The deregulated "free" market is unsustainable

1. I gave solid historical examples of free markets being sustained for centuries and people prospered as a result. Civilization arose during an era of free markets, before government regulation was invented. Native Americans alone proved Pro wrong by developing prosperous unregulated free trade. Pro does not even address the examples that clearly negate the resolution, let alone argue against them. That failure suffices to lose the debate. 2. a. Pro had no rebuttal to my claim that free markets acknowledge the role of government in "keeping the peace," as Pro put it. b. I claimed that free markets hold producers accountable. Pro rebutted that purveyors of slave labor and human trafficking are not held accountable. Those are not free market transactions. A person who is forced to work against his will is not in the free market. It is a proper function of government to prohibit slavery. Pro invites me to read a bunch of websites and make a valid case for him. I decline. I'll comment on Pro's apparent confusion between low wages and forced labor. Pakistan, say, is perfectly free to set a minimum wage of $20 per hour, or anything else they wish. It's up to them to decide whether or not that benefits their people. Before globalization, Pakistan was continually on the verge of starvation. Their economic status has vastly improved due to low wages being far superior to no wages. That is true in India and China, when highly regulated economies and entirely theoretical high wages brought about famine. Free markets brought them significant economic advances. c. I rebutted Pro's claim that economies should be "work-based." Risk must be rewarded for progress to be made. Pro had no response. d. I claimed that the prosperity brought about by free markets was the cure to poverty, and gave examples including Hong Kong compared to Maoist China. Pro had no response. e. Pro says that it is bad to have private enterprise intertwined with government. I agree with that broad point. We don't have free markets when that happens. I pointed out that of late it has been government that has initiated the interference, pointing to the Obama Administration. Pro says no, that free markets are producing a take over of government by private enterprise. His argument is that free markets are unsustainable because they lead to government and private enterprise becoming one. If so, how would government-controlled markets avoid the problem of government control? The answer to the problem of keeping government and private enterprise separate cannot be increased regulation of private enterprise. That is precisely the intermingling that Pro and I agree is undesirable. The correct resolution of the problem of keeping them separate is to set up laws and ultimately Constitutional guarantees that keep them separate. This is aided substantially by free enterprise that fights the unfair advantage that occurs when government intrudes by favoring some enterprises over others. For example, the big Wall Street firms received bailouts from government, while smaller firms did not. Smaller firms take note of this and protest, demanding an end to bailouts. That makes free markets sustainable. The participants to not want government to intrude. Competitors also do not want to compete with firms that use fraud or deceit. The free market works to expose the wrong-doers. Government, by contrast, is an entity unto itself and much more difficult to limit. f. Pro claimed the Tea Party movement wanted the intertwining of government with private enterprise. I provided polling data proving hat was not the case, and in fact the movement was initiated in opposition to bailouts. Pro made no rebuttal, but claimed I had ranted about Obama. A rant is a litany of unsupported accusations; I had two sentences explaining the Administration's reasons for operating through businesses. g. Pro offered three examples that he claimed proved that free markets were unsustainable. He cited two competitors having 79% of the beer industry, two competitors having 66% of the energy drink market, and Walmart having a large market share. I refuted each case. It only takes two competitors to make a market, and in each industry cited there are many competitors. Pro did not respond. 4. Pro starts over, going back to "A system motivated and revolving around profit, and characterized to have ideally the least amount of responsibility as possible can not be sustainable for humanity." He makes two mistakes in that assertion. The root motivation is not profit, it is security. People seek to survive and hey can only do that but gaining rather than losing. Maximum responsibility is achieved by having individual buyers and sellers responsible for making sure than every transaction is good for both sides. A irresponsible private seller than cannot provide value goes out of business; an irresponsible government that cannot provide value raises taxes. Sustainability can only be achieved by eliminating bad players. In a free market, that is automatically enforced every day. Governments are far less sustainable. Pro then lists complaints, in each case stating his conclusion and inviting me to read some long-winded references so I can build his case for him, which I am then supposedly obliged to refute. I decline. However, I will discuss Pro's first reference. It is a video in which a guy claims that the entire news media is a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth. Fox News, MSNBC, and everyone else are all alike. Examples of the truths suppressed are: there is existing practical technology to make cars that run without gasoline, the real truth behind 9/11 is you-know-what, and the fluoride added to water is really rat poison. OMG. The guy elaborates by pointing out that World Wrestling Federation was fed to change their name from Federation to Entertainment, revealing under pressure that the matches were actually entertainment, not real athletic competitions. OMG again, ... those wrestling matches aren't real!? Actually, the World Wildlife Federation had the trademark on WWF and there was nothing more to it than that. The guy in the video is a nutcase. However, the nutcase guy at no point even claimed that private enterprise was the root of the conspiracy. Private enterprise would be the logical culprit in concealing that cars could run on water, but 9/11 and fluoride cover ups would be more likely the work of government. The video guy says there are 43 CIA agents placed in the media who run the whole thing, so that points to government as the culprit. Pro did not make a case for his point, the referenced video does not make a credible case for anything, the video claims are actually counter to Pro's case that free markets are unsustainable, and the video guy making claims is a full-blown loony. All of Pro's other sources are in the same vein, presenting wild conclusions based upon fantasy. 5. Pro asks, "Look at your life, how big of a role do corporations play in it?" Corporations provide products and services I need, with greater choice and at a far lower price than does government. They have provided me with jobs doing useful, valuable things. That's great. Only government forces me to pay for things I don't want or need. "And ask yourself, In a world were we slap prices on LIVING NECESSITIES, (emphases on the LIVING aspect..) is that by any means just or moral?" Yes, it is absolutely just and moral that people have to earn a living rather than force others to support them. "And can we pursue such a society that primary revolves around the almighty dollar?" Indeed we can. The alternative, well proved, is to join failed states like North Korea and Maoist China. The resolution is negated.