The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/18/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,115 times Debate No: 29344
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)





Anarcho-capitalism refers to "the political philosophy and theory that
  1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
  2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible."[1]

Anarcho-communism refers to "a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), and in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[2]

What is meant by "just and humanitarian" will obviously be a contentious issue in this debate. AnCaps retain a focus on individual liberty while AnComs generally prioritize equality. This debate will no doubt focus on arguments for the different moral standpoints of our respective systems.


1. Drops will count as concessions.

2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.

3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.

4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.




Okay I accept :3
Debate Round No. 1


It should be noted before we begin that the nature of the resolution precludes discussion on arguments for/against a State. While AnCapitalists and AnCommunists surely disagree on *why* they oppose the State, no anti-State arguments need be made here.

===Justification of Private Property Ethics===

P1) Argumentation is a necessary pre-requisite for justification.
P2) Norms presupposed by the act of argumentation must themselves be justified.
P3) Self ownership and private property are presupposed norms of argumentation.
C) Self ownership and possession of private property is a necessarily justified interpersonal ethic.

P1 Defended.

This premise has come to be called the axiom of argumentation. Stated simply, propositions (and more specifically ethical norms) must be justified over the course of argumentation. Hans Hermann-Hoppe argues: "...any truth claim, the claim connected with any proposition that it is true, objective or valid (all terms used synonymously here), is and must be raised and settled in the course of an argumentation."[1] The proof of this a priori concept comes from a simple reductio ad absurdum of the necessary alternative. Consider the opposite charge, that "argumentation is not necessary to justify a given proposition". The action taken (engaging in argumentation) negates the content being argued. Arguing against argumentation amounts to incoherency.

P2 Defended.

If argumentation is the necessary route to justification of any proposition, this must also apply to normative propositions. Argumentation itself isn't value-free. There are certain norms of action that are presumed by the very act. But if this is the case (and my next point will prove this point) then those norms must themselves be justified. At the very least it would be incoherent to argue against them since arguing itself presupposes them.

P3 Defended.

This will most likely be the crux of the debate concerning the justification of a private property ethic. The first point (self ownership) should come most naturally. In order to argue in the first place, you need to have exclusive ownership of your body. Again, let's look at a reductio of the necessary alternative (that self ownership isn't necessitated). In order to argue though one *must* voluntarily utilize one's body. Now on to a private property ethic in resources outside of one's body.

Justification of private ownership outside the body extends logically from the justification of self ownership. For sole ownership of the human body is a proto-typical example of private ownership of scarce resources. If I'm using my body exclusively, the same can't be possible for someone else (i.e., two people can't have exclusive control over the same resource). So the AnCommunist, in accepting exclusive self-ownership, undermines any argument for social control of external resources.

===Critique of AnCommunist Economics===

1) The basic problem with AnCommunist economics lies in the fact that it doesn't allow for price signals to form, and thus doesn't allow for rational allocation of resources. In a market economy, people are able to compare heterogeneous goods which wouldn't be able to be compared otherwise.[2] Take 10 oranges and 10 apples as a relatively simple example. It's not obvious what the ratio of value is between apples and oranges is. However, if we take a market concept like money, we can compare these goods by virtue of their costs. AnCommunist economics doesn't recognize this and hence must rely on either guesswork of exclusive "need" criterion (which leads into my next point).

2) Another problem is with the seemingly inevitable need for central force in an AnCommunist economy. On capitalism, central force isn't necessary since economic activity is moved simply by individuals drawing on the price signals laid out by other economic actors. However, guaranteed goods and services leads to a free rider problem. If things like food and shelter are guaranteed to you purely on the basis of "need" as opposed to trade or labor, there's no guarantee that they'll reciprocate. This is where the need for some central force comes in to the picture. Central force being seemingly antithetical to anarchism though, AnCommunism appears to undermine itself in this regard.


[1] Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Hans Hermann-Hoppe), pg. 314. Available online:


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]"

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.";

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."
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

Debate Round No. 2


===Private Property Ethics===

The relation between self ownership and external ownership of resources lies in the fact that by admitting the existence of self ownership, one necessarily accepts the existence of property which is (a) scarce, and (b) exclusively controlled. This is not only a pre-emptive counter to claims of external property as "authoritarian" because it presumes exclusive control by the owner, but it asks the AnCommunist what the categorical distinction is that makes self ownership acceptable, but not external ownership of property (non-possession). Con first lays out a difference between property and possessions. Before we get into this, if it would be alright, I'd like to cross-examine my opponent just a bit concerning the differences between these two things when things get a little less obvious. For instance:

-By what standard of measurement is it determined when someone no longer "possesses" something e.g. I have an old sweater that I haven't worn in four years. Am I possessing it in a legitimate sense and if so, how does this differ from "possessing" a tract of land which I haven't built on or used? Now, on to Con's criticisms of externalized property.

-Con argues that property can be used to exploit people, citing slavery as an example. I would argue that this actually isn't an example of property in the sense being defended by AnCapitalists and by myself in this debate since self ownership is the ultimate foundation of external property (via homesteading). Under the AnCap propertarian thesis, slavery isn't property, but is necessarily at odds with it.

-Con also seems to be presuming some very unsupported distinctions between possession and property. For instance, he defines the body as owned because we used it and "actually own it". Further, Con argues that the body isn't private property because we are "entitled to it naturally". I would ask that Pro please not presuppose her own conclusion in the argument. Saying the body isn't private property because we're entitled to it naturally is an obvious case of circularity.

-Con also alludes to some vaguely defined exploitation of women's bodies as an example of how private property is exploitative. I'm not really sure what he's referring to or how it relates to the fact that AnCapitalism strictly defends the right of self ownership.

-The main line of argument according to Con is that AnCommunists support the abolition of private property because of the "way its used". The way I use it then, private property could conceptually be in line with an AnCommunist conception of justice if the owners used it in a benevolent and socially just way. Countering that the "just" way is to collectivize property would be circular since the entire definition of just property in Con's own words is how its used. So the question remains, if private property owners used their property in a way to help the poor, to feed the hungry, treat the sick and the like while paying workers according to the products of their labor, would that property not then be justified?

===Critique of AnCommunist Economics===

1) While Con's point is interesting, it fails the utilitarian litmus test. I raised a problem in the last round about how heterogeous goods can be compared (only through a market economy). The consequences of this fact are that non-market economies necessarily have pervading shortages and surpluses in different areas of the economy. Furthermore, producers have no way to decide rationally what to produce, what not to, in what quantity, by what quality, etc. Operating on a "need" principle is fine in some instances but it can't pervade an entire economy. Con has failed to sufficiently show how this collective planning of the economy should actually overcome this problem. Just saying we would gift each other and take what we need is hardly a conclusive answer.

2) Con's answer to the problem of central force is essentially that people just would decide to obey the rule "each according to....." on their own volition. While a nice and inspiring thought in itself, Con hasn't actually shown its validity. The only evincing support mustered was the supposed principle that ALL people NATURALLY (presumably invariably) seek to be free from oppression and inequality. The inequality point is clearly not true, given the millions of people who admit of some necessary inequality for society to function. The oppression point might have more support, but this principle is hardly supported universally in the SAME way. For instance, both my opponent and myself are presumably against oppression, but have wildly different ideas of what that entails. Con needs to go further than this to show that people naturally opposed HIS conception of oppression and inequality.

===Hierarchy, Wages, and Capitalism===

Con's positive argument against capitalism is short and cluttered mostly with talking points rather than substantive criticism. For instance, he calls capitalism "hierarchy" and just leaves it there. Surely, most people recognize that some form of hierarchy exists under a private propertarian system. But why is it bad? Why should we oppose such a system with violence if necessary? Con's argument can't be found. Con then forwards their own thin conception of worker emancipation, also without warrant as to why (a) workers should want this and (b) why worker cooperatives can't exist for profit on the market. Con's last point need not be dealt with in too much detail. Here he merely exhibits the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" by saying AnCapitalism isn't "real anarchism" because "real anarchism" is whatever Con supports. No warrant is provided of course and thus there's no reason to accept such a standard.


"In Marxian economics and socialist politics, there is distinction between "private property" and "personal property". The former is defined as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor; the latter is defined as consumer goods or goods produced by an individual.[4][5] Prior to the 18th century, private property usually referred to land ownership."

  • Personal property is part of your person and includes property from which you have the right to exclude others (e.g., televisions, cars, clothes, etc.)[3]
  • Private property is a social relationship, not a relationship between person and thing according to Marx (e.g., factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, etc.). In communism there is no distinction between personal and private property.[4]
  • To many socialists, the term private property refers to capital or the means of production, while personal property refers to consumer and non-capital goods and services[citation needed].

"Personal property is generally considered private property that is movable,[1] as opposed to real property or real estate. In the common law systems personal property may also be called chattels or personalty. In the civil law systems personal property is often called movable property or movables - any property that can be moved from one location to another. This term is in distinction with immovable property or immovables, such as land and buildings."

I wouldn't exactly say that your body is "private property."

Personal Property (another word for Possession) is "private property" but moveable. But to also counteract the "moveable" notion, if the 'property' is actually used by the owner at the expense of no other person or group of people, than it can be considered Possession or 'Personal Property.'

If it's your house and you use it as shelter, than it's your own 'Personal Property'.

Not only "moveable" but also goods provided by an individual is also defined as that person's personal property.

If they were the ones to produce those goods, than it's that individual's personal property.

If your body was "Private Property," than you would use your body as private ownership over an economic enterprise based on socialized production and wage labor. (i.e. private property is only used to make a profit)

Private Property is usually land, copyrights, buildings etc.

Your body is personal property because it is your "private property" that is moveable. It is only used to serve you and it's purpose for being there is not to make a profit. Private Property's goal is to make profits.

Factories belong to the workers 'personal property' wise since they are the ones who produced the goods and put in the labor for those goods. Factories belong to the bosses and Capitalists 'private property' wise since they use the factory and workers as the means of production in reference to private ownership over an economic enterprise based of wage labor and socialized production.

This is an example of 'private property' used to exploit people for the benefit of the owner of that Private Property.

Slaves are considered 'private property' as they are used as 'socialized production' over an owner.

Your body would be considered 'personal property' as you are entitled to your own means of production and use your body according to your own production and use.

Simplified, 'personal property' would be "things that you need" while 'private property' would be "things you use to exclude other people (or exploit other people) for profits"

As long as the 'private property' that you use doesn't exclude people in an illegitimate way or you don't use it as ownership over socialized production or wage labor, and you use it actively to serve your own needs, than it is 'personal property.'

In an AnCom society, everyone would be entitled to shelter. Since it would be a currency-less society, than everyone can own shelter.

But if someone is using too much 'personal property' and excludes other people who need shelter, than it is no longer considered 'personal property' but 'private property' which would be illegitimate.

Homesteading wouldn't even be necessary to exist since there would be no taxes or currency involved in the society.

Everyone would be entitled to 'personal property.'

Factories belong to the workers, not the Private Property owners.

So even if a person was using their property to do benign and benevolent things, it would still be illegitimate if they "owned" it since the workers are the ones who produce the labor.

Critique of AnCom Ethics Rebuttal

1) If there is no way to determine the value of goods, then there shouldn't be a system that operates like that. Pro keeps claiming that if we operated on a "need basis" than it wouldn't work because we wouldn't know how much to produce etc.

Even though I proved that there is no way to determine quality and quantity of goods, Pro still keeps claiming that through a market system we would know.

"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 Krotopkin 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.."

Operating on a need basis wouldn't be complicated or difficult to implement at all. Everyone would work and contribute to the AnCom society. They would be able to get as much goods and resources as they want or need as a "thank you" for the services they provided.

Operating on a need basis would provide much organization and planning but it is not a task that is insurmountable.

It would be much more effective than a "market economy" which encourages exploitation for profits (and value cannot be truly determined by prices)

2) The only reason people still advocate 'inequality' or support the current system is because they are taught that what the people want, which is what everyone wants: freedom/no oppression/ stability/ and in a lot of cases, equality, is considered "politically unrealistic." Which simply means of course that it is not in the interests of private investors. People are trained to believe that we can never live in a truly beautiful or humanitarian society because it is "unrealistic."


Hierarchy is bad because it is authoritarian.

  1. A system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.
  2. The upper echelons of a hierarchical system; those in authority.

And you can't really determine true values of people in a system, especially under Capitalism. Capitalistic businessmen uses illegitimate means to rise higher in the higher while the workers, who produce all of the labor, stay in the bottom of the hierarchy.

And you can't say "but workers can always start a business" because in order for a business to work there needs to be workers.

Workers are always unfairly taken advantage of because of the authority of the bosses. All of the first Anarchists were "left Anarchists."

Anarchy is freedom from authority, and authority still dominates under Capitalism

Debate Round No. 3


===Private Property Ethics===

Thank you to Con for at length explaining what you mean by personal and private property. But Con failed to respond to some important points I made in the last round. For instance, I asked what the *categorical* difference (i.e., in type, not extent) was between private and personal property. Con's answer was that private property is used to make a profit while personal property was property that could be used at not expense to anyone else in the group. But if we accept the notion that our values are essentially limitless (i.e., that there are infinite combinations of things that we can want), then it follows that the act of exclusively controlling one's self essentially goes against someone's values. Whether it be a girl turning down a guy for sex or someone not being able to babysit (the examples are trivial, but serve an important purpose), what we do with our body can conceptually go against the values of another person. So Con must either accept that his distinction is fallacious, or sacrifice self ownership in his AnCommunist model.

But now on to Con's main driving point in his critique of private property. From what I can discern, his beef with private property is essentially that it is used to extract a profit. But besides using vague buzzwords and relying on his own presumptions coming into this debate, I haven't seen any actual argument for why this is a bad thing. And since this is the last round, bringing an argument now would constitute a rule violation.

===Critique of AnCommunist Economics===

(1) Con sort of just bypasses my critique by arguing that since we can't know the "true" value of goods, we shouldn't operate on a system that presumes to know. Note that the resolution implies the utilitarian litmus test by virtue of the wording of 'humanitarian'. Furthermore, Con's epistemic difficulties raised apply more so to AnCom than AnCap. Under AnCapitalism, the "value" of goods and services is co-aligned by their relative scarcity along with their opportunity cost in production. We CAN know their value and the model I've forwarded is the only one that can.

On a side note, Con also criticizes markets shortly by claiming that they rely on "exploitation for profits". Since he didn't go into the justification of this assertion, I see no reason to respond to it. And since this is the last round, Con cannot forward a justification since I'd have no way of responding to it. Con also just ignores my point about the epistemic impossibility of centrally managing an entire economy. He just whistfully goes right by it in claiming that it "wouldn't be complicated or difficult to implement at all", a claim which was likewise not actually defended.

(2) Con also argues that we only accept "inequality" because we are brought up to. Of course, no argumentative support is actually provided in support of this point (remember, no new arguments in the final round). I wish I had more to say on the point but this is essentially the entirety of Con's rebuttal. I brought up some difficulties in having everyone just naturally obey the "each according to his ability...." rule and Con responded that (a) we NATURALLY want to follow it and (b) that we don't because we are just taught not to. Con relied on two claims which were neither defended nor justified.

===Hierarchy, Wages, and Capitalism===

Remember that in the last round, I brought up the following points. I argued that hierarchy is not inherently bad, that Con's conception of AnSyndicalism is entirely compatible with free market economics, and that Con's attempted refutation of AnCapitalism because it's supposedly not "real anarchism" is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. Con responds to the first point by simply arguing that it's authoritarian. Perhaps, but (and this leads back to the private property point above), AnCommunists don't have a leg to stand on in this point since advocation of exclusive control of one's person is essentially authoritarian relative to the needs or wants of others. If I want to have sex with you, rejecting me is authoritarian in the same qualitative (though not quantitative) way as Con describes capitalism being. On the second point, Con completely ignores my worker emancipation rebuttal, still arguing that "labor" stays "in the bottom of the hierarchy". Not exactly given the free market model I advanced of worker control. Con also continues to stick to his No True Scotsman in the third point, now simply replacing his former argument with the claim that the first anarchists were "left Anarchists" as if they were profits to be emulated.


Con's arguments are riddled with unsupported presumptions, total ignorance of my arguments, and mere talking points. On the private property ethic, Con is guilty of inconsistency when he criticizes private property for being used at the expense of others, while simultaneously advocating for the same type of relationship in self ownership (i.e., the ability to go against the preferences/values/even health) of another by virtue of one's exclusive control of their person. Con also totally undermines the utilitarian nature of this debate when he argues against markets simply from Kropotkin's standpoint of not being able to determine value. We CAN determine value as it relates to the actions and preference of other economic actors. This leads to greater prosperity and well being for all involved. Con's model for economic decision making is simply a vaguely described central planning which he neither expanded on not defended against my own epistemic attacks. Con also makes the mistake of relying on an undefended conception of human nature, one that conveniently supports his own arguments but which was never defended in the first place. All in all Con fails on all points, with the merits of markets and private property left still standing.

Good luck to Con in the voting period. This was actually an engaging debate and a chance to learn what anti-market anarchists actually think.


First of all, I justified "some" acts of exclusively controlling oneself. That notion is definitely justified since we accepted that we must respect everyone's personal property.

Just because a girl turns down a guy for sex, etc., the situations really depend on balance of power.

For example, if a girl turns down a guy for sex, than all she is saying is she doesn't want to participate in what he wants her to participate in.

That does place her in a level of higher authority, but it is justified. All she is saying when she turns him down is that she is not interested, which won't exactly "destroy the values" of the other person. If she had no sense of self-ownership and she had to have sex with him, than that is her being extremely oppressed and controlled. Everyone has to have a sense of self-respect in order not to be controlled as well as respect for others to not control others.

Self-ownership is just as important as everyone else's values in the society. It's all about balance and compromise.

Because if you sacrifice self-ownership, than there will be some people that still have plenty of self-ownership and will take advantage of those who don't. The point of Anarcho-Communism, is to have a system where no one has power over to other.

That guy can survive without having sex with her, and that person can babysit other people.

It becomes illegitimate when the things that they are withholding the person from doing is detrimental towards their living needs or rights. If the guy was just asking for re-gifting resources in payment for his work, and they don't give it to him, or if someone has a bunch of land and he is lacking a house and he asks that person to share some of his land, than it would be illegitimate if he refused to share his land with him.

Him refusing would be illegitimate because his is refusing his neighbor the right to shelter. That puts him in a much higher position of power and privilege over him.

Throughout this final round, Pro basically just dismisses/ignores all of my claims because I don't have "proof" to support them.

I would say that's quite hypocritical since Pro's claims did not really have an overwhelming amount of evidence either.

I don't see how when I explained how "private property" is just used illegitimately to reap profits without concern for the workers or their welfare, is not "bad?"

Why is it fair that bosses get all the benefits and labor workers get all the exploitation and pain even though they work the hardest?

I know Pro said I could't argue back since it's the last round, but it's quite difficult after he just poured this plate of strawmans on the last round.

Let me just explain myself further.

1) Seriously food scarcity is a myth. We don't have a "scarcity problem" we have a distribution problem since private investors and businesses don't actually practice "free trade", it's all calculated. The commoners are the only ones who actually practice "free trade" and are fed this lie that there is a "scarcity problem" and it's the consumer's fault.

Why are there starving people in the streets and rich business men rolling in money? There isn't a lack of resources. There are plenty of resources to go around. The fact is that it is a distribution problem. They won't tell you that in economics class.

I know I couldn't bring up new arguments but we seriously can't know the true value of goods ever especially if it's dependent on profits.

We can know the "value" profits wise but not it's true value. Pro acknowledges this but just keeps arguing that we can work with a system that determines it's value through supply, demand, and profits.

Markets often work to provide what consumers want than what they need. They operate in a way that only rests on gaining profits and competition.

They abuse labor workers for the gaining of efficiency etc.

This is pretty much common sense.

2) If Pro cannot acknowledge that we are taught to accept inequality as better than any other system than I don't know what to say. Our textbooks in high school basically glorify Capitalism and our teachers glorify it as well. We always complain about Communism and Socialism saying that those systems are inherently tyrannical.

But plenty of those countries don't practice authentic Communism or Socialism. Basically in Venezuela, Chavez practices a lot of big business methods and privatizes many companies for profits. He also oppresses labor workers severely. This is typical behavior of an Industrial Capitalistic society, not Socialism.

In America we are taught about the "independent, everyone for themselves" route constantly by media and schools. This is called "grassroots propaganda."

This just keeps the 'little people' from unionizing and hating/distrusting each other. If we organized, there could be real change in society. But of course that's not a good thing for businesses.

Cooperation is very beneficial for societies and works much more effectively. Businesses have to work together in order to work. But apparently the 'little people' have to mistrust each other

Hierarchy, Wages and Capitalism

You need to have a sense of control in order to balance power among each other. Letting somebody in your house even if you don't like him, just to respect him freedoms is detrimental towards your own freedoms. You have the right to refuse a person going into your house. Authoritarianism is illegitimate when you are prohibiting people from exercising their basic rights. If that person that you didn't like, has his own house, than you aren't oppressing him. He can go back to his own house. But if you withhold food from him that he needs to survive directly or indirectly, than that is illegitimate.

If you wanted to have sex with me and I rejected you, that is just me having respect for my own wishes even if it goes against your wishes. But you don't need to have sex with me to survive. You can also have sex with another person if you wanted to.

If the workers make the labor, than no matter how "benevolent" the businessman is, the factory does not belong to the businessman. The businessman will still have plenty of power over the labor workers since the factory would illegitimately belong to him. That businessman won't be benevolent for long however since the nature of being a businessman requires you to take into account profits as being important whereas humanity is worthless.

Why should the workers that work the most stay in the bottom? It's basically like slavery. Slaves do the labor while they get nothing in return while the landlords benefit from their labor.

Hierarchy in Capitalism is terrible because it is unfair hierarchy. This hierarchy isn't a pyramid of the smartest and hardest workers and at the top. Basically the hierarchy is formed by the hardest workers being at the bottom while the businessmen who reap benefits from the labor get even more benefits in the hierarchy.


Most of the entirety of this debate consisted of Pro complaining that I didn't provide enough evidence which would be fine although Pro had plenty of unsupported claims as well. Anarcho-Communism defends the position that no one person should have power over the other and that 'private property' is illegitimate for these reasons, and that Capitalism is illegitimate for those reasons as well.

People want to live in a humane society. Most people in America are true Democrats, but are under the false position in that they think "Democrats" (democratic presidents etc.) actually care about the people. And if you read anything about the way America is run and foreign policy, you would know that this is not the case.

BTW I'm a she not a he

Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Noumena 3 years ago
Then vote already mofo.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
Excellent debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This was actually a very interesting debate, especially the bit about property. I'm giving arguments to Pro because Con failed to respond to a lot of his points. For example, the necessity for central authority in an AnCom system. Who decide whether someone has taken too much from the community store, keeps track of labor to make sure that everyone is contributing, and punishes those who break this. You can't just say that this will automatically happen. There was also the debate of private vs personal property. If it is not alright to own property which deprives others of survival, and someone needs a rare blood type transfusion to live which is in short supply, where is the line drawn? Can people be forced to relinquish their blood? Interesting ideas, and both sides made great points.