Freemarket capitalism is both unsustainable and environmentally unsound.

My goal for this debate was to disprove, or refute, the resolution. This means i was to show how, and why, Free-Market Capitalism (FMC) is not unsustainable and environmentally unsound. I have presented PRO, and the audience, with an explanation of what FMC actually is, and a way in which it is not inherently unsustainable. The explaanation I gave followed a minarchist-libertarian philosophy, and contained Three Principles, the combination of which gave rise to Five Characteristics of FMC. PRO did not dispute any of the principles, nor did PRO dispute any of the characteristics. I theen began to explain how the Three principles i brought up lead to a certain economy, founded upon FMC, and the characteristics that such an economy would have. The purpose of me mentioning these things was to establish the counter-argument against PRO's assetrtion that FMC is inherently unsustainable and environmentally unsound. Per the Self-Ownership Principle, companies would be held responsible for their actions, which includes pollution and over-exploitation of natural resources. Companies would own the resources that they are using, and thus have an incentive to preserve said resources. This promotes environmental preservation, as companies now have an incentive to do what they can to promote the growth, and preservation, of those natural resources that they own, which can be regrown. PRO's goal for this debate was to affirm the resolution, meaning PRO was to show how, and why, FMC is unsustainable and environmentally unsound. PRO's preferred form of argumentation thus far has been to present me with "Well what about X? " questions, rather than providing arguments that illustrates the unsustaiability and environmental unsoundness of FMC. PRO has made assertions without support or evidence. For example: " Why I say it is problematic is because there will be more profit with more consumption. " and "A FMC economy is driven by economic growth, usually with high consumption and production rates. " How do we know this is the case? In the first example sentence, i am unsure how "consumption" is meant. This could refer to the companies, where the "consumption" refers to natural resources that are used. This is untrue however. Basic economic principles of Supply and Demand dictate that the higher the supply of any given good, the higher companies will wish the price to be. Customers, however, have an inverse relationsship between purchases and price; higher prices will mean less purchasing. There exists a concept known as equilibrium, where consumers and suppliers "meet in the middle" and determine a price for any given good. However, when supply increases price must decrease, all else equal. If the equilibrium price of a good is $5, and the equilibrium quantity is 100, that will result in REVENUE of $500. However, if this good costs $3 to make, the company shall only recieve $200 in profit. For this same good, if supply is increase such that the equilibrium quantity is 200, and the equilibrium price is $2, the company shall lose $100, as the cost of the good to the company does not change unless the company makes adjustments. I say this to say that, given the nature of the FMC system that i have espoused here, consumption that continues to increase shall lead to less profit, not more. Given the property rights system, mixed with the cap-and-trade system, continuous consumption will begin to cost more than the good that is produce makes for the company. The ONLY option the company has is to cut costs, which means they must go back and re-assess their output of pollution, and consumption of resources. On this point, PRO fails to affirm the resolution, as has been the case throughout this debate. This is just one example. In response to my Question #4, PRO responds: "If, and only if it maintains ecological balance, but I don't see how it could possible be limited since it is not really restricted, even the way you expressed here. " (emphasis mine)I have presented arguments that hold corporations to the same standards that any individual is , generally, held to, which means that pollution, and over-exploitation of goods carries internalized consequences. PRO seems to be conceding that, despite the policies i have presented, the system i have espoused here is still unrestricted. I have explained the policies that would be in place within a FMC economy, and shown how they promote eco-friendly business operations. As such, i believe i have upheld my Burden of Proof, which was to show how FMC is not unsustainable and environmentally unsound. I shall begin to refute some of PRO's points, in order to further solidify my case. RefutationsIn response to my Question #2, PRO responds, "The reason I think FMC is unsustainable is because it is unrestricted with no way to limit consumption enough to maintain ecological balance. "PRO provides no support, or evidence, for this assertion, and only answers half of the question (. .. I think FMC is unsustainable because. .. , when the question also asks about environmental soundness) I could simply respond "No it doesn't" and that statement would be of the same argumentative value. However, i shall respond with a more elaborate explanation. As i mentioned above, profit, and supply and demand, are key drivers of FMC economies. To increase price, supply must be limited, or, alternatively, customers must be willing to pay a higher price. Either of these is possible. However, profit is not determined by supply and demand alone. Costs are also involved, and if the costs of consumption of any given resource becomes higher than the revenue from the good(s) produced from that resoource, consumption will inevitably stop. Otherwise, the company would be losing money, have no way to sustain itself, and thus have to shut down. This is true of any business, as well as individuals. When expenses are higher than revenue (also considered income), something must change, either income must rise, or expenses must decline. I have explained to you how increases in consumption will not necessarily lead to increases in profit, and how the likely result of consumption, given the high probability of production, is actually a decrease in revenue. This is a natural limiting factor, which pre-exists within capitalist economic structuring. In PRO's round THREE response, he states "[Forcing companies to internalize costs] may reduce the damaged caused, but how would it give back? .. .and feel entitled to do whatever you want with it. "PRO brings up an example of underwater oil drilling. I am not sure how anyone in any sytem would be able to replenish oil, but i believe i understand the point PRO is attempting to make. If foresters were to own any given area of a forest, what incentive would they have to limit their consumption, and replenish the resources present? Since business owners have capital already invested within the forest, they then have every incentive to "milk the land for all it is worth". Similar to gardeners, who will plant, harvest, and re-plant, in all likelihood, business owners would utilize a given section of the land area they own, harvest the tree, re-plant, and give the land time to regrow, while moving on to a different section. This is only one example. For polluting industries, per the continuous cap-and-trade system, they will have to purchase more and more caps for all the additional units of pollution they produce, plus the past units of pollution. If Profit is a key driver, and this is a highly variable, ever-increasing cost, companies will have the incentive to find a way to lower the cost. This might mean investing in expensive-in-the-short-run, cheap-in-the-long-run purification equipment. PRO attempts to suggest that a free-market has no government interference, whether it be regulation of intervention. Per characteristic 3, Government has the "right" to regulate, but not the right to intervene. This means that government, more specifically the EPA, can act as a police force in order to ensure industry is indeed taking responsibility for it's actions. This is no different from having policemen, and detectives, active to prevent murderers, theives, and rapists from avoiding punishment. In each case, the actor (person who does) is held responsible for their actions (the something they did). This does not violate any of the principles i have stated, nor the characteristics i stated. PRO's arguments seem to be based on presuppositions that neither I, nor the audience, have been made aware of. PRO does not offer support, evidence, or justification for any of the assertions that have been made. As such, PRO fails to uphold his Burden of Proof, as well as affirm the resolution. I have presented (what i subjectively consider) rational arguments for the environmental soundness and sustainability of a Free-Market Capitalist economy, as i explained it in Round 1. PRO did not dispute any of the characteristics i proposed, and i did my best to show how the theoretical FMC-economy is not, in any way, inherently unsustainable and environmentally unsound. I would like to give my thanks to PRO once again. I appreciated the opportunity to debate such an interesting topic! My thanks to the audience for reading this, and happy voting! . http://www.investopedia.com...;