Free market capitalism makes people more materialistic

"...this would create a hostile environment where people would be unwilling to trade with one another." Not necessarily. Individuals can diversify the options they offer in terms of services to those they trade with. The angler can grow a garden, the farmer can go fishing in the evenings, and so on. In environments that are not as isolated as the hypothetical island, people can move and find additional trading partners. The situation my opponent proposes, if I understand it correctly, is this: demand for goods increases on the island because of the additional trader. The claim is that a supplier must be able to "keep up" with the increased demand for efficient market equilibrium. However, I fail to see how a trader is compelled to increase supply simply because the demand has increased. The only way a supplier can be compelled to provide a service is if a government forces the supplier to do so under threat of force. Without force, the supplier is still exchanging property rights with the buyer, who is incidentally demanding more. Although additional opportunities exist, the supplier may very well decide not to exceed the previously given supply if he chooses not to produce any more than the original amount. The buyer cannot do anything about this. The players are still trading, albeit with a market inefficiency. If a government existed, this government could force the supplier to keep up in order to preserve the "welfare of the people". In that case (and only in that case) does the value for material goods increase. Incidentally, this is the opposite of what my opponent proposes. Overall, the free market system does not depend upon all of the players being fed or receiving medical care. If it did, then those not being fed or receiving medical care would be said to have a monopoly on the goods they are selling (because if they stop producing, the economy falls apart, for no one can supply their good). Nevertheless, as Alan Greenspan et al. have argued, a coercive monopoly cannot form in a free market environment(1). "you are getting away from the fundamental issue in this debate..." I am not getting away from the fundamental issue; in fact, I am getting at the fundamental issue. In arguing a certain kind of good (exchangeable or non-exchangeable) is categorically a higher value than the other, the argument says that even after acquiring all that one would ever need or want in terms of exchangeable goods in the free market system, one still continues to generate exchangeable goods instead of pursuing non-exchangeable goods. This would make the former categorically of a higher value than the latter. My argument is that this is not the case: that diminishing marginal returns implies that, at some point, the value of the former trails off and the latter's value exceeds the former's. The free market does not provide the conditions such that people will continue, for as long as they can, seek exchangeable goods instead of non-exchangeable goods simply because the former are easier to attain in a free market environment. There is nothing inherent to the system such that this is the case categorically. "Just because demand has shifted there does not mean it is of a higher value." People naturally avoid buying products that will force them to forgo the consumption of something else they value more (by law of demand). If the demand for some good has shifted up, that necessarily entails that there are less things out in the world (alternatives) that they would rather consume. Therefore, a shift up in demand for a good implies that the value of that good to the player is higher. "...if one can only pursue non-exchangeable goods when exchangeable goods are met then exchangeable goods are of a higher categorical value, which was my goal to prove in this debate." This is a fundamentally mistaken view of value. Firstly, people do not value those things that are abundant and/or cheap. In a developed economy, the basic exchangeable goods that the players need (e.g. shelter, food, and so on) are not valued particularly highly, even if they are essential to human survival. That is why parents often complain to their children that they do not appreciate all that they have. Moreover, value does not work like as a pyramid, with essentials on the bottom of the pyramid and "non-essentials" at the top. This view is wrong because: (a) essentials, when they are abundant, are not valued highly, and (b) at any one time, things are valued based on their utility-maximizing potential in comparison to alternatives. In other words, at any time, if one's needs are completely met, or perhaps an individual has all of the exchangeable goods he would ever need, exchangeable goods are not of a higher value (by diminishing marginal returns). This contradicts the argument that in a free market system, exchangeable goods are of a categorically higher value because there are clearly circumstances when non-exchangeable goods are of a higher value than the alternative. "Free Market Capitalist society as defined in the opening is the only economy that would force people to value material goods." The free market does not force anyone to value material goods any more than a large government. People under the most oppressive regimes of economic and political control value food, shelter, and so on in exactly the same way as those under the free market system: both groups are human beings, and both need these essentials as much as the other. If anything, as was argued above, it is an economic system in which a government is actively involved, compelling people to push their supply/demand either up or down, when exchangeable goods become a higher value for all players. I believe this leads to one further point: what most consider to be "good" government intervention in an economy occurs when market inefficiencies arise. When there is a clog in the system, we expect the plumber (in this case, government) to step in and break the clog. When a clog occurs, exchangeable goods are of higher value, because players have less due to the overriding macroeconomic conditions. Consumers are not getting what they want (shortage) or the sellers are not receiving business (surplus). The degree to which a government moves to break the clog is inversely proportional to the freedom of the market. I have argued that increased government intervention leads consumers to value exchangeable goods more. It is only in a non-free market, where exchangeable goods are scarcer (than in the free market) that exchangeable goods are of a categorically higher value. Only when the government stops its interventions, and makes the market more free, are the economic conditions in place where the most players in an economic can pursue less necessary, non-exchangeable goods. ------------- (1) = http://www.nathanielbranden.com...