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

I am very perplexed by this argument. I understand the premise of argumentation and how to form a rational argument (which I don't really see as relevant) but I don't understand how ownership of your body would relate to Private Property. There is a huge difference between Property and Possession. Possession would be your toothbrush, your clothes, your house and things that you actively use whereas Private Property would be something that you "legally own" but don't actively use. Private Property can be used to exploit people (i.e. slaves as property.) Your body would be defined as a Possession since you use it and you actually own it. So it doesn't make sense that you would define your body as "Private Property" when it's not really outside of you and you are entitled to it naturally. Legal issues such as "body rights" and exploiting women's bodies for profits is a different matter. That's using and exploiting somebody's possession as your own property (i.e. Another example of using 'property' to exploit) Under Anarcho-Communism, your body would be considered a "Possession" and you would have a right to that Possession meaning you would have a right to your own body. The reason why Anarcho-Communists abhore "Private Property" is because of the way it's used. "Anarchist communists call for the abolition ofprivate property while maintaining respect for personal property. As such the prominent anarcho-communist Alexander Berkman maintained that 'The revolution abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people.Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title-not to ownership but to possession. The organization of the coal miners, for example, will be in charge of the coal mines, not as owners but as the operating agency. Similarly will the railroad brotherhoods run the railroads, and so on. Collective possession, cooperatively managed in the interests of the community, will take the place of personal ownership privately conducted for profit.'[110]" http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Critique of AnCommunist Economics Rebuttal 1) "Anarchist communists argue that there is no valid way of measuring the value of any one person's economic contributions because all wealth is a collective product of current and preceding generations.[85] For instance, one could not measure the value of a factory worker's daily production without taking into account how transportation, food, water, shelter, relaxation, machine efficiency, emotional mood etc. contributed to their production. To truly give numerical economic value to anything, an overwhelming amount of externalities and contributing factors would need to be taken into account – especially current or past labor contributing to the ability to utilize future labor. As Kropotkin put it: "No distinction can be drawn between the work of each man. Measuring the work by its results leads us to absurdity; dividing and measuring them by hours spent on the work also leads us to absurdity. One thing remains: put the needs above the works, and first of all recognize the right to live, and later on, to the comforts of life, for all those who take their share in production.."[86] "In place of a market, most anarcho-communists support a currency-less gift economy where goods and services are produced by workers and distributed in community stores where everyone (including the workers who produced them) is essentially entitled to consume whatever they want or need as "payment" for their production of goods and services. A gift economy does not necessarily involve an immediate return (such as with remuneration); compensation comes in the form of whatever the person decides is of equal value to their products of labor (what is commonly called bartering). Any limits on production and distribution would be determined by the individuals within the groups involved, rather than by capitalist owners, corporations, investors, banks or other artificial market pressures."http://en.wikipedia.org...; 2) It would be organization as opposed to "central force." Everyone wants to be equal. Everyone wants to be free from inequality and oppression. Everyone would participate in organizing the system where everyone would have equal access to resources. What is detrimental to the philosophy of Anarchy would be Anarcho-Capitalism since Capitalism is inherently authoritarian. "In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages. This arrangement is called the wage system. Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenthof what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen. It means this: Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories.That's the landlord's profit What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor-is hisshare, his wage. Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker. The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery. The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies this robbery. That's the order of things called capitalism, and law and government are there to protect this order of things. Do you wonder that the capitalist and employer, and all those who profit by this order of things, are strong for 'law and order'? But where do you come in? What benefit have you from that kind of 'law and order'? Don't you see that this 'law and order' only robs you, fools you, and just enslaves you? 'Enslave me?' you wonder. 'Why, I am a free citizen!' Are you free, really? Free to do what? To live as you please? To do what you please? Let's see. How do you live? What does your freedom amount to? You depend on your employer for your wages or your salary, don't you? And your wages determine your way of living, don't they? The conditions of your life, even what you eat and drink, where you go and with whom you associate, - all of it depends on your wages. No, you are not a free man. You are dependent on your employer and on your wages. You are really a wage slave." http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu.........; Capitalism is a system of competition over which business men compete over the right to authority. The right to authority to profit off from labor workers and rise on top of the ladder of power. Capitalism is hierarchy. Let me ask you: Are labor workers free under an Anarcho-Capitalist system? No. And do you know why? Because labor workers are not free from the authority of the profiteers or the bosses or the exploiters. Labor workers, or what Anarcho-syndicalists like to call "wage slaves", are not free from the authority of the business men or the corporations. If the working class is not free, than the country is not free Capitalism goes against everything Anarchy stands for in this respect Anarchy implies freedom from oppression, hierarchy, bosses, the state and Capitalism