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

===Private Property Ethics===The relation between self ownership and external ownership of resources lies in the fact that by admitting the existence of self ownership, one necessarily accepts the existence of property which is (a) scarce, and (b) exclusively controlled. This is not only a pre-emptive counter to claims of external property as "authoritarian" because it presumes exclusive control by the owner, but it asks the AnCommunist what the categorical distinction is that makes self ownership acceptable, but not external ownership of property (non-possession). Con first lays out a difference between property and possessions. Before we get into this, if it would be alright, I'd like to cross-examine my opponent just a bit concerning the differences between these two things when things get a little less obvious. For instance:-By what standard of measurement is it determined when someone no longer "possesses" something e.g. I have an old sweater that I haven't worn in four years. Am I possessing it in a legitimate sense and if so, how does this differ from "possessing" a tract of land which I haven't built on or used? Now, on to Con's criticisms of externalized property.-Con argues that property can be used to exploit people, citing slavery as an example. I would argue that this actually isn't an example of property in the sense being defended by AnCapitalists and by myself in this debate since self ownership is the ultimate foundation of external property (via homesteading). Under the AnCap propertarian thesis, slavery isn't property, but is necessarily at odds with it.-Con also seems to be presuming some very unsupported distinctions between possession and property. For instance, he defines the body as owned because we used it and "actually own it". Further, Con argues that the body isn't private property because we are "entitled to it naturally". I would ask that Pro please not presuppose her own conclusion in the argument. Saying the body isn't private property because we're entitled to it naturally is an obvious case of circularity.-Con also alludes to some vaguely defined exploitation of women's bodies as an example of how private property is exploitative. I'm not really sure what he's referring to or how it relates to the fact that AnCapitalism strictly defends the right of self ownership.-The main line of argument according to Con is that AnCommunists support the abolition of private property because of the "way its used". The way I use it then, private property could conceptually be in line with an AnCommunist conception of justice if the owners used it in a benevolent and socially just way. Countering that the "just" way is to collectivize property would be circular since the entire definition of just property in Con's own words is how its used. So the question remains, if private property owners used their property in a way to help the poor, to feed the hungry, treat the sick and the like while paying workers according to the products of their labor, would that property not then be justified?===Critique of AnCommunist Economics===1) While Con's point is interesting, it fails the utilitarian litmus test. I raised a problem in the last round about how heterogeous goods can be compared (only through a market economy). The consequences of this fact are that non-market economies necessarily have pervading shortages and surpluses in different areas of the economy. Furthermore, producers have no way to decide rationally what to produce, what not to, in what quantity, by what quality, etc. Operating on a "need" principle is fine in some instances but it can't pervade an entire economy. Con has failed to sufficiently show how this collective planning of the economy should actually overcome this problem. Just saying we would gift each other and take what we need is hardly a conclusive answer.2) Con's answer to the problem of central force is essentially that people just would decide to obey the rule "each according to....." on their own volition. While a nice and inspiring thought in itself, Con hasn't actually shown its validity. The only evincing support mustered was the supposed principle that ALL people NATURALLY (presumably invariably) seek to be free from oppression and inequality. The inequality point is clearly not true, given the millions of people who admit of some necessary inequality for society to function. The oppression point might have more support, but this principle is hardly supported universally in the SAME way. For instance, both my opponent and myself are presumably against oppression, but have wildly different ideas of what that entails. Con needs to go further than this to show that people naturally opposed HIS conception of oppression and inequality.===Hierarchy, Wages, and Capitalism===Con's positive argument against capitalism is short and cluttered mostly with talking points rather than substantive criticism. For instance, he calls capitalism "hierarchy" and just leaves it there. Surely, most people recognize that some form of hierarchy exists under a private propertarian system. But why is it bad? Why should we oppose such a system with violence if necessary? Con's argument can't be found. Con then forwards their own thin conception of worker emancipation, also without warrant as to why (a) workers should want this and (b) why worker cooperatives can't exist for profit on the market. Con's last point need not be dealt with in too much detail. Here he merely exhibits the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" by saying AnCapitalism isn't "real anarchism" because "real anarchism" is whatever Con supports. No warrant is provided of course and thus there's no reason to accept such a standard.