On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism.

Briefly responding to the ToAC and collective ownership, if the property in question was really valuable, and the owners had no plans to use it themselves, they would sell it for a profit or lease it out; this is really a non-issue. A system whereby the workers own the means of production has no particular advantage over capitalism inasmuch as the means of production are *collectively* owned, not privately owned, hence Con's comparison is not analogous. Con claims I have not "made one argument whatsoever" against the doctrine of egalitarianism. This is false; refer back to 1A in Round 2, which Con has not responded to. Additionally, this is a negative proof fallacy.[1] Con claims egalitarianism is desirable and it is her burden to demonstrate this. So far, all I've seen toward this end is the claim that "classism" has negative impacts. Unless her standard is utilitarianism, this is nothing but an appeal to consequence.[2] I have consistently argued for negative rights on a priori grounds throughout the entire debate, and, if you recall, Con actually agreed to this in the first round. Thus, the entire issue is a moot point. Finally, she fallaciously assumes a causal relationship between income disparity and social ills.[3] More likely, this is caused by cronyist practices in the third world.[4] Con has conceded that capitalism increases economic prosperity, which, in turn, leads to better healthcare, respect for human rights, and overall well-being.[5] Both Con and myself agree that there is an objective right to self ownership. As an extension of this, we both agree that land becomes appropriated to individuals through work. However, Con also holds that all land rightfully belongs to the human race as a whole. Con still has not justified the latter claim; I posed the problem in R2 and it has gone completely ignored. At this point in the debate, it's too late to bring up new arguments since I won't be able to respond to them. Land ownership, and by extension the negative rights issue should go to Pro by default. Con has given conflicting arguments regarding economic prosperity. Early in the debate, she claimed that capitalism is inefficient and exploits workers. I've answered that this is not the case – capitalism increases the both the opportunity sets available to them and generates greater prosperity was everyone. Now, Con has suddenly abandoned her previous line of reasoning and instead argued that prosperity is actually bad and we'd be much better off poor. If Con really believes this, I have a hard time understanding why she has gone to such pains to argue that private property makes inefficient use of resources and that collectivization in Spain "created new wealth, [and] increased production." Apparently, she wants to have her cake and eat it too. Moreover, I've argued that the economic disadvantages of syndicalism lead not only to less prosperity, but real deprivation. Again, Con has not responded to this, though I brought it up as early as Round 2 under 2C. Paris Hilton may own a lot of land, but a monopoly only exists when "an individual or a group of individuals has the exclusive control of the supply of a definite commodity or factor of production."[6] Currently, nearly 70% of all Americans own their own homes.[7] Additionally, there is a great deal of unowned land in the US that can't be claimed due to restrictive government policies.[8] Finally, throughout the history of the United States very little land has actually been appropriated through homesteading; most land has been granted through government fiat.[9] I think Con's real argument here is against so-called economic "dynasties." Inheritance is simply a form of gift; a voluntary transfer of ownership rights that can't coherently be opposed to without also opposing things like birthday presents, wedding presents, anniversary presents, etc. In any case, outlawing inheritance and other wealth transfers can't be done without violating negative rights. Con has only answered two of the three responses I gave to the worker exploitation issue. The third (and most important) point I made was that even if some employers "exploit" their employees this would not necessarily bring them greater profits. To succeed in the product market, employers would have to pass on their cost savings to consumers in the form of lower prices, benefiting other wage earners. Con's answers to my first two objections are flawed as well. Regarding the first, she is equivocating on the definition of freedom. I'm referring to freedom from interference while she refers to having an large opportunity set. Moreover, I've argued elsewhere throughout the debate that capitalism actually expands individual opportunity sets. Regarding the second, merely because some people are unemployed does not mean they are immediately in a position to hop in and replace whoever gets laid off. A growing economy is constantly in transition; technological progress and the rise of new industries puts old industries out of business. Unemployment of this sort is often temporary. Additionally, unemployed workers may be unqualified or not geographically situated to fill the positions in question. In any case, the actual data shows that the purchasing power of low and middle income households is far higher today than it was in the 60's and 70's when the official poverty rate was introduced.[10] Apparently, Con believes that any form of wage labor is prima facie exploitative, even if you're a millionaire athlete like LeBron James or the chief of surgery at a prestigious hospital. So strongly does she feel about this that apparently she is justified in outlawing it. I fail to see how this is possible without violating negative rights. Additionally, this is paternalistic; shouldn't it be a decision for the individual? If, after medical school, I *want* to work for a hospital rather than going into private practice, who is Con to tell me I can't? If Con wants to live in a hovel, she is more than welcome to. Economics is wertfrei, that is, it prescribes no ethical norms. Capitalism does not command individuals to strive to become wealthy, it merely allows them to should they so choose. Con misquoted me claiming syndicalism "would do nothing to eliminate inequality..." What I *actually* wrote is that it wouldn't eliminate inequality between *disparate economic units.* This doesn't require an argument to support it; it follows from the *definition* of syndicalism, which would only equalize income within the group of workers that controls a certain business.[11] Additionally, I never claimed that syndicalism will always fail just because it failed in Italy and Spain, (though I have argued this elsewhere on a priori grounds). I was merely pointing out that, contrary to my opponent's assertion, Italy and Spain were not the shining examples of communism in practice she makes them out to be. Conclusion: Con claims that property rights require a state to be upheld, which is both false and irrelevant. My conception of property rights can function just as well under anarcho-capitalism. I only support the existence of minimal state operating under a user fee system on pragmatic grounds. I fail to see how such a state is somehow prima facie tyrannous. Con claims my case is predicated on the assumption that economic prosperity should be the ultimate goal, which is again false. I've consistently argued for negative rights; economic prosperity is just one of the benefits of this arrangement which most people find desirable. Con, on the other hand, has offered conflicting value criteria, arguing at first that syndicalism increases prosperity, only the waffle and advocate a vague notion of collective ownership rights. Thank you, theLwerd, for a challenging debate! Thanks everyone for reading, remember to leave an RFD, and Merry Christmas! The resolution is affirmed, Vote Pro! References: http://tinyurl.com...