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

"In Marxian economics and socialist politics, there is distinction between "private property" and "personal property". The former is defined as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor; the latter is defined as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.[4][5] Prior to the 18th century, private property usually referred to land ownership." http://en.wikipedia.org... Personal property is part of your person and includes property from which you have the right to exclude others (e.g., televisions, cars, clothes, etc.)[3] Private property is a social relationship, not a relationship between person and thing according to Marx (e.g., factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, etc.). In communism there is no distinction between personal and private property.[4] To many socialists, the term private property refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services[citation needed]. "Personal property is generally considered private property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate. In the common law systems personal property may also be called chattels or personalty. In the civil law systems personal property is often called movable property or movables - any property that can be moved from one location to another. This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings." I wouldn't exactly say that your body is "private property." Personal Property (another word for Possession) is "private property" but moveable. But to also counteract the "moveable" notion, if the 'property' is actually used by the owner at the expense of no other person or group of people, than it can be considered Possession or 'Personal Property.' If it's your house and you use it as shelter, than it's your own 'Personal Property'. Not only "moveable" but also goods provided by an individual is also defined as that person's personal property. If they were the ones to produce those goods, than it's that individual's personal property. If your body was "Private Property," than you would use your body as private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor. (i.e. private property is only used to make a profit) Private Property is usually land, copyrights, buildings etc. Your body is personal property because it is your "private property" that is moveable. It is only used to serve you and it's purpose for being there is not to make a profit. Private Property's goal is to make profits. Factories belong to the workers 'personal property' wise since they are the ones who produced the goods and put in the labor for those goods. Factories belong to the bosses and Capitalists 'private property' wise since they use the factory and workers as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based of wage labor and socialized production. This is an example of 'private property' used to exploit people for the benefit of the owner of that Private Property. Slaves are considered 'private property' as they are used as 'socialized production' over an owner. Your body would be considered 'personal property' as you are entitled to your own means of production and use your body according to your own production and use. Simplified, 'personal property' would be "things that you need" while 'private property' would be "things you use to exclude other people (or exploit other people) for profits" As long as the 'private property' that you use doesn't exclude people in an illegitimate way or you don't use it as ownership over socialized production or wage labor, and you use it actively to serve your own needs, than it is 'personal property.' In an AnCom society, everyone would be entitled to shelter. Since it would be a currency-less society, than everyone can own shelter. But if someone is using too much 'personal property' and excludes other people who need shelter, than it is no longer considered 'personal property' but 'private property' which would be illegitimate. Homesteading wouldn't even be necessary to exist since there would be no taxes or currency involved in the society. Everyone would be entitled to 'personal property.' Factories belong to the workers, not the Private Property owners. So even if a person was using their property to do benign and benevolent things, it would still be illegitimate if they "owned" it since the workers are the ones who produce the labor. Critique of AnCom Ethics Rebuttal 1) If there is no way to determine the value of goods, then there shouldn't be a system that operates like that. Pro keeps claiming that if we operated on a "need basis" than it wouldn't work because we wouldn't know how much to produce etc. Even though I proved that there is no way to determine quality and quantity of goods, Pro still keeps claiming that through a market system we would know. "Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations.[85] For instance, one could not measure the value of a factory worker's daily production without taking into account how transportation, food, water, shelter, relaxation, machine efficiency, emotional mood etc. contributed to their production. To truly give numerical economic value to anything, an overwhelming amount of externalities and contributing factors would need to be taken into account – especially current or past labor contributing to the ability to utilize future labor. As Krotopkin put it: "No distinction can be drawn between the work of each man. Measuring the work by its results leads us to absurdity; dividing and measuring them by hours spent on the work also leads us to absurdity. One thing remains: put the needs above the works, and first of all recognize the right to live, and later on, to the comforts of life, for all those who take their share in production.." Operating on a need basis wouldn't be complicated or difficult to implement at all. Everyone would work and contribute to the AnCom society. They would be able to get as much goods and resources as they want or need as a "thank you" for the services they provided. Operating on a need basis would provide much organization and planning but it is not a task that is insurmountable. It would be much more effective than a "market economy" which encourages exploitation for profits (and value cannot be truly determined by prices) 2) The only reason people still advocate 'inequality' or support the current system is because they are taught that what the people want, which is what everyone wants: freedom/no oppression/ stability/ and in a lot of cases, equality, is considered "politically unrealistic." Which simply means of course that it is not in the interests of private investors. People are trained to believe that we can never live in a truly beautiful or humanitarian society because it is "unrealistic." Capitalism Hierarchy is bad because it is authoritarian. A system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority. The upper echelons of a hierarchical system; those in authority. And you can't really determine true values of people in a system, especially under Capitalism. Capitalistic businessmen uses illegitimate means to rise higher in the higher while the workers, who produce all of the labor, stay in the bottom of the hierarchy. And you can't say "but workers can always start a business" because in order for a business to work there needs to be workers. Workers are always unfairly taken advantage of because of the authority of the bosses. All of the first Anarchists were "left Anarchists." Anarchy is freedom from authority, and authority still dominates under Capitalism