On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism.

Thanks, Pro. Re: Opening Points Regarding the ToAC, Pro writes, "The only reason for any proprietor to retain an ownership claim is in expectation of future profit." This is true but doesn't address my point. I wrote, "It was difficult or even impossible for a startup retailer to negotiate successfully the use of that space." People who already owned space made it so that no new businesses from any other owner could be created in that space. Saying the landlord simply wanted to make sure he could profit in the future is exactly the problem. This selfish business model not only stifles production but restricts ownership. Pro is correct in that people will make sure to preserve resources insofar as depletion would affect their future profit. However my point was that people will cause unnecessary damage and destruction simply to profit in the first place. I could also use Pro's logic against him here. If his point is that people take better care of things that belong to them, he recognizes this argument made by communists that people ought to own the means of production for their labor. Moving on to his rebuttal, Pro begins by claiming land monopolies can't exist in capitalism. That is absolutely not true. I'm sure Paris Hilton owns tons of property (or will someday) yet has not subjected herself to one iota of work on said property, and I've explained why the term monopoly for property is appropriate. Moreover his entire rebuttal here (and throughout the debate) is completely irrelevant, as his entire economic criticism is based on a model with completely different goals. Pro writes, "Economic efficiency would be seriously hurt without the ability to invest..." However none of this is relevant in my proposition. Of course capitalism without property would not function, but this logic does not apply to my advocation. Monetary gain is not rewarded in my system, so it doesn't matter if capitalistic methods are better for generating profit. Considering wealth is not the goal and actually what my system tries to specifically avoid, his criticisms are not applicable. In fact Pro should be trying to prove that a wealth-based system is more preferable, while I'm arguing that such a system is anti-humanitarian to begin with. Further demonstration of this misguided assessment is his construction worker example. It seems he determines what's most humanitarian by what generates better investment returns, prices for consumers, etc. Once again wealth is not pertinent to my system, so Pro will have to find some other way to critique my advocation in the final round. Pro says laborers cannot be abused because: 1. All employment is voluntary I specifically explained why Pro's system makes self-sufficiency impossible which he's ignored, and how you can volunteer to work for another (forfeit some of your earnings) or die. 2. Employers compete by offering fair wages I've already addressed this -- "Workers are powerless... particularly considering the million of unemployed who can take the place of anyone not prepared to shut up and do what they're told." Pro says syndicalist goals are "enormously impractical, would do nothing to eliminate inequality, and are utterly devoid of any ethical justification." First, Pro hasn't given reason for this system to be impractical outside of stating the obvious: that professionals are trained on how to optimize a business structure. However I'm pretty sure bread factory workers can figure out how to make bread, even if they don't figure out what will generate "the best investment returns" (which I've explained is irrelevant). Therefore the alleged benefits of the division of labor he mentions do not matter. Second, I specifically explained how classism would be void. Pro has literally not responded to any of those arguments yet has the audacity to simply assert the contrary. I challenge Pro to explain how economic classism would exist in a system without rights based determined by wealth. Finally I don't see how being egalitarian is devoid of ethical justification. You'll notice that Pro hasn't made one argument whatsoever against this doctrine yet simply declares it void of justification. He's also failed to make *any* ethical argument in his favor. Pro's criticisms remain shaky at best. For instance "Because syndicalism can't compete in the free market of ideas, it must be implemented by force." What is the free market of ideas? Moreover it is an act of liberation to try and abolish the 'coercive force' and power of the state and property owners. Pro's arguments are proving to be completely fallacious and downright irresponsible. For example, he mentions how people promised syndicalism in the past but delivered something else. Surely my opponent does not wish me to recount the innumerable times in history when capitalism's been promised yet something else was implemented instead. Quite obviously this is completely irrelevant and does not discredit the respective systems as they are proposed. Pro also suggests that fascism took over syndicalism in Italy because of syndicalism's shortcomings, which conveniently ignores the reality of capitalist proprietors hiring a private army to implement fascism, and use violence to uphold imaginary property rights while the workers were peacefully going about their lives, simply taking over what they already used. Also, Pro's quote about syndicalist Spain merely demonstrates the fact that there was in fact a war going on -- it does not discredit syndicalism in any way. Capitalism also relies on the forceful upholding of property rights, so I don't see how the quote was pertinent. Pro concludes, "Most of Con's objections to capitalism... can be dismissed with a proper theory of property and its acquisition." This is obviously a bare assertion considering determining the "proper" theory is the entire purpose of this debate. So far it seems Pro's only been good at making statements but not backing them up. Finally he states syndicalism: 1. Lacks a coherent concept of ownership How so? I've outlined and compared property vs. possession. Work would be "contracted" by society to produce things people want. Residents of dwellings would make decisions regarding where they live, and people would have the right to own the fruits of their labor. 2. Ignores the laws of economics No, it ignores the goals of capitalism which is entirely the point. 3. Confirms Pro's contention that all collectivist societies inevitably tend toward tyranny I welcome my opponent to point out how my system leads "inevitably" toward tyranny instead of just saying it does with no specific explanation. I'll conclude by pointing out that the rest of Pro's concerns from R2 again all have to do with obsolete economic critiques. His arguments prove that capitalism is better at generating wealth and capital; again syndicalism has completely opposite goals. His other main gripe is that communal ownership is incoherent, because people need to find a way to utilize land efficiently. Apparently this is evidence of communism "collapsing under its own terms" though I don't see how. Syndicalists advocate a system of grassroots social planning instead of privately owned collectives competing in a market economy where profit is the only goal and workers are exploited. Pro continues to assert that force is necessary to maintain such a system, yet doesn't explain how or why, or rather how capitalism is different. Essentially what Pro considers the right to property I've said is the right to possession. The difference is that property requires the State to be upheld, and such a power-granting class like 'government' is tyrannical which I've explained. I also reject Pro's notion that the world would resort back to subsistence farming under my system and Pro hasn't defended it. The resolution isn't even close to being affirmed...