On balance, capitalism is more humanitarian than communism.

== Analysis == Con has combined arguments from both collectivist anarchism and anarcho-communism, which in many cases conflict with each other. Moreover it's important to point out that collectivist anarchism is NOT a form of communism. Bakunin himself wrote of his ideology "we shall always protest against anything that may in any way resemble communism or state socialism."[1] Con has not yet provided a coherent description of the system she is defending, without which it's impossible to compare our respective cases. Hopefully this issue will be resolved in the next round. == Pro Case == 1. Individual Rights A) Con agrees that the right to self-ownership exists, so the issue is whether property ownership is a legitimate extension of this. She cites Proudhon's "use" theory of ownership as an alternative standard, however, this does not in fact conflict with my stance. In R1 I stated "interference with my peaceful activities is a violation of my right to self-ownership. Appropriating land for my personal use is an example of such an activity." I too reject the "Lockean proviso" in favor of usage theory. For example, if I farm an unowned plot of land, I have homesteaded the right to continue using it for that purpose. The idea of communal ownership is incoherent. By what right does "all of humanity" come to "own" the earth? How am I violating another's rights by farming a vacant plot of land? Suppose Crusoe lives on a deserted island and Friday lives on another at the other side of the earth. If either of them uses a bit of land, does this somehow constitute an injustice done to the other? If this were *really* the case, then in order for anyone to use any land for any purpose, first he would have to receive the approval of a democratic majority of all mankind.[2] Under such a ridiculous, arrangement, we would all die out rather quickly. Moreover, suppose all land really *is* the rightful property of all mankind. Some efficient way to make use of the land must be devised. Henry George proposes a sort of neo-Lockean proviso whereby individuals can homestead the right to *use* land for their own purposes.[3] Thus, communal ownership, in addition to being an unjustifiable doctrine, is impractical and ultimately collapses under its own terms. Con has not explained what exactly "exploitation" means. Is all wage labor illegitimate? In a system that supposedly prohibits the use of initiatory force, how do you prevent individuals from freely and voluntarily entering into such contractual arrangements? How do you prevent individuals from accumulating wealth and capital? More importantly, why would you want to? Proudhon and other early anarcho-communists were writing prior to the work of Bohm-Bawerk and Menger.[4] Proudhon's "money-crankism" and opposition to usury is predicated on, among other things, the completely fallacious assumption that the interest rate is determined by the quantity of money, the former being inversely proportional to the latter.[5] Today we know that, together with inflation and the risk of default, the interest rate is determined by a time preference for present consumption over future consumption.[6] Communist opposition to wage labor is also based on a similar misunderstanding. Suppose a retailer, Polk, buys logs from a lumberjack, Jones. Polk then pays workers X, Y, and Z to transport the logs down the river. This is not exploitation – X, Y, and Z may have lacked the capital to purchase the logs themselves, they may want to be paid immediately rather than waiting until the logs are sold, or they may want to avoid the risk that they can't find a buyer. Thus, Polk, the capitalist, actually provides a valuable service.[7] B) The real point of contention here is which theory of property ownership is better, so in light of this I think we can both safely drop this issue. 2. Economic Prosperity and Well-Being A) While Con gives examples of invalid a priori systems and explains *how* such systems might be falsified, she does not actually bring up any objections to Mises' system in particular. Moreover, she has not addressed the law of marginal utility, the time value of money, or the law of supply and demand. These principles form the core of our disagreement, both on this issue and others, including economic planning, usury, and worker exploitation. B) While the Tragedy of the Commons *can* be used as an argument against collective land ownership, its implications are more wide ranging. Con has apparently missed the point of the illustration: when *any* resource (in this case land) is held in common, no individual is directly responsible for it. It's irrelevant whether or not a state manages the land; collectivization has the same results regardless. Imagine a classroom where test scores are collectivized – the mean is calculated and everyone receives this as a grade. What incentive is there for the hard workers to study, knowing that their efforts will barely affect the outcome and they'll get the same grade as the guy in the back row who sells meth and hasn't bathed in two weeks? Any sane person would simply decide not to devote so much time to school and instead play Call of Duty and post on DDO. I'll address land exploitation and the Tragedy of the Anti-Commons in the next round. C) Con offers two possible answers. First, the labor theory of value, in addition to having been superseded by marginal utility, is completely irrelevant to the issue of pricing.[8] The labor theory is normative and intrinsic. In order to convey information useful for production decisions, price must be determined by extrinsic, subjective consumer desires through supply and demand. Con's second answer is no better. In small, self-sufficient communities, we would lose *all* the benefits conferred by economies of scale and *most* the benefits of specialization and the division of labor. Not only would this mean no cars, computers, and cell phones, it would mean no refrigeration, no vaccines, and no expensive medical equipment like MRI scanners. Essentially, we would all be reduced to subsistence farming. Moreover, without the ability to produce genetically modified crops, chemical fertilizers, and other agricultural goods requiring industrialization, it would be difficult or impossible to support the world's current population.[9] D) I never claimed China was a capitalist utopia, nor would any sane person. I only stated that living conditions have greatly improved with the corresponding increase in economic freedom, which my opponent seems to agree with. 3. Power structures A) Con claims her plan doesn't require a state, yet she has not adequately responded to the issues in 3B. B) To answer my objections, Con essentially asserts that her system *won't* force people to follow the dictates of the economic planner, be productive, or stay within the collective. However, this *completely* ignores my point that a communist society *can't survive* unless this is done. I disagree that government is tyrannical by definition. Moreover, a user fee system where the state is limited only to the protection of natural rights is much less likely to become tyrannous than the sort of organization necessary to hold a communist society together. || CONCLUSION || The majority of Con's case rests on a deprecated theory of value. The idea of collective land ownership is neither logically sound nor internally consistent. Moreover, even if we take it seriously, it would still result in a sort of pseudo-private ownership. Con has not adequately addressed the free rider problem or the economic calculation problem. Her proposal that we live in small "sustainable" communities would mean straining the world's food supply and eliminating nearly all of the modern conveniences we enjoy as a result of industrialization. The resolution is affirmed. References: http://tinyurl.com...