Beginners november tournament: On balance, anarcho-capitalism is better than anarcho-communism

SlaveryCon presents slavery as a possibility in ACap that would make it less morally desirable. There are some major issues with this analysis.In terms of our framework of the hierarchy of needs, even slavery fulfills just as many or even more levels than ACom. As I stated before, humans (and businesses by extension) operate for their own self-benefit. It is obvious that, as an investment, all slaves must be kept alive if they are to work. They also must be kept alive for a long period of time, as slaves were expensive—in 1809, they reached $381 on average (1), or about $7000 in today’s money (2). This necessitates feeding, clothing, sheltering and protection; with death, the investment has gone to waste. Historical accounts of slavery note that slaves were generally treated pretty well (3). That’s safety and physiological needs. Thus, even slavery is as effective as ACom at ensuring fulfillment of needs (as my opponent only ever mentioned ACom’s fulfillment of the first two levels), and, as such, I do not even need to bother explaining why slavery is economically inefficient; Con’s rebuttal has already been disproven. As well, note that if consumers object to the practice of slavery, they can choose to buy from non-slaveholding sources. I will take issue with his statement that “Workers whom you pay a fair wage might work twice as hard as a slave, but they are also four times as expensive. So slaves have a better cost-revenue ratio”, as it is completely arbitrary and unsourced; as such, Con has no argument to support the idea that slavery would exist in such a system in the first place, which he has the BoP to do.InnovationCon speaks in hypotheticals, while I speak in terms of historical facts on this subject. Economically free Europe grew to dominate the rest of the world, restricted in its economic practices, in the age of imperialism. Communism lost the Space Race, and that was with a government encouraging its people to aid in research. Con speaks highly of volunteerism, but provides no quantification for how it is supposed to be as effective at generating R&D as a capitalist society, and ignores the fact that capitalists can volunteer as well. As far as “only the rich can afford it” goes, again, in a ACap society, the price will be set at a point of profit maximization, in keeping with my “self-interest” argument. In the long run, basic economic theory dictates that price will be where the marginal cost meets the demand curve, which is horizontal in the perfect competition of ACap (4). Thus, the number of units produced is always the number society wants at the price suppliers can afford to purchase at. If it is restricted to the rich, that is only because the procedure is very expensive to produce. To provide any more of that in an ACom government would require sacrifice on the part of all people of their resources in order to produce medicine, additional incentives for doctors (as there is a great shortage of doctors in countries with socialized medicine; in the USSR, Moscow alone was 10,000 short (5)), and so on.Conclusion:I have conclusively demonstrated that ACap is far more efficient at meeting the needs of society than ACom. I have shown evidence that ACap supports research and development, helps all people according to their ability, and guarantees safety. Meanwhile, my opponent provides nothing in support of ACom than hope. Hope that people will volunteer. Hope that people will choose to work rather than relax. Hope that people will research. Hope that people will all be so high-minded as to support their fellow man. Yet, as I have demonstrated, history shows this to be unfounded. ACap is the way to ensure citizens are productive. As I have demonstrated, basic economics shows this to be unfounded. ACap is the way to ensure progress. Meanwhile, my opponent operates with unfounded, random number crunching through the entire debate, using the United States for numbers even though it is a relatively capitalist society, even to the final round (which I am frustrated that I cannot address now, as the calculations again have glaring flaws, but I shall respect the rules and leave the voters to make a judgment on that). ACap is the way to fulfill the needs of the people. ACom only brings them all down into poverty. Thanks to my opponent in this debate. Vote Pro. Sources:1. http://cliometrics.org...2. http://www.in2013dollars.com...3. http://www.economist.com...4. http://www.investopedia.com...5. https://news.google.com...