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

First of all, I justified "some" acts of exclusively controlling oneself. That notion is definitely justified since we accepted that we must respect everyone's personal property. Just because a girl turns down a guy for sex, etc., the situations really depend on balance of power. For example, if a girl turns down a guy for sex, than all she is saying is she doesn't want to participate in what he wants her to participate in. That does place her in a level of higher authority, but it is justified. All she is saying when she turns him down is that she is not interested, which won't exactly "destroy the values" of the other person. If she had no sense of self-ownership and she had to have sex with him, than that is her being extremely oppressed and controlled. Everyone has to have a sense of self-respect in order not to be controlled as well as respect for others to not control others. Self-ownership is just as important as everyone else's values in the society. It's all about balance and compromise. Because if you sacrifice self-ownership, than there will be some people that still have plenty of self-ownership and will take advantage of those who don't. The point of Anarcho-Communism, is to have a system where no one has power over to other. That guy can survive without having sex with her, and that person can babysit other people. It becomes illegitimate when the things that they are withholding the person from doing is detrimental towards their living needs or rights. If the guy was just asking for re-gifting resources in payment for his work, and they don't give it to him, or if someone has a bunch of land and he is lacking a house and he asks that person to share some of his land, than it would be illegitimate if he refused to share his land with him. Him refusing would be illegitimate because his is refusing his neighbor the right to shelter. That puts him in a much higher position of power and privilege over him. Throughout this final round, Pro basically just dismisses/ignores all of my claims because I don't have "proof" to support them. I would say that's quite hypocritical since Pro's claims did not really have an overwhelming amount of evidence either. I don't see how when I explained how "private property" is just used illegitimately to reap profits without concern for the workers or their welfare, is not "bad?" Why is it fair that bosses get all the benefits and labor workers get all the exploitation and pain even though they work the hardest? I know Pro said I could't argue back since it's the last round, but it's quite difficult after he just poured this plate of strawmans on the last round. Let me just explain myself further. 1) Seriously food scarcity is a myth. We don't have a "scarcity problem" we have a distribution problem since private investors and businesses don't actually practice "free trade", it's all calculated. The commoners are the only ones who actually practice "free trade" and are fed this lie that there is a "scarcity problem" and it's the consumer's fault. Why are there starving people in the streets and rich business men rolling in money? There isn't a lack of resources. There are plenty of resources to go around. The fact is that it is a distribution problem. They won't tell you that in economics class. I know I couldn't bring up new arguments but we seriously can't know the true value of goods ever especially if it's dependent on profits. We can know the "value" profits wise but not it's true value. Pro acknowledges this but just keeps arguing that we can work with a system that determines it's value through supply, demand, and profits. Markets often work to provide what consumers want than what they need. They operate in a way that only rests on gaining profits and competition. They abuse labor workers for the gaining of efficiency etc. This is pretty much common sense. http://distributistreview.com... 2) If Pro cannot acknowledge that we are taught to accept inequality as better than any other system than I don't know what to say. Our textbooks in high school basically glorify Capitalism and our teachers glorify it as well. We always complain about Communism and Socialism saying that those systems are inherently tyrannical. But plenty of those countries don't practice authentic Communism or Socialism. Basically in Venezuela, Chavez practices a lot of big business methods and privatizes many companies for profits. He also oppresses labor workers severely. This is typical behavior of an Industrial Capitalistic society, not Socialism. In America we are taught about the "independent, everyone for themselves" route constantly by media and schools. This is called "grassroots propaganda." This just keeps the 'little people' from unionizing and hating/distrusting each other. If we organized, there could be real change in society. But of course that's not a good thing for businesses. Cooperation is very beneficial for societies and works much more effectively. Businesses have to work together in order to work. But apparently the 'little people' have to mistrust each other Hierarchy, Wages and Capitalism You need to have a sense of control in order to balance power among each other. Letting somebody in your house even if you don't like him, just to respect him freedoms is detrimental towards your own freedoms. You have the right to refuse a person going into your house. Authoritarianism is illegitimate when you are prohibiting people from exercising their basic rights. If that person that you didn't like, has his own house, than you aren't oppressing him. He can go back to his own house. But if you withhold food from him that he needs to survive directly or indirectly, than that is illegitimate. If you wanted to have sex with me and I rejected you, that is just me having respect for my own wishes even if it goes against your wishes. But you don't need to have sex with me to survive. You can also have sex with another person if you wanted to. If the workers make the labor, than no matter how "benevolent" the businessman is, the factory does not belong to the businessman. The businessman will still have plenty of power over the labor workers since the factory would illegitimately belong to him. That businessman won't be benevolent for long however since the nature of being a businessman requires you to take into account profits as being important whereas humanity is worthless. Why should the workers that work the most stay in the bottom? It's basically like slavery. Slaves do the labor while they get nothing in return while the landlords benefit from their labor. Hierarchy in Capitalism is terrible because it is unfair hierarchy. This hierarchy isn't a pyramid of the smartest and hardest workers and at the top. Basically the hierarchy is formed by the hardest workers being at the bottom while the businessmen who reap benefits from the labor get even more benefits in the hierarchy. Conclusion Most of the entirety of this debate consisted of Pro complaining that I didn't provide enough evidence which would be fine although Pro had plenty of unsupported claims as well. Anarcho-Communism defends the position that no one person should have power over the other and that 'private property' is illegitimate for these reasons, and that Capitalism is illegitimate for those reasons as well. People want to live in a humane society. Most people in America are true Democrats, but are under the false position in that they think "Democrats" (democratic presidents etc.) actually care about the people. And if you read anything about the way America is run and foreign policy, you would know that this is not the case.BTW I'm a she not a he lol