On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism

Charleslb has an awful lot to say about capitalism (and capitalists), but he has yet to take on any of the experienced libertarian in a formal debate. The burden of proof is equal: we both must prove the merits of our respective systems and demonstrate their superiority over the alternative. == Definitions == Capitalism – economic system characterized by voluntary exchange, private ownership, and the prohibition of force, fraud, and coercion. Note: while there are other definitions of capitalism, this is a common one among libertarians and it is the one I will be defending. This is not a semantics debate. By accepting the challenge, my opponent agrees to the terms I've set. Humanitarian – showing concern for welfare and happiness of mankind. I'll leave this term open-ended. Some possible criteria might include social stability, equality, prosperity, respect for human rights, etc. I'll also allow my opponent to define communism as he sees fit (within reason, of course). == Pro Case == 1. Individual rights A) Personal ownership and private property I'll be defending Jan Narveson's metaethical contractarianism.[1] It is necessarily true that rational individuals will assign themselves rules so as to harmonize their interactions. Moreover, ethical discourse consists of the use of argumentation to convince another of the truth of one's position. Belying this is the fact that no one could possibly make any ethical proposition, nor be persuaded by argumentative means unless the right to exclusive use of one's person is presupposed. For example, if you were to try to convince me to become your slave, at the most you could get me to perform uncompensated voluntary labor; the idea of a "voluntary" slave is a contradiction in terms. Similarly, it is logically incoherent to argue against a voluntaryist ethic of self-ownership; such a right is categorically affirmed by the process of argumentative appeal. One's person is inseparable from his actions; direct interference with my peaceful activities is a violation of my right to self-ownership. Appropriating land for my personal use is an example of such an activity, thus property ownership is a necessary corollary of self-ownership. B) The role of government On libertarianism, the sole legitimate role of the state is to defend individuals against the initiation of force against their person or rightfully owned property. This is the *only* system of government consistent with a natural rights ethic. Such a minimal state is not uninspiring; on the contrary, it is a framework for utopia. Within such a system, free individuals may associate with whomever they want on any mutually agreed upon terms. The Amish or even communists like my opponent may freely form their own societies operating on their own rules within the framework the state, provided such rules are agreed upon by the members of their respective communities. 2. Economic prosperity and overall well-being The central, unifying theme in economics a simple one: people act on their desires. Ludwig von Mises termed this principle "praxeology."[2] The debate we are having affirms this. Engaging in discourse is not without cost, it expresses a preference over other activities we could be doing instead. Socio-economic systems can harmonize with this, or they may fight against it. Both approaches have predictable results. A) Free rider problem Frederic Bastiat once said "the state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Socialism creates a game theory scenario. If all wealth is collectively shared and owned, instead of producing to satisfy one's desires, the best outcome is attained by "defectors" who enjoy the fruits of others' labor without themselves being productive. When there is no incentive to produce, the result is the Tragedy of the Commons. B) Economic calculation problem Every economic system must answer the question of how to make use of limited resources to satisfy consumer needs. On capitalism, the price mechanism operates on the law of supply and demand. When demand for a good exceeds supply, the price increases. This creates an incentive to produce more of that good, bringing the two forces into equilibrium. When there is a glut in the market and supply exceeds demand, prices decrease, discouraging the allocation of capital in that sector. Knowing which products are in demand is only the beginning. The real task is to place the economic means at the service of the ends. Mises explains: "this can only be done with some kind of economic calculation. The human mind cannot orientate itself properly among the bewildering mass of intermediate products and potentialities of production without such aid. It would simply stand perplexed before the problems of management and location."[3] Once it is decided that consumers desire 10 units of product A over 7 units of product B, we then have to consider raw materials, labor, machinery, storage facilities, etc. before we decide how much of each to produce. Every one of these instrumental goods is in turn subject to competing forces of supply and demand. Even in the purely theoretical case that a production decision begins with complete technical knowledge of all the relevant factors, changes occur every minute of every day. The only way to coordinate the means of production with consumer desires is via a price mechanism. 3. Power structures A) State authority David Friedman describes three basic ways to get people to do what you want: persuasion, trade, and force.[4] On capitalism, the only way for a business to get your money is by trade (or persuasion, if you're stupid). To succeed, businesses must either provide a better product, or do so at a lower cost (or both). This is the ultimate check against corporate power. Government, by contrast, is under no such obligation. Governments operate on force, thus they can act with impunity. It is not surprising, then, when Murray Rothbard writes "the libertarian sees that throughout history and into the present day, there has been one central, dominant, and overriding aggressor: the State."[5] B) Communism is inherently coercive Let's say the average income in Marxville is $100 a week. Crusoe is a doctor; if he lived outside the commune, he could make $150. Crusoe and his fellow doctors decide to leave, lowering the average income to $90 a week. Jones, an engineer, might earn $100 outside the commune. Thus, soon after Crusoe and his fellow doctors depart, Jones and the engineers follow. Eventually, there are no skilled workers left in Marxville. The community decides that it is necessary to force individuals to stay. If workers choose not to produce so that their efforts do not exceed their benefits, they will have to be forced to work. C) Communism inevitably leads to tyranny Using the mechanism of the state to achieve a classless society is impossible. Mikhail Bakunin criticizes the dictatorship of the proletariat, writing: "no dictatorship can have any other aim but that of self-perpetuation, and it can beget only slavery in the people tolerating it; freedom can be created only by freedom, that is, by a universal rebellion on the part of the people and free organization of the toiling masses from the bottom up."[6] || CONCLUSION || Libertarianism allows maximal freedom, enabling individuals to pursue their own chosen ends as they best see fit. Con is faced with a serious dilemma: if people adopt his system voluntarily, there is no essential conflict with libertarianism. If they don't, he must address the reasons why. I've given two strong economic arguments against Marxism: the free rider problem and the economic calculation problem. Finally, I've argued that a system based on collective ownership necessarily involves a coercive central state and inevitably leads to tyranny. References: http://tinyurl.com...