Beginners november tournament: On balance, anarcho-capitalism is better than anarcho-communism

I look forward to an exciting debate.FrameworkI accept my opponent’s utilitarian (and only his utilitarian; I'll rebut the other framework when it's time to do so) framework, including the hierarchy of needs (for the broad purpose of illustration, though there are some issues that will be delved into when rebuttals come around), and will demonstrate why anarcho-capitalism (henceforth referred to as ACap) produces greater benefits along these lines than anarcho-communism (ACom). With that out of the way, we must consider how to judge ACap and ACom in terms of actual structure. Anarchism has never sustained itself in history, in any form; even before our current evolutionary form, humans maintained tribes (1). Both ACap and ACom are unrealistic forms of government; ACap doesn’t account for fact that corporations rise to rule, and ACom doesn’t account for human selfishness resulting in inequities (which has consistently thwarted implementation of true anarcho-communism in the past, like in China). There’s also the issue of neither form of government existing for more than brief flashes of history. As such, I propose that we have to look at each form of government with an assumption of perfect implementation that cannot be undone, or this debate would always end in a tie.Now that the framework is out of the way, let’s get this show on the road.In the very first round, ACom is defined as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". We can think of ACap, on the other hand, as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his ability”. In the ideal capitalist society, the best suppliers make the most money, and the best workers make the most money, while the worst go out of business and are employed at lower wages. What are the implications of this?C1: Businesses give up money to keep their employees aliveIn any capitalist society, businesses pay wages. The reason is simple—if the business does not offer fulfillment of the worker’s needs compared to alternative choices he could make (e.g. subsistence farming), the business will not gain any employees. This is because of opportunity cost; if the worker cannot live while employed, to work for them rather than farm would require giving up his life. The worker will always choose the farm instead; therefore, businesses must offer something appealing to entice a worker. This is where wages come in. Wages are the means by which businesses offer workers an option at least somewhat better than subsistence. Through wages, an employee can fulfill his basic needs.C2: Protection of workers is optimal from a business standpointDead men tell no tales. They also are not particularly productive. Basic economic theory dictates that when the supply of workers decreases, the remaining workers will demand higher wages. Businesses have an economic interest in keeping the supply of workers high, and protecting them serves that purpose. Furthermore, the offering of greater protection from some businesses will encourage more workers to want to work at a place, allowing the business to either offer lower wages or attract more-highly skilled workers.C3: Maximizing worker socialization is optimal from a business standpointCreating positive atmospheres in the workplace does not cost money, and increases productivity (2). Therefore, all businesses will seek to find low-cost, effective ways to make their workers happier, in order to fulfill the Belonging and Esteem levels of Maslow’s pyramid. What makes ACap effective in doing so?C4: Capitalism promotes innovation, improving the lives of everyone in the long runHumans tend to act in their own self-interest, which is evident when one considers the fact that homeless people even exist in countries. ACap harnesses the power of greed to make life better for everyone. Nowhere can this be seen better than in the development of technology. The medical industry in the United States, with its corporate welfare, restriction of competition, and other issues, should not be considered a reflection of ACap, but it is still substantially more capitalist than other developed nations, and US drugs are far more expensive (3). As a consequence, though, we produce far more medical research than any other country, and also have generally better survival rates for issues like cancer (4). Businesses will always seek to drive more people to their products, and, in order to do so, they must make better products. In the long run, this produces research that cannot be produced as efficiently in an ACom system, as ACom systems do not contain motivation for the rapid advancements on such a large scale that ACap brings. This makes ACap generally more effective at fulfilling every need in the long run.Sources:1. http://humanorigins.si.edu...2. http://www2.warwick.ac.uk...3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4. http://www.pbs.org...