Daaaang!
Good luck & sorry about Barr.
Let us know how it goes… [:)]
Once again, this begs the question, the answer is we can’t provide any. All “we” can do is to let the free market work, the incentives will therefore be to meet the demands of consumers. If, and when, the time comes that oil is “running out” and prices are going up so much that it isn’t viable to keep using oil, companies will invest for profit.
giles, of course you are correct that if the ‘we’ of the question is government then it cant do anything to foster economically efficient investment in future technology. however it is possible to spin the answer to the question in a more positive light which might prove a better debate tactic.
if we pose that a dissincentive for investing in future technologies, is doubt and insecurity over private property rights in the future, then this scenario can be improved by increasing respect for the principle of private property today, reigning in government intervntionism, and reducing threats to future reshuffles of private property rights, (i.e. firm credible commitments to avoid redistribution, windfall taxes , tax increases and the like)
but maybe that is tooooo optimistic.
So how did the debate turn out Dakk? I assume the Libertarian Team won the debate.
Sorry I did not give much help, but from what I read, your answers were very good. I also agreed with what Jon Irenicus said to change which was the words “unregulated capitalism.” Hope you did well on your rebuttals, and hopefully at least a few people were convinced of the Libertarian ideas.