Resolved: On Balance, Anarcho-Capitalism is better than Anarcho-Communism.

Contention 1: Capitalist Distributive Justice better than Egalitarian Under Anarcho-Communism the form of Distributive Justice is that of Egalitarian. [1] The Egalitarian Distributive Principle hinges on the fact that everyone in society is made equally and that society’s benefits and burdens should be equally distributed amongst society. Capitalistic Distributive Justice, on the other hand, is that the benefits of society should be equally distributed amongst contributors. Though my opponent can agree that each should have equal rights it is the burdens and benefits that where we clash. The main problem with the Egalitarian principle is that it creates waste. The thing is that not everyone needs the same amount of benefits and burdens. For example, someone who is mentally handicapped cannot perform the same as a scientist who is not. The scientist may not need the same amount of benefits that the handicapped man does and they most certainly will be unable to contribute in the same way. While on the other side Capitalist Distributive Justice shows that people would be getting what they earn do to their contrabution and this would encourage more and more people to contribute to soceity and due to these desires it would result in growth of the soceity and its betterment even though people are working for their own desires. Another flaw in Anarcho-Communism's Egalitarian principle is that of the redistribution of wealth in order to have an equal set of benefits for society. Here one must look through Rawl's Veil of Ignorance. In order to do that one's creed, race, sex, religion, political views, and generation does not matter. This in in order to eliminate bias from the viewer in order to view his two principles of Difference and Equality. The Equality Principle is that the greatest extent of Liberty for everyone. The other states that it must benefit everyone, including the least advantaged, must be open to everyone, and your enemy chooses your position in that society or scenario. [2] In the case of this redistribution of wealth one must see that it is not benefitting society as it harming the richer to give to the poor. In this case we also do not know to what extent the Equality of redistribution must be met. To further this if the person behind the Veil wanted their place in society they would all want to be the least advantaged, but in turn they would become better off in this case. Though in order to balance this out in society it would discourage people from wanting to be rich so that they could receive benefits from the more advantaged and thus would wreck any type of society into one that has stagnated and has halted any type of progress or growth. Not to mention that at this point that it would result in any type of means of getting this money which can result in violence which once again would damage society, but yet show that this redistribution cannot actually flourish with Anarcho-Communism. Contention 2: Individualism and the hard work. There is no greater arguer of individualism than Alexis de Tocqueville who defines Individualism as fallows (yes I still accept Pro's definition, but this is part of my argument): “a calm and considered feeling which disposes each citizen to isolate himself from the mass of his fellows and withdraw into the circle of family and friends; with this little society formed to his taste, he gladly leaves the greater society to look after itself. " [3] He later argues in his novel that America (in the 1800s) is great for its individualism as we are willing to risk all of our personal fortunes and earning to take a chance in business or the great wilderness of the American frontier. Unlike Europe at the time where people only past down land to the oldest in the family and that was it, in the US people took chances and defied society's discouragement to take chances to better the economy and better the world as expected by you in a democratic society. “As social equality spreads there are more and more people who, though neither rich nor powerful enough to have much hold over others, have gained and kept enough wealth and enough understanding to look after their own needs. Such folk owe no man anything and hardly expect anything from anybody. They form the habit of thinking of themselves in isolation and imagine their whole destiny is in their own hands” [3] Tocqueville argues that this is necessary to be individualistic in order to maintain an independence and not being able to have to expect society to have to support you Ralph Waldo Emmerson agrees with this theory in his essay Self-Reliance, where he argues that it is the upmost importance that one must live by their own instant, because it is important that one stays independent. He also goes on to argue that one growth is determined by their independence from society and that one's own abilities to choose for one's self and make your own decisions make it important. Contention 3: Anarcho-Capitalism works historically. Whether you want to believe it or not, but the Anarcho-Capitalism has actually existed in small societies here in the US. One of the most famous examples was that of Pullman Company. Pullman was a company that made famous luxurious rail road cars in the 1800s. Pullman had printed his own company money and even made a town and living spaces for their employees. There they lived like any other town in the United States. George Pullman did this in order to help ease his workers and help them amongst their tension and the society worked. Everything from schools, to food kitchens, were all provided in the Pullman society were the poor in his town were well careful as the town was rated one of the Healthiest places in the world. [4]This had even gone to the extent of showing that Pullman had cared so much for his workers and was viewed as such a visionary that he dwarfed the power and reformations of Otto Von Bismarck. [5] The town also reached a value of over $5 million in worth in the early 1890s. Sources 1. ( . http://www.spunk.org...) 2. ( . http://plato.stanford.edu...) 3. (Translation by Lawrence, George (1969). Perennial Classics. Quotations are from Volume II, Part 2, Chapter 2-4. Page 506 and Page 508) 4. Wilson, James Grant; Fiske, John, eds. (1900). "Pullman, George Mortimer". Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography. New York: D. Appleton. 5. "The Parable of Pullman" at the Wayback Machine(archived May 13, 2008), Kent Law Journal, 2008