On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism.

I will respond to Pro's arguments in this round and use the next to begin mine. == Definitions == I accept Pro's definitions and submit: Communism -- a political theory favoring collectivism in a classless society; also against force, fraud and coercion == Pro Case == 1. Individual Rights A) In Qu'est-ce que la propriï¿½tï¿½, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued against unused land being regarded as private property, believing that land can only be rightfully possessed by use or occupation (which he called "possession"). As an extension, he argued against such institutions as interest on loans and rent which creates a capitalist class [1]. It does not follow that because one has self-ownership that one has the right to own land, and Pro has not demonstrated that connection. Though Pro quotes Mikhail Bakunin in his opening round, said philosopher is actually a firm *opponent* of capitalism and founded a theory based on a collectivist model. He's said, "And since neither property nor capital produces anything when not fertilized by labor; that means the power and the right to live by exploiting the works of someone else - the right to exploit the work of those who possess neither property nor capital, and who thus are forced to sell their productive power to the lucky owners of both. " B) Pro says the only function of the state is to protect rightfully owned private property. Distinguishing what is or cannot be "rightfully owned private property" is the entire purpise of this debate, so don't be fooled by the persuasive rhetoric of my articulate opponent. Nevertheless he suggests communists may "freely" form their own societies within a capitalist framework. First, the purpose of this debate is to determine which ideology is more humanitarian - not whether or not the two can coexist. Second, it is not true that comm's are free to form their own societies (the Amish are not an example, and by the way they're capitalist) though if my opponent wishes to use this as a significant contention in his favor I'll elaborate further. 2. Economic Prosperity and Well-Being A) Mises' praxeology is a system of apriorism and has in fact been widely criticized. There is no reason to believe that apriorism provides a consistent and reliable method for obtaining true theories about the real world. Praxeology has obvious affinities with the theories of the great rationalist system-builders of the early modern period, like Descartes, Spinoza and Leibniz, whose systems, as we now know, were utterly false [2]. There are four main ways in which praxeology can be criticized -- questioning the truth of Mises' axioms; showing flaws in the verbal chain of logic used to draw the inferences arrived at in praxeology; demonstrating unjustified subsidiary propositions or hidden assumptions in Mises' reasoning that invalidate his conclusions; and the question of how to choose between competing praxeological systems derived by a priori deduction from (allegedly) certain starting axioms [3]. B) Pro posits that a Tragedy of the Commons scenario occurs without an incentive to produce, though such a scenario has nothing to do with production and everything to do with exploitation of resources. However such a scenario is just as plausible and in fact more likely under capitalism. Environmental practices are a perfect example of this notion, as people often exploit the environment for profit at detrimental costs [4]. Why does a "state" have to be responsible for managing resources? There have been plenty of examples of local organizations or community-managed resources that do not grant monopolies based on wealth [5]. Additionally, collective restraint serves both the collective and individual interests. Further, the Tragedy of the Anti-Commons exemplifies the contrary scenario: After the fall of communism in Europe, there were many empty stores. Because private parties had rights over the use of store space, it was difficult or even impossible for a startup retailer to negotiate successfully the use of that space [6]. C) In response to the issue of price, two options: First, a collective society could combine the labor theory of value plus quality of labor as a price determinant. Second, small communities may decide to scrap "price" all-together and simply work together to produce what is needed to survive. This is not far-fetched as there are still exceptionally small towns in the midwest that are very communal for example. However where people wanted to actually generate wealth, they could simply utilize free trade and the price determining suggestions I noted. A communist society need only be a collective one, or one without private property to distinguish class though possession is acceptable. Consider collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism; though both seek to organize production via worker associations, the former believes the ways of retribution (i. e. distribution) of labor, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself. Unlike traditional communism, it is not based on free consumption [7]. D) Pro suggests that communists cannot rely on the "Oh well that wasn't pure communism" excuse even though that's the single most utilized capitalist defense around. Nevertheless, Pro suggests China is an example of capitalism thriving. However, his source talks about how "cheap government loans, subsidies, and tax holidays are funding high-tech ventures" as well as other drastic interventionist contributions from the government in Beijing. This is the complete *opposite* of the role of the state my opponent has described. In fact the government determining where to subsidize "private" business is more similar to communism, and yes these practices have made China very successful. 3. Power Structures A) Pro critiques the use of force by the government though I don't propose government so this is irrelevant. B) Ironically my opponent labels this point "Communism leads to tyranny" though the exact opposite is true. Because government has a monopoly on force, it is tyrannical by definition -- yet Pro proposes a government to uphold property rights. He suggests any state planning committee as tyrannical, though this is completely non-sensical compared to "government. " He also indicates "disobedience will be punished" though fails to mention which agent under communism will do the alleged punishing. On "opting out" Pro describes a scenario in which all skilled workers leave to seek profit, and the community resorting to force to get people to stay and/or work. It is completely presumptuous to say force will be used by some mysterious entity to get people to stay. Moreover I argue that this would be implausible given everyone has the right to bear arms and protect themselves against slavery. I also object to some mysterious entity forcing people to work and the same logic applies (the right to resist forced labor). However that doesn't mean the community has to share their possessions with everyone. I'll expand more on this and begin my offensive arguments in the next round. | CONCLUSION | Pro writes, "Libertarianism allows maximal freedom, enabling individuals to pursue their own chosen ends as they best see fit. " We could just as easily replace that word with Communism. Pro suggests that one can adopt my proposed system within a libertarian framework though my system requires no state whereas libertarianism does, making this notion impossible. I've responded to both Pro's Free Rider and Economic Calculation Problem. He concludes, "A system based on collective ownership necessarily involves a coercive central state and inevitably leads to tyranny. " This is completely FALSE. In fact, the philosopher Pro quoted in his round specifically theorized about an anarchist collectivist society with no central state and thus no tyranny [8]. SOURCES: . http://tinyurl.com...