the psychopathic can hire protection that is fine. My opponent next claims that if a warlord attacks with superior fighting power, who will save you? Actually the exact same argument can be applied to a governmental military. If a rival country attacks with a military power of ten times that of your country, what do you do? Does this disprove the concept of governmental miltiaries or provide a credible argument for a world government? Of course not so why should it only apply the other way around as a "refutation" of anarchism?Corporations and defenseMy opponent then claims that it would just be cheaper to pay taxes than to have to hire private security to protect one's assets. But again, my opponent uses no justification and merely assumes that this service would cost more. Why I ask? He then moves on to ask what if the bodyguards engage in a bloodbath since they are caring unrestricted weaponry. Of course if a security agency is known to gun down clients wherever they happen to be, how many corporations are going to believe this is good for attracting customers?InsuranceMy opponent's alleged "reutation" of my insurance argument is that someone with a nuclear weapon could just "liquidate" any insurance company or anyone he wants really. However the same can be applied to a government system. What if someone had 100 nukes aimed at the capital and the government had none? My opponent is in effect framing problems with no bearing on their likeliness.ImmoralityI thank my opponent for expanding on his immorality argument as now I can refute it. He argues that illicit substances and intoxicants have adverse effects on family structures and thus society would likely break down if they were not legally prohibited. Of course I fail to see how this is an argument against AnCap. If one smoke pot but doesn't hurt anyone then there is no problem. However if one were to get particularly baked and go rob a convenience store, the private defense of the store can deal with it, his being under the influence would not necessarily come into play legally. Also, as to the availability of illicit substances leading to adverse effects on the family structure, my opponent again brings no qualifying evidence to back it up. Mixed Capitalism Here my opponent provides his case for the superiority of a mixed market economy.Fiscal and Monetary PolicyMy opponent provides little argument as to specifically why an AnCap system would lead to hyperinflation. His only piece of supporting evidence is that it happens in Somalia, an alleged example of AnCap. Of course Somalia is not an AnCap society, but in a Civil War. As such I would ask for evidence to refute besides just bold assumptions.Public GoodsMy opponent here makes a sweeping assumption that companies would be unlikely to mantain roads because it would most likely not be in their best interest. Of course he claims this in apparent ignorance of the fact that roads are still a commodity like any other. He has provided no reason to think otherwise. Unless he can think and post a reason, there is no reason to assume that roads would not be kept in at least moderate condition by companies in an attempt to attract consumers(travellers on their roads).DiscriminationMy opponent here claims that discrimination is less likely to occur in a MixCap society, since it is illegal to do so. However, not only would market forces hinder companies from discriminating too much(if you don't hire African Americans, someone else can hire them for less as they now have one less competitor to compete with over their labor) but in a society made of complete private property rights, the prohibition of discrimination would be immoral as Pro has not demonstrated that anyone has a positive right to obtain services or goods from someone by virtue of simply being.MonopoliesThe idea of the government preventing monopolies of industry is contradictory. For what is the government if not a large monopoly. A monopoly being the domination of a market by a single supplier(usually with some kind of force involved), the government is a clear cut example of a monopoly for it's respective services(at the least law and defense). For is someone allowed to opt out of taxes or government protection if one lives inside a certain geographical location? No, and thus the concept that the government ought to stop monopolies because monopolies are bad is at best inconsistent and at most contradictory.Welfare, education, healthcareThe usual objections to these can be provided I guess though one need not be an AnCap to agree with them. One could argue that welfare creates dependency and lack of incentive, point to the superiority of private education as compared to public[3], or the fact that increased government involvement in healthcare leads to higher prices for consumers since private suppliers must offset the increased price of regulation by charging higher rates or providing less quality services.