Resource Based Economy > Monetary Economy

The only way a society could possibly function in the way that my opponent describes is if there are infinite resources. The entire BOP my opponent has to advocate for this system requires him to explain how this infinite resource society would manifest. Without proving how this could exist, there is no other possibility any of the characteristics my opponent describes as part of a resource based economy could ever possibly come to fruition. As long as there are a number of goats, and finite amounts of bricks, someone somewhere will do something to attain more of them. Whether this is accomplished by hard work, devious means, or knowing someone in the government (and any combination) is dependent on the type of society and economy. In a resource based society we assume everything is infinite so everyone knows that anything can be attained, therefore they don't need to work, plot or steal, as someone else has already assured the infinite nature of the item they desire. Regarding science and capitalism as a method of encouraging development: My opponent cites an alternate reason for advancements I claim are due to the economic system I am supporting. While he is not incorrect about the influence of the ‘scientific revolution' and passion of those involved influencing these advancements, he undervalues this economic system being a crucial catalyst in the ultimate creation. Three significant advancements in modern health: The Pill The Artificial Heart Viagra All three are the culmination of the necessary large amounts of resources (peoples time and money) required for such profound advancements. The massive incentive for creating such things is what arguably finally culminated in their existence. Certainly someone in the ancient world, or Cuba, dreamed of a magical pill? And yet all three of these things manifested in distinctly capitalist (and obviously monetary) economic systems. The greater point here is what distinguishes the next characteristic of the ‘resource based economy', and that is a lack of incentive to achieve anything. Will 6 billion people believe that self-satisfaction is enough? If my opponent can point to any other tangible modern scientific advancement as significant as these three that did not require large sums of money and resources to attain and therefore profit/monetary incentive, I will drop this argument entirely. I recognize that my opponent does not wish to debate the transition between these economies, and I do not believe these arguments contradict that desire. I am simply using the base line of reality to compare what a resource economy is suggesting we consider. "There was no system in place before money; it was anarchy" A bartering system still exists in many places in the world and as flawed as it is in modern societies, it still makes more sense than an infinite resource structure. "A Resource-Based Economy is not trade. It's distribution where it's needed." This is ideal but unrealistic for reasons stated above. "A Resource-Based Economy is not trade. It's distribution where it's needed. People have ownership of what they need consistently, and access to everything they want as they use it, like a library." What if I wanted to have my own swimming pool? Would it be illegal or impossible? The only reason I got a PHd was so I'd have my own pool. "There would also be businesses, but they wouldn't compete for money, they'd contribute for the betterment of society and to get known for it?." Why would I bust my butt and deal with the headaches of running a business if there is no incentive to do so? Prestige is nice, but what if resources suddenly become finite and I can longer clothe and feed my kids? I think I'll take cash, or precious metals instead. "Without money, gold doesn't hold the same value" Gold has value because there is a demand for it. It's pretty (the ladies like it, if that doesn't create universal demand nothing does), and it's useful in electronics and grills.