Bring it On

I'm glad that you've accepted! This debate shall be enjoyable. I have selected "Anarcho-capitalism is a preferable system of social and economics organization than [Mixed Market Capitalism]", which I will debate as con. I was tempted to select mercantilism, for I certainly could create an interesting case, but I believe that pinko would desire to debate a current economical system in an austere manner. : ) Thence, I've selected to advocate that Mixed Market capitalism is more feasible and preferable to Anarcho-capitalism, which is, as Wikipedia notes, "...a contradiction of terms" (Anarcho-Capitalism, Par. 1).To commence my debate, I might draw one's attention to a failed exemplar of Anarcho-Capitalism. Consider Somalia, which is divided into a series of provinces that are ruled by clan lines, warlords, pirate chiefs and organized crime lords. The so called "Government" of Puntland province has attempted to rid Puntland waters of "illegal (foreign) fisherman," and, in order to do so, it has contracted three different private organizations to act as a "Coast Guard". As in anarcho-capitalism, a private firm is allotted responsibility for the safety of Somali waters, rather than a government sponsored organization (since there is little government power or money in Somalia). All three of these private firms (Hart Security, SomCan and now Saracen International, sponsored by a company known formerly as Blackwater) have been desirous, unscrupulous and detrimental to the country. Without further ado, let us define "Anarcho Capitalism" and "Mixed Market Capitalism," though this debate shant be about semantics. 1. "Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as “libertarian anarchy” by anarcho-capitalists, “market anarchism,” “free market anarchism” or “private-property anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty in a free market" (Wikipedia).2. "Mixed economy is an economic system in which both the state and private sector direct the economy, reflecting characteristics of both market economies and planned economies" (Wikipedia). In essence, in mixed market capitalism, the government will provide environmental protection, healthcare, public services, public educational institutions, communications network, municipal water, utilities and facilities (thus contributing to economic stability) by using tax dollars. The government will also regulates/deregulates certain industries, protects stakeholders' right, maintains competition and also enacts monetary policy and fiscal policy. The private sector will provide competition and the majority of products and services.With anarcho capitalism, there could be a government, but it has no place in the free market system. Rather, the free market would be fuelled entirely by the concepts of supply and demand. If one private organization doesn't perform, then an individual can try the next one. There are no safeguards in place and self preservation is placed in the hands of the individual. Let us first address briefly why anarcho-capitalism can not work. 1. Law enforcement, security and the courts are private agencies. How can a court remain impartial if one private individual offers more money than the other? It can't, and thus there is bribery and a conflict of interest. Suppose that an individual has a personal vendetta against the other. The first person is affluent, and the other is not. The first person can hire the private law enforcement firms to harass and eventually trump up some reason to arrest the second. Then, the second individual is tried in a court that happens to have received a generous "donation" from the first individual, and the second individual is thrown into prison indefinitely, as nobody can appeal on the habeas corpus, Charter of Rights or Bill of Rights (since the market is governed by private law). 2. The military and defense are also private agencies. How could any number of individuals agree on how to split money in order to fund and army? Would it not be better to adopt feudalistic policies or Swiss rules and have every individual possess his/her own weapon and serve for a small portion of the year. If the defense of a nation were left to mercenary groups, then it would quickly crumble in time of war or economical strife.3. A deregulated system would never be feasible. Consider the havoc and turmoil if weapons, potent substances, liquor and any other hazardous product were easily available on the street? Consider the percentage of people who use cocaine in the United States, according to the alcohol and drug guide. "14.4% of people have used cocaine40.3% of people have used marijuana1.3% of people have used heroin"Imagine the addiction problems a nation would have if substances (as well as others, such as Ethiopian Khat, which plagues the majority of the male population in Somalia) were freely available? The violence and turmoil increase without reliable police enforcement and regulation? 4. Immorality would skyrocket, as pornography and other "victimless crimes" would not be illegal. As a result of said repercussions, divorce rates would increase, the family unit would deteriorate, education would decline and communities would cease to function as a united, "enlightened" society.5. Powerful corporations would ruthlessly gain power and quell opposition. There are government laws in position to prevents the trusts and monopolies that both Canada and the United States experienced in the late 1800s, but there would be no such prevention in an anarcho-capitalist economy. Do readers actually question that avaricious and powerful individuals would, to use the colloquialism, "play nicely"? If J.D. Rockefeller were a proverbial "kingpin" in an anarcho-capitalist society, do you truly believe that oil, petroleum and natural gas companies would compete? I think not. Standard Oil would share the profits only with itself or its subsidiaries. 6. The public would be dependant upon the private sector to provide sanitized water and sewage services, maintain roads, build hospitals, educate children, stock and maintain libraries etc. How exactly would a society pay companies that exist to gain profit to perform such a diverse variety of menial tasks? If one had to pay $7.00 or more for every visit to the library, would one do so? 7. Who would control currency and prevent inflation or deflation? Not the state, as there should be no state involved in the economy. Is the public going to depend on an oligopoly of powerful banks to issue money and balance the economy - in a system where "victim-less" crimes and "crimes against the state" would not exist? 8. Who would protect the environment? And How? Even in a mixed system, many companies break environmental laws and engage in illegal activities such as toxic dumping. How would this dilemma be controlled and the environment conserved if there were only private environmentalist groups who wield no real power (albeit militarily or monetarily, if the group is wealthy). One knows that any company will exploit resources, personnel and the environment to cut costs and remain competitive. Now, while every one of points are consequences of an established anarcho-capitalist system, a mixed market system, and the government (particularly a stable government such as in Canada, United States or the United Kingdom), prevent such consequences from occurring. 1. Alcohol and Drug Guide: http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com...2. Victimless Crime: http://www.halexandria.org...3. Anarcho Capitalism (Definition): http://en.wikipedia.org...4. Public Sector Definition: http://www.investorwords.com...5. J.D Rockefeller: http://www.pbs.org...