On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism.

== Analysis == As Con explained, the remainder of the debate will be focused on her case for anarcho-syndicalism rather than my case for capitalism, though some of my criticisms will carry over. Before I enter into the body of Con's case, I'll briefly cover two issues I didn't have enough characters for in the previous round. == Pro Case == 2A) Con's view of the Tragedy of the Anti-commons is short-sighted. The only reason for any proprietor to retain an ownership claim is in expectation of future profit. Regarding land exploitation, Walter Block, author of "Economics and the Environment," explains the idea of libertarian environmentalism. A fisherman is more likely to take care to avoid overfishing when he actually owns the body of water. Similarly, a cattle farmer does not suddenly get a wild impulse to go and shoot his lower fifty. By contrast, there is no opportunity cost lost by needlessly killing wild animals. If a factory dumps chemical waste into a river, ruining the business of a nearby fishery, the fishery owners are entitled to be paid damages. Things like air pollution can be handled by class action suits.[1] == Con Case == Land monopolies can't exist on capitalism. If Columbus discovers an uninhabited continent, he cannot claim the entire thing, nor can he simply "fence off" a disproportionately large area for himself. Property can only be justly acquired through homesteading, or, as John Locke famously termed it, "mixing" one's labor with the land to produce something useful.[2] Thus, if I have no proper ownership claim for Plot B, I can't deny Con the right to farm it herself. If I *have* worked on Plot B, or improved it in some way, then I *do* have a legitimate ownership claim and *can* justly charge rent. If I build a house on Plot B with the intent to use it as a source of income, what right does any tenant have to say that merely because he has lived in it he is therefore entitled to own it? I've created the house using my labor. Moreover, if rent is disallowed, I have no incentive to build a house on an unimproved lot. This reduces the availability of low-cost housing. The same principle applies to all types of capital formation. Under such a narrow conception of ownership, it would be illegal to save money or other goods if one is not presently using them. Eliminating interest on loans and other investments would drastically restrict the availability of capital. Economic efficiency would be seriously hurt without the ability to invest in and allocate capital to profitable sectors. The potential to abuse workers is limited by three important factors. First, on capitalism, all employment is voluntary; if you don't want to work for someone you don't have to. Moreover, if the wage offered isn't high enough to live on, no one will waste time at such a job. Second, companies have to compete for workers in the same way that they compete for consumers. The marginal revenue product of the individual worker is a multiple of the marginal physical product produced in a given period of time and the final price paid by consumers for those articles. If the marginal revenue product of a group of workers is $50/hour, but the employer only pays them $20/hour, he creates a profit opportunity for his competitors, who might offer more. This ensures that the gap between wages and marginal productivity remains slim. Finally, even if some employers "exploit" their employees by paying them less than the marginal value of their labor, this would not necessarily benefit them. The demand for labor is derived from the consumer demand for goods and services. In order to succeed in the product market, employers would have to pass their cost savings on to consumers in the form of lower prices, benefiting other wage earners. On top of this, the idea that all wage labor is by definition "exploitation" or "oppression" is absurd. Who honestly believes the chief of surgery at a prestigious hospital is being "exploited" for his labor while a country doctor in private practice is not? This suggests that some other measure of freedom is necessary. In his book "Development as Freedom," Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen analyzes freedom in terms of "opportunity sets," or the ability to choose between different ways of thinking and living.[3] Let's say Richards and his friends Taylor, Wyman, and Watts are construction workers. Using simple tools that they acquired themselves, the marginal value of their labor, is $10/hour each. Jagger, the capitalist, offers to employ them. Using expensive excavators, bulldozers, and other equipment, their marginal productivity increases to $40/hour. Even if Jagger only pays $30/hour, all the parties involved still benefit from this arrangement: Jagger gets a return on his investment; productivity increases, lowering costs for consumers; and the workers can do much more with their labor than they would otherwise be able to. Earning more also allows the workers the option of more leisure time. Anarcho-syndicalism proposes that "the workers of each plant, company or economic unit would jointly and equally own and operate the organization for which they work. It supposes the elimination of entrepreneurs and the expropriation of investments so that all 'unearned income,' i.e., interest and profits, would be equally divided among the workers of each economic unit."[4] This is enormously impractical, would do nothing to eliminate inequality between disparate economic units, and is utterly devoid of any ethical justification. It's a simple fact that laborers untrained in business management cannot possibly achieve a level of competence comparable to that of professional entrepreneurs; one of the many benefits of the division of labor. If such a system were really feasible, we would see it in the world today competing with traditionally managed businesses. The fact that we don't demonstrates authoritatively that it does not and cannot work. Because syndicalism can't compete in the free market of ideas, it must be implemented by force. Diego Abad de Santillan wrote of the Spanish Civil War "we do not wish to deny that the nineteenth of July brought with it an overflowing of passions and abuses. It is possible our victory resulted in the death by violence of four or five thousand inhabitants of Catalonia who were listed as rightists and were linked to political or ecclesiastical reaction. But this shedding of blood is the inevitable consequence of a revolution, which, in spite of all barriers, sweeps on like a flood and devastates everything in its path, until it gradually loses its momentum."[5] The syndicalists promised to abolish money, but eventually succumbed to problem of economic planning and issued "coupons" instead. They promised to abolish the state, only to create multiple mini-states called "committees." They promised individual freedom, but the committees took totalitarian control over virtually every aspect of life.[6] In testimonials recorded by historian Burnett Bolloten, it's stated that "the committee is the paterfamilias. It owns everything; it directs everything. Every special desire has to be submitted to it for consideration; it alone has the final say."[7] Another person noted "I tried in vain to get a drink, either of coffee or wine or lemonade. The village bar had been closed as nefarious commerce."[8] As my opponent noted, In Italy, the syndicalist movement quickly gave way to fascism and is hardly a solid example of communism in practice. || CONCLUSION || Most of Con's objections to capitalism and support for syndicalism can be dismissed with a proper theory of property and its acquisition. Syndicalism lacks a coherent concept of ownership, blithely ignores the laws of economics, and ultimately confirms my contention that all collectivist societies inevitably tend toward tyranny. References: http://tinyurl.com...