Freemarket capitalism is both unsustainable and environmentally unsound.

I thank CON for a good round, I will now address some of their points.CON, "There are some government policies that lead to more eco-friendly business practices. The cap-and-trade system, which is ran by the government-sponsored EPA, is one such practice. Under this system, manufacturers are able to purchase tickets which allow them to pollute, within a pre-determined limit. This is one way to force companies to internalize costs. The Tragedy of the Commons, which is mentioned by author J. Brennan in the book Libertarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know, explains the results of allowing companies to externalize costs. I propose taking this one step further and allowing companies to purchase the land on which they pollute, with a yearly renewable of the caps, whereby a company must purchase enough caps to contain the emissions measured on their property currently, as well as what will come in the future. Eventually, this will become an extremely high cost."This sounds fine and dandy at first, but how is it a free market if the government is setting the market through the allotment of emissions quotas? And it wouldn't seem the government would be minimal because inevitably more government organisations would be needed to evaluate emissions and ensure there is no fraud and cheating. Also what would stop companies from going to a part of the world without cap and trade or importing from places without it? It also seems this would just give advantages to big business and ultimately it would seem this would raise the cost to producers and consumers without really helping the environment. And if it's forcing companies to internalize cost, does that not violate the NAP which basis is, "It is immoral to use force, threat of force or coercion, against any other person.'s life, liberty, or property."?CON, "Under both of these systems, the company internalizes costs. The reason i suggest LESS government laws and regulation, in regards to business, is that it makes more sense to treat corporations as individuals, who are held to the same standard as any other individual. It is unrealistic to suggest that a company not pollute, as any manufacturing, by anyone, will contain at least some pollution. If we take littering as a small scale form of pollution, we will notice that littering carries a certain number of fines. If one person's pollution extends outside of their personal property, they face a fine. Even if litter is confined to their property, there are still places wherein littering still brings about fines. The end result is that some people, perhaps a control agency, will come in and request that the homeowner clean their land. Under the system i proposed, this request is always in place. Under any circumstance, the only way to reduce the abuse of resources is to force the user to own whatever resource they are depleting. This is similar to the oil mining industry; the oil deposits found can be easily depleted, or even disupted, if extra care is not taken. It is thus most beneficial to check such an issue at the door, and simply ask the same of companies that which is expected of individuals, as there is no such entity as a "corporation" in a truly free-market system. "The largest pollution production is government, commercial, and industrial. This may reduce the damage caused, but how would it give back? They are still depleting and going to release waste just at a slow rate perhaps.For the system I propose, people who damage and take from the environment are obligated to repair and give back, just as one must pay for things they take from a store or must compensate for destroying other peoples property. For example, if you were to invade an ecosystem and oil drill in the ocean and disrupt the ecology, you must ensure that 1. the ecosystem can recover and is not disturbed after you damaged it 2. you restore it and remove the pollution you entered into the environment. I don't see how this is possible in a freemarket capitalist system where stealing from the planet is necessary and you "own" the environment you are damaging and feel entitled to do whatever you want to it.