On balance, Anarcho-capitalism would be more just and humanitarian than Anarcho-communism

===Private Property Ethics===Thank you to Con for at length explaining what you mean by personal and private property. But Con failed to respond to some important points I made in the last round. For instance, I asked what the *categorical* difference (i.e., in type, not extent) was between private and personal property. Con's answer was that private property is used to make a profit while personal property was property that could be used at not expense to anyone else in the group. But if we accept the notion that our values are essentially limitless (i.e., that there are infinite combinations of things that we can want), then it follows that the act of exclusively controlling one's self essentially goes against someone's values. Whether it be a girl turning down a guy for sex or someone not being able to babysit (the examples are trivial, but serve an important purpose), what we do with our body can conceptually go against the values of another person. So Con must either accept that his distinction is fallacious, or sacrifice self ownership in his AnCommunist model.But now on to Con's main driving point in his critique of private property. From what I can discern, his beef with private property is essentially that it is used to extract a profit. But besides using vague buzzwords and relying on his own presumptions coming into this debate, I haven't seen any actual argument for why this is a bad thing. And since this is the last round, bringing an argument now would constitute a rule violation. ===Critique of AnCommunist Economics===(1) Con sort of just bypasses my critique by arguing that since we can't know the "true" value of goods, we shouldn't operate on a system that presumes to know. Note that the resolution implies the utilitarian litmus test by virtue of the wording of 'humanitarian'. Furthermore, Con's epistemic difficulties raised apply more so to AnCom than AnCap. Under AnCapitalism, the "value" of goods and services is co-aligned by their relative scarcity along with their opportunity cost in production. We CAN know their value and the model I've forwarded is the only one that can. On a side note, Con also criticizes markets shortly by claiming that they rely on "exploitation for profits". Since he didn't go into the justification of this assertion, I see no reason to respond to it. And since this is the last round, Con cannot forward a justification since I'd have no way of responding to it. Con also just ignores my point about the epistemic impossibility of centrally managing an entire economy. He just whistfully goes right by it in claiming that it "wouldn't be complicated or difficult to implement at all", a claim which was likewise not actually defended.(2) Con also argues that we only accept "inequality" because we are brought up to. Of course, no argumentative support is actually provided in support of this point (remember, no new arguments in the final round). I wish I had more to say on the point but this is essentially the entirety of Con's rebuttal. I brought up some difficulties in having everyone just naturally obey the "each according to his ability...." rule and Con responded that (a) we NATURALLY want to follow it and (b) that we don't because we are just taught not to. Con relied on two claims which were neither defended nor justified.===Hierarchy, Wages, and Capitalism===Remember that in the last round, I brought up the following points. I argued that hierarchy is not inherently bad, that Con's conception of AnSyndicalism is entirely compatible with free market economics, and that Con's attempted refutation of AnCapitalism because it's supposedly not "real anarchism" is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Con responds to the first point by simply arguing that it's authoritarian. Perhaps, but (and this leads back to the private property point above), AnCommunists don't have a leg to stand on in this point since advocation of exclusive control of one's person is essentially authoritarian relative to the needs or wants of others. If I want to have sex with you, rejecting me is authoritarian in the same qualitative (though not quantitative) way as Con describes capitalism being. On the second point, Con completely ignores my worker emancipation rebuttal, still arguing that "labor" stays "in the bottom of the hierarchy". Not exactly given the free market model I advanced of worker control. Con also continues to stick to his No True Scotsman in the third point, now simply replacing his former argument with the claim that the first anarchists were "left Anarchists" as if they were profits to be emulated. ===Conclusion===Con's arguments are riddled with unsupported presumptions, total ignorance of my arguments, and mere talking points. On the private property ethic, Con is guilty of inconsistency when he criticizes private property for being used at the expense of others, while simultaneously advocating for the same type of relationship in self ownership (i.e., the ability to go against the preferences/values/even health) of another by virtue of one's exclusive control of their person. Con also totally undermines the utilitarian nature of this debate when he argues against markets simply from Kropotkin's standpoint of not being able to determine value. We CAN determine value as it relates to the actions and preference of other economic actors. This leads to greater prosperity and well being for all involved. Con's model for economic decision making is simply a vaguely described central planning which he neither expanded on not defended against my own epistemic attacks. Con also makes the mistake of relying on an undefended conception of human nature, one that conveniently supports his own arguments but which was never defended in the first place. All in all Con fails on all points, with the merits of markets and private property left still standing. Good luck to Con in the voting period. This was actually an engaging debate and a chance to learn what anti-market anarchists actually think.