Anarcho-capitalism would be a more humanitarian form of social organization than Anarcho-communism

===Pro Case===Contention. Prices and Money.For anyone who doesn't want to themselves wade through the video which my opponent provided, the argument goes that an economy could be decentralized starting with towns and moving up through the national and even international level. Members of various trade unions in a given town would elect delegates to go to the next level (the term regional is used in the video) to make requests regarding the needs of the town and so on and on up to the largest modes of societal organization.The problem with this argument though is that it doesn't actually bypass my point. It's not the fact that people can't express their preferences in an AnCom economy, it's that there is no way for heterogenous goods like labor time and products or services to be compared. Sure you can say "We need five sheep please" but since scarcity necessarily exists, there will always arise the need to choose between two or more mutually exclusive courses of action. Without a price mechanism there is no way to rationally decide the most economical use of resources. My opponent's point has to do with communication, not calculation.Contention. Free Riders and Central Force.In response to my contention concerning the incentive structures inherent in an AnCom society, my opponent has offered three possible answers. I'll respond to each of them separately below.(A) Social ostracismI will concede that such a mechanism as social ostracism may have practical use with regards to getting people to work. The problem with my opponent's response though is that it assumes that social value would have necessarily better consequences then profit motive (remember that this debate is comparative so just showing AnCom to be possible doesn't actually disprove whether or not AnCap is preferable). The point of my criticism was not to necessarily show that AnCom could never be sustainable in any sense whatsoever. It was to show that the incentives inherent in AnCom relative to those inherent in AnCap are weaker in regards to the creation of beneficial or economically optimal consequences.(B) Social laborCon's point fails to take into account menial types of labor such as ditch digging or waste disposal. My opponent's point really only applies to work that one would find enjoyment in and since a large part of work is actually not very enjoyable at all, his point fails to show incentives applied to the whole of an AnCom society. Also, remember that this debate is a comparative study. When comparing the incentives which each system utilizes, it should be clear that the desire for profit would be much stronger then the haphazard nature of job enjoyment in moving people to work. (C) Mechanized laborWhile I would agree that the general economic trend of the last two hundred or so years has been towards more and more mechanization, my opponent's point fails to take into account that (A) physical labor will probably never be abandoned (in regards to upkeep, repair, and creation of labor machines) and (B) that you don't just program a robot to do everything you want. There's still the matter of knowing what the most economical course of action is for the machine which circles back to the calculation problem I brought up in my last contention.===Con Case===Contention. Basic Provision of Services.The point argued here is that society is better off when everyone has everything they need to live. But I think this argument is beside the point. Con can't simply define such conditions into existence. It hasn't actually been shown that an AnCom society would lead to this. This debate is over how AnCom and AnCap respectively would PROBABLY turn out. Now certainly it could be argued that basic provision of services in society would be good. But principles are not the scope of this debate, probable outcomes are. Therefore my opponent's argument is moot.Contention. Alienation.My opponent's basic point here is that laborers cannot be expected to make goods in a quality manner if they are not guaranteed the actual product of their labor. But this claim is patently false. There is more to the incentives given to laborers then them actually retaining what they produce. Consider a worker who is tasked with assembling toys. Under my opponent's conception of alienation the worker would have no reason to actually care about the value of the toys, thus they would assemble crappy and low quality toys. But consider the actual use of workers to their employers. Employers do not hire just any employee for a job. The employee must actually do their job and do it correctly, otherwise the employer would not be getting a profitable return on their decision to hire the employee in the first place. So this creates another incentive to workers, the incentive to keep their job. Employers lose money in hiring non-productive workers. Thus if a worker wants to actually keep their job, they'll put some care into the quality of their work.