On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism

== Analysis == I think it's become clear at this point that my opponent is not interested in rationally discussing ideas; he is a secular evangelist substituting Karl Marx for Jesus and trying to use this debate as a platform for his proselytizing efforts. Although Con spent over 1,000 characters attacking my definition of capitalism, he still managed to completely miss the point. I am *not* trying to define my way to victory. I *am* arguing that a society operating on the non-aggression principle will tend to *remain* free, prosperous, and equal, while a society based on communal ownership inevitably leads to tyranny. Moreover, by defining "communism" the way he does, Con is doing the very thing he has accused me of! Hmm, pot, kettle, pot, kettle... Con has again chosen to ignore most of the arguments I've made and dropped all of his own, so instead of wasting character space going through the entire body of our respective cases and pointing them out, I'll just list them here. Pro Case: 1B, role of government; 2B, economic calculation problem; 3A, state authority; and 3C, communism inevitably leads to tyranny. Con case: 1A, monopolies; 1B, colonialism; 2, unequal distribution of wealth; and 3, economic instability. == Pro Case == 1. Individual rights A) Personal ownership and private property While moral contractarianism *could* be grounded in Hobbesian pessimism, it need not be. My own view of human nature is more in line with Rousseau's. Moreover, Con has not explained *why* he disagrees with Hobbes or given any evidence to support his own position. Next, Con introduces Rawls' "veil of ignorance" contractarianism as an alternative to Narveson's version. However, he has not explained why it ought to be preferred or how it escapes his own criticisms. I reject the veil of ignorance as it lacks real normativity and the argument I made under contention 3B ultimately undermines it. Narveson asks "what is the relationship between a 'person' behind the veil -- where, after all, he is quite unrecognizable *as* a person in any ordinary sense of the word -- and that 'same' person on the real-life side? Namely, the question would be why the real person should pay any attention to what the idealized person has, from his Olympian perch, 'decided'. Doesn't the behind-the-veil person look uncomfortably like Plato's philosopher king, say? And if not, why not?"[1] Finally, I think I've demonstrated that a libertarian society is ideal, even from a purely pragmatic standpoint. Con, however, still hasn't offered any positive arguments for communism. Therefore, Pro should win even by Con's own standard. 2. Economic prosperity and overall well-being A) Free rider problem While Con at least mentions the issue this time, which is an improvement over the last round, he merely asserts that communism will solve it without explaining how. Extend my argument. 3. Power structures B) Communism is inherently coercive Con asserts "if Crusoe and Jones had a bigger, longer-range, and more rational picture of their self-interest they might realize that despite being able to earn more money outside their commune, living in the dog-eat-dog mainstream world might have adverse consequences for them and therefore it ultimately would be more in their interest to stay put." He has not explained just what those adverse consequences might be or why it would be in their interests to stay put. Extend my argument. || CONCLUSION || Because I won't be able to respond to anything presented the fourth round, it is, out of fairness, reserved for rebuttals. The next round is Con's last opportunity to present new arguments and I suggest he make use of it. References: http://tinyurl.com...