The Instigator
harrytruman
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Imperiah
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Capitalism with reasonable regulation

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Imperiah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 81464
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)

 

harrytruman

Pro

Capitalism:
A system where individuals are granted the right to own property, and are allowed to run their own trade.
Regulation:
A law preventing destructive business practices.
Anarchism:
A free for all nation where anyone can do whatever they want.
Communism:
The economic system based upon total and absolute loyalty to the evil dictator, I.e. a very controlling government.
So here's my debate; capitalism is good as long as reasonable regulation are in place, such as the pure food and drug act, I will prove this in part by economic theory, and the bible, which will result in a side subject to combat this notion about Jesus being a commie, let's start with the commie thing: so what is these people think is that because Jesus said that parable about the workers getting played 100$ regardless of how long they worked, this is very easy to combat; it was a variable about minding your own business.
Next off is the rest of the bible debate, so capitalism is composed of two aspects; the right to own property, and the right to run your own trade, if these were wrong, why then did God assign the children of Israel plots of land (I.e. private property). We may now move to the biblical thing of regulation, the entire book of Leviticus is government regulation.
We will now move to the biblical reason why I do not agree with communism: last I checked God had a lot of problems with evil dictators, the pharaohs, king Saul, king darrius, or whatever it is that that guys name was who did the thing with the Jewish cups and the wine.
Imperiah

Con

I accept your challenge.

In this debate, I shall speak of my views about capitalism and that its opposite, socialism, is the most viable way to solve all the problems this system has brought, also bringing the common good to the people. I ask for mutual respect between our political ideologies, so that this debate can flow perfectly well.
Debate Round No. 1
harrytruman

Pro

Yes indeed, I will not mention Soviet torture camps as long as you do not mention the Ludlow massacre.
Imperiah

Con

Let us commence.

"Capitalism" is, as the word self explains itself, the economic system of capital. Money. That's what it is about. As a consequence to the will of kings and nobles, exportation and importation of goods and services started to be applied. This is capitalism.

The aim of this system is to have profit. Initially, this is a great idea. Everyone should be able to work, produce and trade, and this would run like a charm forever. If only resources were infinite... Capitalism fails when little men earn without working and many men work without earning. This is a concept known as "surplus value", a concept created by the philosopher, economist, journalist and sociologist Karl Marx. As the bourgeoisie owns the means of production, they pay people to work for them, produce, sell the product and then hand them a small cut of what the good produced is worth. The capitalist, with that done, earns the biggest share of the profit and upholds his economic power over all others. This is the spark that lightened the flames of savagery. Powerful men do as they please, and even become responsible for unhuman acts done to the workers in search for more power through money.

What good is to be a capitalist when you have no capital? That is when socialist ideals came. Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of utopian socialism, wrote the first books about the subject[1], which would be later developed in a possible, applicable way by other intellectuals such as Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx.

With socialism applied in the right way (that would mean not totally based and dependant on the soviet model, but putting a start to creativity in shaping the model), we can fix mistakes done in the past and promote the common good.

Unfortunately I didn't have much time to elaborate this text, though I will do my best to give better arguments later on.

[1] http://www.britannica.com...
Debate Round No. 2
harrytruman

Pro

Hmm, I see you replaced Vladimir Lenin with Adolf Hitler.
Capitalism" is, as the word self explains itself, the economic system of capital. Money. That's what it is about. As a consequence to the will of kings and nobles, exportation and importation of goods and services started to be applied. This is capitalism.
Yes, so far so good.
The aim of this system is to have profit. Initially, this is a great idea. Everyone should be able to work, produce and trade, and this would run like a charm forever. If only resources were infinite... Capitalism fails when little men earn without working and many men work without earning. This is a concept known as "surplus value", a concept created by the philosopher, economist, journalist and sociologist Karl Marx. As the bourgeoisie owns the means of production, they pay people to work for them, produce, sell the product and then hand them a small cut of what the good produced is worth. The capitalist, with that done, earns the biggest share of the profit and upholds his economic power over all others. This is the spark that lightened the flames of savagery. Powerful men do as they please and even become responsible for unhuman acts done to the workers in search for more power through money.

This is incorrect, reading through "The wealth of Nations", you will never find anything about this, Adam Smith"s capitalism is based upon working, earning money, making stuff, and that"s it. This aspect follows capitalism yes, but it cannot have any direct correlation to capitalism, only to a small group of the population called "sociopaths", which cannot be eliminated by any economic system, I can directly link evil dictators and torture camps to communism, too much power, it gives too much power to the government, and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely".
What good is to be a capitalist when you have no capital? That is when socialist ideals came. Henri de Saint-Simon, one of the founders of utopian socialism, wrote the first books about the subject[1], which would be later developed in a possible, applicable way by other intellectuals such as Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx.
Karl Marx was an anarchist you know.
Unfortunately I didn't have much time to elaborate this text, though I will do my best to give better arguments later on.
Imperiah

Con

I was expecting you to use arguments, not to repeat what I said without quotation marks.

Surely, Adam Smith proposes an ideal of a free market capitalism (the essence of capitalism, I like to say), where people are totally free to trade. The problem is, how will the capitalists have the funds to support trading without workers? They then hire workers to do their job. But without anyone to tell what wage the workers need, who shall stop the owners of the means of production from paying them US$ 1000/day or US$ 0,10/day? Obviously, the lowest wage for the hardest work makes the famous "wage slavery" appear. That's where government comes in, to defend people's interests, as it sets up the "minimum wage". Without it, capitalism would be at its wildest, enslaving multiple men, women and children for a minority's interests. A capitalist economic system is decading and self-degrading. A socialist economy would not let that happen, as long as the dictator is selected wisely by 2 or more exams and psychological tests to verify his/her conditions to be a ruler, plus their attitudes in their lives. I realise it has never been applied in history, but that's a mean I find useful and it should be at least tried before judged.

Fact is, in an entirely global-wide new planned socialist economy (even if that does not go by the idea I've mentioned), everyone would be satisfied and social will would be achieved. Capitalist is but an economic system, while socialism is a political system. Socialism has done lots of goods for the workers and people and the Western media has blocked most of its information to the masses. What the West does is to mention every time that it has killed millions, censored press, and limited freedom of speech under "evil dictators". Though hasn't the same happened in the 1964 military dictatorship in Brazil under the name of the right-wing? What is kept from the people is that it placed the worker at its best in society, being the USSR (so-called evil country for the "misdeeds of Stalin", but almost never recognised for Lenin, Khruschev and others) the first country to produce and distribute protection to ALL workers, free, highly qualified scholarship (without mentioning teens learned about what they wanted to become once they reached a certain age), free remunerated vacations to workers (that's right, government paid people to travel PLUS their travel expenses!), free, top healthcare for all, among other beautiful things. Two other things that capitalism never achieved that the USSR did was full employment: no one was ever idle in society; and full people feeding: there were absolutely no beggars in the country. So to be precise: food and work were always there for the people. Does the West mention it in the documentaries? Nah, I don't think so.

I realise that socialism did kill many people, as not every communist was in fact a good ruler, but capitalism did A LOT more killing under the name of "democracy" (the democracy of those who own enough money to vote, and the news are filtered so it favours someone). They just don't spit it out on the TV. Maybe then socialism is an experiment worth trying again.

Now capitalism with regulations might sound alright at first, BUT it isn't. These regulations are many times broken and the rich don't have to pay in prison for it while poor people can't afford their daily meal, even less a lawyer to defend them in court. Regulations won't work, and the planet still screams for the damage caused in nature. If we want to live longer and better, the system of money is not the way. Perhaps socialism is, after all, just a stupid idea which will never work, though how will we know without trying it out ourselves?
Debate Round No. 3
harrytruman

Pro

"I was expecting you to use arguments, not to repeat what I said without quotation marks."
Oh, no- I quote each of your arguments and rebuttal them after, I thought that that was standard debating.
"Surely, Adam Smith proposes an ideal of a free market capitalism (the essence of capitalism, I like to say), where people are totally free to trade. The problem is, how will the capitalists have the funds to support trading without workers? They then hire workers to do their job. But without anyone to tell what wage the workers need, who shall stop the owners of the means of production from paying them US$ 1000/day or US$ 0,10/day? Obviously, the lowest wage for the hardest work makes the famous "wage slavery" appear. That's where government comes in, to defend people's interests, as it sets up the "minimum wage". Without it, capitalism would be at its wildest, enslaving multiple men, women and children for a minority's interests. A capitalist economic system is decading and self-degrading. A socialist economy would not let that happen, as long as the dictator is selected wisely by 2 or more exams and psychological tests to verify his/her conditions to be a ruler, plus their attitudes in their lives. I realise it has never been applied in history, but that's a mean I find useful and it should be at least tried before judged."
Did you ever read "The Wealth of Nations", because if you did you would note that it revolves around the worker, because this is his thesis statement, that the common man is capable of choosing his own prices. Take this for example; the "Trickledown Theory", does it work- no, is it part of the capitalist foundation laid out by Adam smith, no, there is however, an instance where it does apply. That is, in a small business scenario, why- because history has shown that state governments tend to be more accountable to the people than Federal Governments, and local governments tend to be more accountable to the people than state governments. In a small business, the relation between the employer and the worker are as "The Wealth of Nations" laid out, a partnership. Adam Smith never anticipated a monetary system as it is now, his design was adapted to the small businessman, the worker, and the landlord, not mass enslavement as it is now. As I stated before, this is the fault of a chunk of society called "Bad People", and these people are not going to just "disappear" over night because we turn commie.
"Fact is, in an entirely global-wide new planned socialist economy (even if that does not go by the idea I've mentioned), everyone would be satisfied and social will would be achieved. Capitalist is but an economic system, while socialism is a political system. Socialism has done lots of goods for the workers and people and the Western media has blocked most of its information to the masses. What the West does is to mention every time that it has killed millions, censored press, and limited freedom of speech under "evil dictators". Though hasn't the same happened in the 1964 military dictatorship in Brazil under the name of the right-wing? What is kept from the people is that it placed the worker at its best in society, being the USSR (so-called evil country for the "misdeeds of Stalin", but almost never recognised for Lenin, Khruschev and others) the first country to produce and distribute protection to ALL workers, free, highly qualified scholarship (without mentioning teens learned about what they wanted to become once they reached a certain age), free remunerated vacations to workers (that's right, government paid people to travel PLUS their travel expenses!), free, top healthcare for all, among other beautiful things. Two other things that capitalism never achieved that the USSR did was full employment: no one was ever idle in society; and full people feeding: there were absolutely no beggars in the country. So to be precise: food and work were always there for the people. Does the West mention it in the documentaries? Nah, I don't think so."
Capitalism is an economic system yes, but it is an economic system which gives the power to the people, this is why I argue fervently for a gold standard, the issue of money would be given to who- the gold and silver miners, rather than a privately owned central bank such as the Federal Reserve, who passes itself off as a capitalist, free trade supporting system, even though it is a commie-feudal system. I would also like to mention, that during the 1940"s, when our nation was a true capitalist nation, free health care was in fact guaranteed to workers by their employment, true capitalism will guarantee all of the above.
"I realise that socialism did kill many people, as not every communist was in fact a good ruler, but capitalism did A LOT more killing under the name of "democracy" (the democracy of those who own enough money to vote, and the news are filtered so it favours someone). They just don't spit it out on the TV. Maybe then socialism is an experiment worth trying again."
It was not capitalism which committed any unlawful or immoral act, it was individuals, and there is no link from capitalism to crimes against humanity such as the Ludlow Massacre, this was the sole responsibility of John D Rockefeller. There is a link from communism to the enslavement of a nation, that is- power, as I have stated before;
"Power tends to corrupt, Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
If John D Rockefeller was a Soviet, he would still be a bad person, he would still rip people off, the only difference, is that the dictator will be much worse than Rockefeller could ever be, which would cause people to pay more attention to the dictator than to the lowlife con man.
"Now capitalism with regulations might sound alright at first, BUT it isn't. These regulations are many times broken and the rich don't have to pay in prison for it while poor people can't afford their daily meal, even less a lawyer to defend them in court. Regulations won't work, and the planet still screams for the damage caused in nature. If we want to live longer and better, the system of money is not the way. Perhaps socialism is, after all, just a stupid idea which will never work, though how will we know without trying it out ourselves?"
I"m not sure you understand which regulations I am referring to, I am referring to those laid out in the old testimate, people would own their own land, and be isolated to said land, they could buy other peoples land, but the land would always return to the original owner, retaining a free market.
Imperiah

Con

A free market is just the right path for total submission. As I said before, a free market is extremely good for the wealthy and horrible for the weak. I understand the libertarian view of capitalism as a wealth promoter, though this wealth won't be common as in theory.

Power does not corrupt humans. Human nature uses power for corruption. Even though, a well-chosen leader will probably never get corrupted if people keep a close eye to the governor, where they have access to government affairs and can complain. Corruption is something present in human society, and no one could ever change this, neither in capitalism nor socialism.

Back in the beginning of humanity, picking, for instance, Middle Age, money wasn't made at first for the slaves, mate, but for the nobles and the Church. Slaves had only the payment of receiving home and food, that's all. The nobles and religious people had access to everything, they OWNED everything. This system of privileges kept on for a millenium (A THOUSAND YEARS! That's too much!)[1]. Now advancing to the French Revolution, we observed that in the birth of the Age of Enlightenment, people by the first time ever started to criticise considerably the existence of a God, rulers and had access to this powerful weapon called science. Ever since, capitalism ceased from favouring only kings and the minorities, but the people itself. In the future, people would learn economics, politics, among other sciences such as physics, mathematics, et cetera.

What I mean with the previous is that money is unhealthy for humans, and that no regulation to the market (free market) is doomed to fail. Since you mentioned U.S., the Great Depression in 1929 was the best example for failure of a free market economy. An overestipulation of production and lack of purchase led the stock market to suffer a horrible crash[2], which impacted the entire world (not USSR though, as socialism is not damaged by capitalist economic crises). President Franklin D. Roosevelt had to resort to Keynesianism, as I believe you already know as the opposite of neoliberalism, which boosted the U.S. economy with the series of political methods called the New Deal. People got employed again, had good quality of life and raised the United States back to the position of economic power. By studying anarchocapitalism, which is a way of free market but with absolutely no government intervention, you notice the same proposal you have placed: everyone has their private property and no one has the right to touch them. Who will guarantee you that right? You, only. With your guns, defencive methods and anything you want, you shall protect your private area. But what will happen if a person has "too much gear for self-protection"? They will want to use their resources to conquer others' territories, starting a war among capitalists which would bring total disorder, chaos, death to the poor (let's say 99% of Earth since most people will work as slaves) and only one corporation monopoly shall stand in the end. Say whatever you want about the books you read, though this is the outcome of a POLITICAL-ECONOMIC system that was elaborated by ECONOMISTS in the 1950s.

Oh, I almost forgot of the crap products they would impose selling to people, such as the actual fast-food services or bad cars in the future, since no government would be there to manage quality and consequently corporations could build up many trusts[3], holdings[4] and cartels[5], guaranteeing market supremacy and therefore no competition.

References:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.economicshelp.org...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Imperiah 1 year ago
Imperiah
Okay, pal. ^^
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
You are terrible at not offending people, I know there arent many Jews on this site, but that doesnt make it good,
Adolf Hitler, seriously? What's wrong with you.
Posted by Imperiah 1 year ago
Imperiah
I am sorry my profile picture offends you, even if you just sent me a friend request to see it every time you enter the site.
Posted by BlackFlags 1 year ago
BlackFlags
Today's socialists are just interventionist capitalists.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
You want to post or not?
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
To put "power to the people" in the background of said morally insane individual is the most backward thing I have seen in my life.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
No, same thing, and even so- why then is there a picture of Vladimir Lenin on your profile?
That picture offends me; Vladimir Lenin infringed the right to vote in the Soviet union, creating for them a system of enslavement to which the Russian people would be bound to for 72 years, .
Posted by Imperiah 1 year ago
Imperiah
Oh, and please, I'm not a communist. I'm a socialist. It is different.
Posted by Imperiah 1 year ago
Imperiah
This totally will be interesting, my friend. By the way, let this flow in a positive way, alright? No offences to each other's ideologies, views or anything. Let us defend our positions, and please remember this is a debate about if capitalism is ideal with reasonable regulation, as you described. :)
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
harrytruman
Everything else= 98% evil.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Emilrose 1 year ago
Emilrose
harrytrumanImperiahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate began rather unusually due to Pro not outlining any form of debate structure. In round two he simply responded to an acceptance with another 'acceptance', which in essence simply loses him a round. In round one he also gave a rather biased and misleading definition of the term 'communism'. Con begins with a brief argument that doesn't particularly cover a wide area or go into any depth, but improves his case in round three/four and notes what he views as flaws in a capitalist system--as well as highlighting potential *Pros* in a socialist system and giving examples from the Soviet Union in which people seemingly had more economic benefits and higher employment. Because he went straight to rebuttals, Pro didn't really make any case in favour of his resolution and the way in which he quoted Cons own arguments was *not* necessary and somewhat confusing for the reader--making his and Cons sentences look like they'd been placed together. Therefore, I vote CON.