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

===Pro Case=== Contention. Prices and Money. (A) Labor notes Labor notes have a major problems. It's not that they necessarily wouldn't be able to work, but that they are extremely close to being actual money. In fact, the only discernible difference between labor notes and actual money is what it is backed by. In the case of labor notes, they are backed by a promise to perform labor. In the case of market-based money it might be backed by gold or silver. So what is it that makes labor so categorically different from gold to make it immune to the definition of money? My opponent hasn't really explained why. (B) Barter The system my opponent has described using barter is basically primitive capitalism, not AnCom. The only difference between this type of economic setup and AnCap is that there is no medium of exchange. Now since this is again a comparative debate, let's look at how a barter system of trade would compare to a system of trade using a commonly accepted medium of exchange (e.g. gold, silver). The reason common mediums develop in the first place is because barter is extremely limiting. I can't trade with anyone unless they want what I have. Therefore if no one wants a goat and that's all I have, trade is impossible. But with a common medium, trade with virtually anyone is possible. Thus, one is more likely to gain by exchange then under barter. My opponent's point is not only basically capitalism, but is clearly inferior to AnCap as a facilitator of trade. Contention. Free Riders and Central Force. (A) Social ostracism Conceded. (B) Social labor In defense of his point of social vs. economic incentives, my opponent has pointed to two examples where a relatively small society has survived for a relatively small amount of time utilizing social incentives only. But I must again remind my opponent that what he is defending in this debate is not that AnCom could survive as a system. This debate is comparative and is regarding whether or not AnCap is preferable to AnCom. All my opponent has done is show that AnCom might be able to function. He has not even attempted to show however why it would function in a better or more humanitarian manner than AnCap though. My point regarding the superiority of economic incentives to social thus still remains as it has not been rebutted by Con. (C) Mechanized labor Con's rebuttal hasn't really answered my criticism. My point is that no matter how mechanized labor eventually becomes, there will always be labor needed (probably proportional to the relative standard of living within society). Therefore, the point doesn't get by the social v. economic incentives contention. Will everyone want to build or keep up machines which may produce things that they will never use? I concede that some might by virtue of loyalty to the community but people do generally care primarily about their own standard of living before others. So while an AnCom society might be sustainable by recourse to such social incentives, it still remains that personal profit is still the most efficient method of motivating workers. My opponent's only real point is that social incentives might be able to make people do work. He hasn't shown why either the quality, efficiency, or usefulness of that work would be greater then under AnCap and a profit incentive. ===Con Case=== Contention. Basic Provision of Services. My opponent has argued that under AnCom, there would somehow be unlimited land, labor time, and supplies necessary to build things like houses. This assumption is made evident by the fact that his point is that ALL you have to do is take land and build a house on it. Well yeah, that's pretty much the same under capitalism. The difference is that my opponent has merely asserted that these services would be automatically provided, without actually overcoming any of the numerous obstacles I pointed out earlier. Moreover, my opponent's plan in effect reintroduces private property for personal use. The means of production are not really collectively owned if anyone can just take whatever land they want to fit their needs. Therefore, not only has my opponent opted out of AnCom in his scenario, but he hasn't provided any argument other than the assertion that his ambiguous plan would actually provide basic services (food, clothing, shelter, medicine, etc.) to every member of society. Contention. Alienation. Con didn't actually respond to my refutation of his alienation point other than simply re-asserting it. ===Conclusion=== The arguments my opponent has brought (alienation and provision) have either not been defended (alienation) or have merely made unsubstantiated assertions or compromises with a capitalist system. Capitalist compromise can also be found in my opponent's points regarding labor notes and a barter system of exchange. Labor notes are in reality just money backed by labor instead of gold and barter is just a primitive form of trade (capitalism) that is made less efficient by not using a common medium of exchange. My opponent's other arguments and rebuttals rest on the presupposition that his only burden is to show that social incentives might be able to work within a society while completely ignoring the comparative nature of this debate. If my opponent is to win, then he must show why social incentives are stronger and yield more positive results then economic ones. My opponent has failed to do this as well. Therefore I urge a Pro vote. On a side note it's nice to see another anarchist perspective on the site and I hope to be able to debate ihartman2 again sometime.