Facist economics vs Capitalist economics

My opponent obviously has no idea what he is talking about, and also his lack of spelling makes it hard to understand his sentences. First, to rebut Pro's argument for the environment, I must point out that under capitalism if a company is dumping industrial waste products into a river, and a fishing company sees that it is hurting their fish production they can sue the manufacturing or power company that is responsible. If you envision a system where you cannot sue anyone, that is not capitalism. Some versions laissez-faire capitalism include voluntary taxes, and some include extremely low mandatory taxes. The latter is the system I am referring to. This means that highways can be built if representatives elected by the people vote for it. These reps would be very well educated and would be chosen as the best possible representation of the people's opinions. Also, Pro thinks that society's needs are more important than individuals' needs. This is not true because we are all individuals with different opinions and thoughts and skills, and these are the things that make society great. Society is nothing without the self-centered work of the individual persons. Suggesting that any person or company should be willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the group is called "slavery". I was stunned to see Pro's idiotic rebuttal of my argument on the subject of monopolies. You said, "Capitalism does lead to monopolies because once an industry becomes large enough it can make it's products at a price that would prevent newer industries from arising". The main problem with this statement is that when I referred to monopolies I was referring to bad monopolies. If a company is providing a product that is high in quality and low in price and it continues to do so, it doesn't matter how much market-relative size it owns, consumers like it best. You then said, "However if x stayed in he could ensure y and z stayed in so he could make profit". My question is "how?". That is, how would company x keep companies y and z in agreement to keep prices high? My opponent got the math wrong on the monopoly argument. You said, "Those compnaies my opponent mentioned are ont likely to drop out because if one drops out then he will increase chances others drop out and in effect hurt himself". It would actually decrease the profitability of others' dropping out if the first company drops out. This is because the first company has a competitive edge by being the first to lower prices. The next companies would not increase their customer-base very much and would probably stay in until the monopoly falls apart. Pro's statement that any companies entering the flying car industry would "be invited into the deal so it can also derive the benefit of higher profit per item" is stupid because even if the new company, w, was invited to join companies x, y and z, company w would have a greater customer-base because no one would buy from companies x, y and z. Company w would make all the profit from selling at a lower price. If company w joined companies x, y and z it would have to split the profit made by selling to 1% of the demand with three other companies! The alternative is to keep all the profit from selling to, say, 40% of the demand. There is no way that fascism could surpass capitalism and all the freedom that comes with it.