A Libertarian Socialist society would be more free than an Anarcho Capitalist society.

This will be very interesting. Contention 1: Traditional Anarchism and libertarianism has been a form of socialism. Though the word libertarian goes back to the Enlightenment, it was only used in a philosophical context before 1857. During the Enlightenment, some philosophers called themselves libertarians because they believed in free will rather than determinism. However, the first time the word libertarian was used as a political adjective was in 1857 by a anarcho communist named Joseph Dejaques. He used the word in a letter to Proudhon - a socialist who was the first person to call himself an anarchist. Libertarianism and anarchism are understood to be forms of socialism in most countries outside of the United States. In fact, the man who coined the term Anarcho Capitalism - Murray Rothbard said,"that we are not anarchists, and those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. " Rothbard explained that, "all" anarchists have "socialistic elements in their doctrines. .. posses socialistic economic doctrines in common. " Libertarianism/Anarchism is an anti authoritarian ideology which promotes freedom, and our understanding of the roots of Libertarianism/Anarchism is very important in any debate about freedom and liberty. Contention 2: Wage Slavery: We may own cars, we may rent cars, but human beings should never be owned or rented. Chattle Slavery is the ownership of labor, the ownership of human beings. Under a modern Capitalist system, human beings are not owned - humans are rented. Wage slavery is quasi voluntary. Yes, people do choose to work (on the behalf of employers) but they can either rent themselves for wages, or starve. It isn't much of a choice. Secondly, we have a paternal system of bosses and managers, who tell people how to work. How do corporations make large concentrated profits? Why is it profitable to hire people? It is profitable to hire people because there is a surplus, in other words, the work people do is worth more than the wages they are paid. If people are fully compensated for the profits generated thanks to their work, then Capital Gains wouldn't exist. Corporations are structured to extract money earned by wage slaves. Furthermore, the income people take in from work is very stratified. The average American CEO makes 350 times his or her lowest paid employee. Now, it wasn't always this way. Farmers, and artisans under the putting out system controlled how much they worked - they had no bosses. They also enjoyed the fruits of their labor, in other words, money was earned through hard work - not "made" through capital gains. During the Industrial Revolution, many workers who had in their lifetime, seen this transition from cottage industries to factories, realized that they were indeed wage slaves. So there was a time when wage slavery was seen as reality by a). the wage slaves themselves, b). Northwestern farmers who wanted to avoid wage slavery, c). Southern defenders of chattle slavery, and d). Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party. Nearly everyone in 19th century America recognized the fact that owning labor was one form of slavery (chattle slavery) and renting labor was another form of slavery (wage slavery). Now this isn't necessary, because in a socialist economy, workers own the means of production (the land and the factories and shops as well) and therefore they control their own work, and are fully compensated for their work. This is precisely what happens in worker cooperatives. Contention 3: Capitalism and the State: Capitalism as we know it is propped up by the State. Research done at public Universities is used by big business. Billions of dollars are spent by the government on Corporate Welfare. Private property ownership over the means of production is protected by the State. The State is a fundamentally Capitalist institution which many Capitalists use. Now, many Libertarian Capitalists are minarchists - they want the police to continue protecting private property ownership over the means of production. In a sense, Capitalism needs the State. Anarcho Capitalists realize that the police state is used to protect private property, which is why they say that without a state, there should be private defense armies. These armies could be used to suppress strikes. Now, Max Weber defines the State as a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Now while Anarcho Capitalists want to get rid of the government, they are okay with private defense forces which have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. So in a sense, they are okay with a privatized version of the State, and this new form of State will not have any check on its power. You can protest about a new suppressive Pinkerton Army all you want, but it won't matter because there is a market for Pinkerton Armies - some wealthy people and corporations are willing to pay other people and corporations to violently break up strikes. There would not be any (somewhat) representative governmental body to prevent these new privatized states from being tyrannical. So, not only will wage slavery be allowed, not only would there be a lack of a minimum wage (minimum wages are antithetical to a free market), not only would worker's safety standards enforced by OSHA be discarded, not only that, but Unions and Strikes could be violently suppressed. No worker's rights. Child labor (wage slavery for children) still exists in many places around the world, and many multinationals exploit children in third world countries. (Nestle, and Coca Cola, for instance. Coca Cola doesn't only use child labor, Coca Cola has also been accused of using paramilitary forces in Columbia, to intimidate unions. In a Capitalist economy without any government, what will stop multinationals like Coca Cola? www. alternet. org/story/34976/coke_is_death Contention 4: Freedom of Speech: First of all, even under an anarcho Capitalist system, people do not really have freedom of speech when they are at work. People cannot say whatever they want to their boss without being afraid of getting fired. In a truly anarchist system, in a libertarian socialist system, this is not a problem. In democratically controlled cooperatives, especially the coops which do not have bosses, there is far more freedom of speech. Furthermore, in those coops, working people exercise more control over how they work, how long they work, and how they are compensated. Generally speaking, there is more freedom in a worker owned cooperative. Specifically though, back to the issue of free speech, Corporations do not only threaten free speech during the workday. Many Corporations use libel laws to silence their critics - even when criticism is warranted. A good example of this would be the McLibel case. en. wikipedia. org/wiki/McLibel_case Now this was in Britain where they have stronger libel laws. That being said, even here in the U. S. , Corporations have succeeded in passing "veggie libel" laws which arguably threaten our first amendment rights. en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Food_libel_laws. Now, granted, in an anarchocapitalist society there would not be any libel laws. However, it is not inconceivable for hired thugs to use force in order to silence critics (private defense armies). Freedom of speech would be threatened in and outside of the workplace. This would not be the case if there is economic democracy, i. e. Libertarian Socialism. This is because economic democracy decentralizes economic power. Nobody would have their own private army. Nobody would be exploited. Everyone would be free.