Christian teachings support anarcho capitalism over social anarchism

===Pro Case===Temple Scene and Property Rectification.(A) In response to the contention that Jesus was not acting in defense of property since the temples were public space, it was specifically the existence of a market in the temple that was the issue. Just saying a market exists makes it legitimately public space doesn't legitimize the establishment of a market in the temple in the first place. And even the market was not a normal existence. At the time of the incident in question, crowds were gathered in anticipation of Passover. The merchants and sellers were buying sacrificial items for the event and selling them to worshippers who had mostly travelled from afar and thus were unable to bring their own. The money changers were there because only Tyrian money could be accepted whereas Roman money was the dominant currency in circulation. Therefore, money changing was necessary to buy sacrificial items. The temple was not a public space and the market that was there was only due to Passover coming soon[1].(B) In response to proper authority, remember that the standard of this debate is in accordance with Christian doctrine and according to Christian doctrine Jesus is synonymous with God. This is the view supported also by even the words of God who claimed "the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple"[2] in anticipation for the birth of Christ in the New Testament. In fact, even in the verse in question, Jesus claims the temple to be his house[3]. So to claim lack of authority in acting is simply wrong. Jesus clearly conceived of the temple and places of worship as his own property, hence explaining his disgust at non-temple related activities going on in his property.(C) On whether Jesus is actually right about theft occurring and whether he actually made a claim as to who they were stealing from, I refer my opponent to both point A regarding the Temple being Jesus' property in the first place (which is substantiated in verses like Matthew 21:13) and will also point out that Jesus made it very clear who he believed was being wronged in the theft. He claimed that “‘My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it ‘a den of robbers" (Mat. 21:13). Clearly he believed that he was the one who was being stolen from. On another note, I have made no claim on whether charging unfair prices was Jesus' point and do not believe that to be the proper explanation for his actions.Ten Commandments and Theft.I concede that this point may be taken to support either side being argued. All it shows is that some form of property is defended, whether collective or individual. I'll point out though that I maintain the proper standing of the temple scene contention and the falsity of my opponent's own contentions brought in the last round.===Con Case===(Acts 4: 34-35. Ecclesiastes 3:13) The verses here while supporting an ethics of providing for those in need does not say anything about property or in what forms it may be ethically justified. Referring to the definitions provided in R1, anarcho capitalism and social anarchism are defined only in relation to their views on what kinds of property ought to exist. But the problem here is that the two are separate concepts entirely. Charity and providing necessities for people out of ethical concern is not mutually exclusive from owning private property. For instance, John Rockefeller was an extremely charitable person and believed deeply in helping those with nothing[4], yet he did so from the foundation of private property rights. He owned what he owned, but he gave based on a sense of ethics, not a sense of duty.Put more clearly, Con's point that these verses support socialist principles is misleading. There are different definitions of these principles. The version which may be legitimately derived from these verses would be support of charity and helping the poor. Organizing society around collective ownership is only one way to do that and my opponent has not sufficiently shown why the verse specifically supports collective ownership as a means to that end, especially seeing as the verse depicts enacting socialist principles based on the idea that people prior already owned privately what they gave. A society based on the principles of private property does not preclude people from choosing to act to help the poor and needy based on a sense of Christian duty. Thus, social anarchism is not the necessary conclusion to draw from these verses and their message.(Matthew 21: 12-13) Con asserts that Jesus is making the claim that selling items to the poor is stealing based off of his reaction to their sale in the temple courts. Reference is made to the fact that Jesus called the money changers "robbers". But the mistake of Con's point is that he is mistaking the meaning behind calling the money changers thieves. This mistake is made evident by Jesus placing emphasis on where this was all occurring. Jesus never claims that the activities being performed are wrong per se, the wrongness of the actions are only mentioned in relation to where they are occurring. The emphasis put on the function of the temple shows that one cannot derive any explicit or implicit support for collective property rights since Jesus makes it clear he is angry at WHERE the trade is occurring, not THAT it is occurring.===Sources===[1] http://thirdmill.org... (Part I, Points A-D)[2] http://www.biblegateway.com...In full: Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.[3] Matthew 21:13 (And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer...)[4] http://www.rockarch.org... (He donated to 165 different welfare organizations not including donations to schools, health care, emergency relief, the environment, etc.)