On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism.

Thanks, Lwerd for accepting, and good luck! As before, the burden of proof is equal: we both must show the merits of our respective systems and demonstrate their superiority over the alternative. == Definitions == Capitalism – economic system characterized by voluntary exchange, private ownership, and the prohibition of force, fraud, and coercion. Humanitarian – showing concern for welfare and happiness of mankind. I'll leave this term open-ended. Some possible criteria might include social stability, equality, prosperity, respect for human rights, etc. I'll also allow my opponent to define communism as she sees fit (within reason, of course). == Pro Case == 1. Individual rights A) Personal ownership and private property I'll be defending Jï¿½rgen Habermas' discourse ethics.[1] It is necessarily true that rational individuals will assign themselves rules so as to harmonize their interactions. Moreover, ethical discourse consists of the use of argumentation to convince another of the truth of one's position. Belying this is the fact that no one could possibly make any ethical proposition, nor be persuaded by argumentative means unless the right to exclusive use of one's person is presupposed. For example, if you were to try to convince me to become your slave, at the most you could get me to perform uncompensated voluntary labor; the idea of a "voluntary" slave is a contradiction in terms. Similarly, it is logically incoherent to argue against a voluntaryist ethic of self-ownership; such a right is categorically affirmed by the process of argumentative appeal. One's person is inseparable from his actions; direct interference with my peaceful activities is a violation of my right to self-ownership. Appropriating land for my personal use is an example of such an activity, thus property ownership is a necessary corollary of self-ownership. B) The role of the state On libertarianism, the sole legitimate role of the state is to defend individuals against the initiation of force against their person or rightfully owned property. This is the *only* system of government consistent with a natural rights ethic. Such a minimal state is not uninspiring; on the contrary, it is a framework for utopia. Within such a system, free individuals may associate with whomever they want on any mutually agreed upon terms. The Amish or even communists may freely form their own societies operating on their own rules within the framework the state, provided such rules are agreed upon by the members of their respective communities. 2. Economic prosperity and overall well-being A) Market function The central, unifying theme in economics a simple one: people act on their desires. Ludwig von Mises termed this "praxeology."[2] The debate we are having affirms this. Engaging in discourse is not without cost, it expresses a preference over other activities we could be doing instead. Moreover, capitalism acknowledges and operates on known laws, such as supply and demand, time value of money, marginal utility, etc. Socio-economic systems can harmonize with these principles, or they may fight against them. Both approaches have predictable results. B) Free rider problem Frederic Bastiat once said "the state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Socialism creates a game theory scenario. If all wealth is collectively shared and owned, instead of producing to satisfy one's desires, the best outcome is attained by "defectors" who enjoy the fruits of others' labor without themselves being productive. When there is no incentive to produce, the result is the Tragedy of the Commons. C) Economic calculation problem Every economic system must answer the question of how to make use of limited resources to satisfy consumer needs. Once it is known that consumers desire 10 units of product A over 7 units of product B, we then have to consider raw materials, labor, machinery, storage facilities, etc. before deciding how much of each to produce. Every one of these instrumental goods is in turn subject to competing forces of supply and demand. Even in the purely theoretical case that a production decision begins with complete technical knowledge of all the relevant factors, changes occur every minute of every day. The only way to coordinate the economic means with the desired ends is via a price mechanism.[3] D) Capitalism works in practice Capitalism need not be implemented perfectly. With the increase of economic freedom comes the increase of prosperity. China is a good example of a country that has gradually introduced capitalist elements into a previously command centered economy.[4] Markets can work alongside and to some extent mitigate the harm caused by interventionist policies. On the other hand, socialists have been forced to rationalize the abject failure of their theory in practice by claiming implementations were "inauthentic," "flawed," or "impure." 3. Power structures A) State authority David Friedman describes three basic ways to get people to do what you want: persuasion, trade, and force.[5] On capitalism, the only way for a business to get your money is by trade (or persuasion, if you're stupid). To succeed, businesses must either provide a better product, or do so at a lower cost (or both). This is the ultimate check against corporate power. Government, by contrast, is under no such obligation. Governments operate on force, thus they can act with impunity. It is not surprising, then, when Murray Rothbard writes "the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor: the State."[6] B) Communism leads to tyranny In a capitalist economy, the organization of society arises via spontaneous order; the price mechanism makes possible the coordination of economic means with desired ends. However, on communism, such "bottom up" structuring is impossible; a central planner is required. In order for the economy to function (albeit far less efficiently than a free market), the dictates of the planner or planning committee must be carried out and disobedience must be punished. Additionally, communism can't allow "opting out." Let's say the average income in Marxville is $100 a week. Crusoe is a doctor; if he lived outside the commune, he could make $150. Crusoe and his fellow doctors decide to leave, lowering the average income to $90 a week. Jones, an engineer, might earn $100 outside the commune. Thus, soon after Crusoe and his fellow doctors depart, Jones and the engineers follow. Eventually, there are no skilled workers left in Marxville. The community decides that it is necessary to force individuals to stay. Similarly, if workers choose not to produce, they will have to be forced to work. The implication is that communism can only be implemented by force. Mikhail Bakunin criticizes this notion writing: "no dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up."[7] || CONCLUSION || Libertarianism allows maximal freedom, enabling individuals to pursue their own chosen ends as they best see fit. Con is faced with a dilemma: if people adopt her system voluntarily, there is no essential conflict with libertarianism. If they don't, she must address the reasons why. I've given two strong economic arguments against Marxism: the free rider problem and the economic calculation problem. Finally, I've argued that a system based on collective ownership necessarily involves a coercive central state and inevitably leads to tyranny. References: http://tinyurl.com...