On balance, Anarcho-capitalism would be more just and humanitarian than Anarcho-communism

It should be noted before we begin that the nature of the resolution precludes discussion on arguments for/against a State. While AnCapitalists and AnCommunists surely disagree on *why* they oppose the State, no anti-State arguments need be made here.===Justification of Private Property Ethics===P1) Argumentation is a necessary pre-requisite for justification.P2) Norms presupposed by the act of argumentation must themselves be justified.P3) Self ownership and private property are presupposed norms of argumentation.C) Self ownership and possession of private property is a necessarily justified interpersonal ethic.P1 Defended.This premise has come to be called the axiom of argumentation. Stated simply, propositions (and more specifically ethical norms) must be justified over the course of argumentation. Hans Hermann-Hoppe argues: "...any truth claim, the claim connected with any proposition that it is true, objective or valid (all terms used synonymously here), is and must be raised and settled in the course of an argumentation."[1] The proof of this a priori concept comes from a simple reductio ad absurdum of the necessary alternative. Consider the opposite charge, that "argumentation is not necessary to justify a given proposition". The action taken (engaging in argumentation) negates the content being argued. Arguing against argumentation amounts to incoherency. P2 Defended.If argumentation is the necessary route to justification of any proposition, this must also apply to normative propositions. Argumentation itself isn't value-free. There are certain norms of action that are presumed by the very act. But if this is the case (and my next point will prove this point) then those norms must themselves be justified. At the very least it would be incoherent to argue against them since arguing itself presupposes them.P3 Defended.This will most likely be the crux of the debate concerning the justification of a private property ethic. The first point (self ownership) should come most naturally. In order to argue in the first place, you need to have exclusive ownership of your body. Again, let's look at a reductio of the necessary alternative (that self ownership isn't necessitated). In order to argue though one *must* voluntarily utilize one's body. Now on to a private property ethic in resources outside of one's body.Justification of private ownership outside the body extends logically from the justification of self ownership. For sole ownership of the human body is a proto-typical example of private ownership of scarce resources. If I'm using my body exclusively, the same can't be possible for someone else (i.e., two people can't have exclusive control over the same resource). So the AnCommunist, in accepting exclusive self-ownership, undermines any argument for social control of external resources. ===Critique of AnCommunist Economics===1) The basic problem with AnCommunist economics lies in the fact that it doesn't allow for price signals to form, and thus doesn't allow for rational allocation of resources. In a market economy, people are able to compare heterogeneous goods which wouldn't be able to be compared otherwise.[2] Take 10 oranges and 10 apples as a relatively simple example. It's not obvious what the ratio of value is between apples and oranges is. However, if we take a market concept like money, we can compare these goods by virtue of their costs. AnCommunist economics doesn't recognize this and hence must rely on either guesswork of exclusive "need" criterion (which leads into my next point).2) Another problem is with the seemingly inevitable need for central force in an AnCommunist economy. On capitalism, central force isn't necessary since economic activity is moved simply by individuals drawing on the price signals laid out by other economic actors. However, guaranteed goods and services leads to a free rider problem. If things like food and shelter are guaranteed to you purely on the basis of "need" as opposed to trade or labor, there's no guarantee that they'll reciprocate. This is where the need for some central force comes in to the picture. Central force being seemingly antithetical to anarchism though, AnCommunism appears to undermine itself in this regard.===Sources===[1] Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Hans Hermann-Hoppe), pg. 314. Available online: http://mises.org...[2] http://www.princeton.edu...