Anarcho-capitalism would be a more humanitarian form of social organization than Anarcho-communism

Anarcho-communism = AnComAnarcho-capitalism = AnCapContention. Prices and Money.One major difference between AnCom and AnCap is that under an AnCom system, money would be dispensed with entirely and replaced with either a gift or a communal economy. The problem with this however is that it fails to take into account the necessity of money. Money is a necessary component of any productive and efficient economic setup. The reason being that any rationally directed economy requires prices to coordinate supply and demand and money is an essential tool in price formation. Obviously the price of something refers to something that can be paid for a good or service i.e. money. The reason prices are necessary in an economy is because prices are themselves the only way to coordinate heterogeneous goods and services with labor time. Labor time and actual product goods are distinct types of goods and so if one is to coordinate their exchange in any sort of coherent manner, a mechanism which is able to compare these goods in some rational way will always be necessary. This mechanism is found in pricing[1]. Both labor time, and product goods can be easily compared by the relative costs of producing them. An economic arrangement without the use of money necessarily lacks a price mechanism and thus any way to rationally coordinate the economy. This is the reason that under Communist regimes, we saw things like huge shortages in some areas and huge surpluses in others. The only thing that bureaucrats had to go on was either imperfect information due to a lack of an actual pricing mechanism or the political pull of those asking for products. The same principle applies to an AnCom economy. Without a working price mechanism, an AnCom society would be riddled with shortages in some areas where others dealt with surpluses (meaning that the problem isn't only productive, but coordinative). This problem would not exist in an AnCap economy considering it would be able to utilize money and prices.Contention. Free Riders and Central Force.Under AnCom, goods and services are generally guaranteed (in principle at least) according to need as opposed to trade as with an AnCap system. In doing so though, AnCom creates a free rider problem. If I'm guaranteed sustenance and shelter regardless of what I contribute then defecting from contribution is now incentivised. But this incentive is not unique to just a few members of society. It's the same with everyone who is guaranteed the things they need i.e. everyone. Therefore an AnCom society would be unable to fulfill the jobs necessary to actually yield goods and services. That is, without recourse to one of two things; incentives and force.As I explained, the incentives inherent in AnCom are what causes this problem in the first place so it's not really possible to change what people are incentivised to do. Therefore the only other method to get people to actually produce goods and services in an AnCom society would be with recourse to force. But in doing so one has left the realm of anarchism entirely and entered Statism. So AnCom is left with two options. Either change the incentives inherent within the economic structure (meaning abolishing the communist structure entirely) or fall to the use of force to produce what is necessary (meaning abolishing the anarchist structure entirely). Either way, AnCom is self defeating in this sense.===I'll end my argument here so as to allow room for my opponent's refutation along with any positive argument he chooses to forward in favor of AnCom. I now pass on the debate back to my opponent.======Sources===[1] http://mises.org...