Bring it On

I shall also abbreviate my references to Anarcho-capitalism to "AnCap." And I could also refer to "Mixed Market Capitalism" as "MixCap," in order to save characters. I also would like to compliment my opponent on an impressive display, and I shall proceed to negate each of his points before advocating Mixed Market Capitalism. In order to oppose my opponent's main point, which is, in brief, "profit motive," I must ask how an individual or small group of individuals would afford all of the necessary private services etc. Taxes only consume quite a small portion of one's salary (31.1 percent of GDP in Canada - less in the US) (MSN), but the necessary number of private firms and utilities would demand the entirety of one's salary. Every company wants profits, and none will work for no (substantial) pay. If one can't pay a company to remove their waste services, no company will come to do so. If one can't pay for filtered, purified water, then one isn't going to receive such water. If one can't afford the mobile/land line bill, then one won't get telephone service. And so on. So therefore, an AnCap system would encourage "survival of the fittest," with those too weak or too poor cast aside. Who truly would care for the mentally ill, the physically handicapped, the sick etc. in a society where every individual needs to spend every penny for oneself simply to survive? There would be no "comfort level" as known today, because people would be too preoccupied with guaranteeing that they are safe and protected. There will be very few who can afford to plan for the future, as available funds might be absorbed in any number of urgent incidences that a government may have prevented. 1. Partiality in the AnCap court system. My opponent asserts that the very reason why independent courts would be unreliable ("profit motive") is an motivator ideal, and thence "strengthens" his arguments for AnCap. Let us review why courts are state sponsored and Judges are public servants. Courts are sponsored by the state and judges are paid by the state in order to ensure that no conflict of interest occurs - that impartiality is maintained. If a judge is paid comfortably by the State, s/he has no need for "further payments". Secondly, the state will proffer a defense attorney in criminal cases to those who can't afford one (rest assured, there still would be criminal courts in an AnCap system... though they would be corrupt and useless in achieving justice). My opponent acknowledges that the courts would be prone to bribery, though he also insists that bribery is common in every system. While bribery (or "kickbacks") may occur in nations such as Canada and the United States, it isn't tolerated, acceptable, legal or common. In fact, anybody found to be guilty of attempting to bribe a public official will find him/herself in severe trouble. The same goes for the public official (up to fifteen years in prison, massive monetary fines, removal from public office etc.). Who would punish these individuals in an AnCap system? Supposedly the mutual agreement of two parties, but I doubt that parties would embargo corrupt courts. 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. The impoverished and the poor would be trod over in such a system, as has occurred in history and other nations. Military Agencies:There are several issues here. An agency would never "stir up trouble to attract work," but it would cause much strife while working. There would be no limitation on militant mercenary agencies' actions. Without a state funded military guided by stable governments and rights and freedoms, any mercenary group can act in arbitrary, primeval and brutal manners. If the client wishes someone (or many people) to be liquidated or summarily executed (and can afford such a demand), then what prevents the mercenaries from doing so? Furthermore, how would one stop a more powerful warlord or entity? How would one survive against a united nation? One could be oppressed under a warlord who had an attack helicopter while your "agency" only had small arms and automobiles. Would one have to group together under clan lines, as in Somalia? We see how well that has worked.My opponent also asserts that corporations would need to hire bodyguards to safeguard their establishments and the clients. Would this not cost more (and be more impractical) than simply paying taxes for a unified army or police force that maintains peace on the street? In an AnCap society, we're referring to legally unrestricted forces carrying weapons. They may have the interests of the client in mind, but, in their role, they may be forced to engage in an avoidable bloodbath, if a state military or police force was present.Insurance. My opponent asserts that insurance would balance arbitrariness. But, in an AnCap society, who needs to purchase insurance? Would it not be greater insurance to simply possess a nuclear weapon? Who's going to bother, accost or cross in any way the man who possesses a nuclear weapon? I think that the individual needn't worry about insurance premiums, since he could simply liquidate any insurance company who overcharges him, anyway (as well as a good portion of society in the immediate vicinity). Immorality. TheFree Dictionary defines immorality as, "1. The quality or condition of being immoral. 1. esp. in sexual matters; licentiousness; profligacy or promiscuity. A "...reason that causes the increased divorce rate is the high level of temptation" (Common Causes). Also, intoxicants and illicit substances are proved to have adverse effects on the family structure. Therefore, my argument stands in that "immorality" would flourish in an AnCap society, eventually causing it to cease functioning.On to Mixed Capitalism Pros. ~~Very simply, in developed Western nations, the government provides stability, and it provides a balance that prevents all of the dilemmas that I have specified above regarding AnCap. - The government, in Canada, the USA and many European nations, has established a Federal Reserve, Bank or Treasury to manage Fiscal and Monetary Policy in the nation (which my opponent was unable to address, because private industry could not capably manage inflation or interest rates. Nor could it adopt and issue a standard currency that every individual accepts. Hyperinflation would occur, as in nations such as Somalia.)- Maintenance of public services and roads. Private industries would only maintain public services and roads if it suited their interests (ie. another company paid them to do so). Therefore, many roads would fall into disrepair, and wouldn't be plowed or tended, thereby causing millions of individuals much strife. The government tends even lonely gravel roads. - Discrimination is less likely to occur in a MixCap system, as legal systems prohibit or discourage it. Discrimination is likely to flourish in an AnCap system.- Regulation of industries, prevention of monopolies and trusts. Thereby guaranteeing that the law is upheld and citizens protected.- Maintaining Order. - Fielding an Army and equipped police forces.- A MixedCap system boasts truly impartial judiciary systems, as the Justices are paid by the state and encouraged to abstain in any conflict of interest.- One major benefit is that an extensive private sector does exist and safely proffers services, products, information and interests both basic and pivotal.- Public welfare, education and health care are provided for all individuals in many MixCap systems. Therefore, those underprivileged who can't cope by themselves or can't afford to survive in a cutthroat AnCap system will be provided for. - Philanthropic organizations are able to flourish and assist those in need.Due to lack of space, I will post my sources in the Content Section. I'm looking forward to Round 3.