A free market devoid of all government intervention would hurt the U.S. economy

Burden of Proof: The topic is "a free market devoid of ALL government intervention…" If I can show that not ALL government intervention is bad, then I win. If there is one form of government intervention is good, then not ALL government intervention is bad, and I would win. Patents: He says: Patent law causes inventors to waste time suing Not even close. Maybe in the 1700's, but today, it's the lawyers that do the suing, not the inventors, especially not the scientists working for a multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical company. He says: Watt's steam engine proves patents are bad I don't have access to the sources he's citing, but note: I focused on pharmaceuticals, not machines. The idiosyncrasies surrounding a single invention during the Industrial Revolution is hardly a test case for the entire IP system. He says: Pharmaceutical don't need patents The patent system in America is the primary reason why America has the largest amount of capital invested in its pharmaceutical industry [1]. "For developed countries, it has often been pointed out that suppressing pharmaceutical patents would entail long-term, dynamic losses in terms of new medicines…" [2] "[P]atents are a fundamental incentive to innovative activities in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology." [3] Insider Trading: He says: That's how you make money Contrary to what most people think, the stock market isn't about making money (and if you read my introductory argument, that's not what I care about either). The stock market is a mechanism for corporations to raise capital in order to continue or expand their business. So if insider trading hurts that ability, then it's bad for the economy. He says: Stock prices reflect the health of the company No – in fact, this is exactly my point. If the CEO knows that the company is insolvent, but is hiding it (like the Enron case and many others), they can manipulate the stock price while making large sums of money on the inside information. Eventually, the ruse will be detected; the stock price will plummet, but not before the CEO makes a huge amount of money. The resulting negative publicity will further erode confidence in the stock market. In a world where this is commonplace, there won't be enough confidence to operate a stock market, capital will become scarce, and that will be bad for the economy. Even if your argument is that trading on inside information helps reflect a more accurate stock price, this becomes useless when the individuals doing the trading have the ability to manipulate the stock price to their own advantage. He says: No effect of insider trading Think again: "Our markets are a success precisely because they enjoy the world's highest level of confidence. Investors put their capital to work- and put their fortunes at risk - because they trust that the marketplace is honest. They know that our securities laws require free, fair, and open transactions. An essential part of our regulation of the securities market is the vigorous enforcement of our laws against insider trading…" [4]. They later continue: "But one of the main reasons that capital is available in such quantities in the U.S. markets is basically that the investor trusts the U.S. markets to be fair. Fairness is a major issue. Even though it sounds simplistic, it is a critical factor and one that is absent, really to a surprising degree in many of the sophisticated foreign markets.... The common belief in Europe that certain investors have access to confidential information and regularly profit from that information may be the major reason why comparatively few Europeans actually own stock. [This may] partially explain why the U.S. markets are so active and why so much money is available for those companies that seek to enter U.S. markets." [4]. He says: Outsiders were going to buy and sell anyway This is non-responsive. I said that if insider trading is widespread, then people won't invest, and the economy will suffer. Even if they would buy and sell, they WON'T buy and sell if there is insider trading, and the economy goes down. Externalities I'll put the definition debate here. He says: Free market means respect for private property rights First, his warrant is ridiculous – he's a "market anarchist", so HE KNOWS… How about some definitions: "an economic market operating by free competition" – Merriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) "an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies." – Collins English Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com...) "A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation." – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (http://stats.oecd.org...) Free markets are simply millions upon millions of individual decision-makers, engaged in peaceable, voluntary exchange pursuing what they see in their best interests. – Professor Walter Williams (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu...) Please note that NONE of these definitions (or the dozens of others I saw) include anything about "respect for private property. Furthermore, he says that in order to have a free market, you have to "respect the property rights of others." But – WHO WILL ENFORCE THOSE RIGHTS? The government. He tries to get around this basic necessity by defining "free market" as respect for property rights. But I'm sure he will admit that human nature may, from time to time, lead someone to display a lack of effect for the rights of others. The result is that we either have (1) the externalities like I described, or (2) some form of government intervention (i.e. laws, or a system of civil lawsuits, or some other "authority"). The only other possibility is conflict, which he says at the bottom of his argument is bad for the economy. He says: Privatization of all lands prevents externalities He still hasn't answered the fundamental question: who enforces property rights? He also says that air pollution is "impermissible in a market" – but do we all have the "right" to clean air? Who enforces that right? How clean does our air need to be? These are all questions that cannot be answered by the "market", nor by a system of private property. The problem of the commons requires government intervention to solve. Additionally, he says privatizing all lands will help prevent externalities. But take forests, for example. If the price of lumber increases, what will the result be? More and more private companies will buy forests, chop down the trees, and sell the lumber. Because lumber is limited by the amount of time it takes to re-grow trees, the price of lumber could rise considerably. In a pure free market, if the price goes high enough, companies might chop down most or all of the forests. But, if we remember from our fifth grade environmental science class, if there are no trees, we can't scrub out carbon dioxide and generate fresh oxygen. This is an externality, but there is no way for the market to prevent it. Other Cases In Favor of Government Intervention He talks about war and corporate welfare. I'm not going to defend either of those – but it still doesn't matter. I'll agree that there are lots of forms of government intervention which are bad. However, that doesn't mean that they are ALL bad – which was my original point. Less government = good No government = bad [1] http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu... [2] http://emmanuelcombe.org... [3] http://innovation.org... [4] http://info.worldbank.org...