The Instigator
Pro (for)
11 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

Deregulated Capitalism is Superior to Alternatives

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/10/2011 Category: Economics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,216 times Debate No: 16987
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)




=== Framework ===

Deregulated Capitalism - The bare bones laws stemming from the Non-Aggression Principle.

Superior - I'll chose my weighing standard later if necessary. I plan to demonstrate uncontroversial advantage. Just remember this is a comparative exercise, so if you don't employ ceteris parabis you fail.

Alternatives - Pick whatever you want. I basically plan to cross-apply all your arguments back on you.

=== Prestandards ===

In order to promote fair debate, the following prestandards are copypasted from my previous debates. Always use protection!

1) Dropping arguments and bringing them up later allows an unfair advantage. For example, if I run utilitarianism in round 1, egalitariansim in round 2, and justice in round 3, I can just pick up whichever my opponent fails to address in round 4. Because we have limited space, dropped arguments ought to count as concessions.

2) Supporting citations must be clearly articulated in the debate. Writing: "Abortion is wrong [1]" is problematic on two counts. First, it does not justify a ballot because this is not an substantiated argument - it's an appeal to authority. Second, it is abusive because the debater is trying to glean offense outside of their round.

To the voters: Honor my prestandards. My opponent is completely free to argue against them. However, if they still stand, they apply. I bring them forward not to gain special personal advantage but to ensure a principled debate.

Debating begins in round 2.



I accept your challenge but first I would like you to make a couple of distinctions:

1. You have already distinguished your form of libertarianism as stemming from the non-aggression principle which is defined in your article as (I'm paraphrasing here) the government will serve as a regulator if and only if harm is initiated upon a person or persons or their property. Does this extend to laborers working under dangerous conditions due to the negligence of a proprietor? I realize this strays quite a bit from the definition but I would like to be sure before I argue my points.

2. In your definition of libertarianism can the means of production be owned by the laborers or a collective of people instead of one sole proprietor?
Debate Round No. 1


I won't construct any arguments because you haven't given me an alternative, so I'll just answer your questions.


The criterion for aggression is whether something is voluntary. So if someone voluntarily agrees to work in a factory with unsafe working conditions, this is not a violation of the NAP.


Yes. Any kind of property is in principle ownable by many people. Specifically I think that the use-theory of ownership is the most logically compatible with the NAP. It states that you have a right to do something as long as it does not aggressively interfere with what someone else is already doing. So you can farm a plot of unowned land, and no one has a right to interfere with your farming. But they can still use the land in ways that don't interfere with your activity, such as flying planes over or broadcasting radio waves through it. So I reject lockean/mixing/cardinal theories of ownership.

If you have any further questions, go to the comments or PM me. We have a limited number of rounds.


I thank my opponent for making those distinctions. I will now begin with my arguments.

My opponent believes that deregulated capitalism that is based on the non-aggression principle is the best of any alternative to any economic theory out there. I will prove that this economic system when compared to a more regulated free market, such as in the social democracies in western Europe, would be less favorable for society as a whole. This argument is based on three contentions:

1. Deregulation Inadvertently Makes the Free Market Less Free

In the case of deregulated capitalism there can be fierce competition among a plethora of consumer choices and this is good for the consumer. After all if a consumer does not like whatever one provider of a service or commodity is selling they can always go to another one. However, if these choices dwindle because one provider is out competing another or they decide to merge because they would make more of a profit by doing so this would create less freedom in the market. Since the goal of a provider in capitalism is to get the maximum output of profit with the minimum input of funds we see how it is rational to think that some of these cases in which a provider is bought out by another happen often. Consequently, this may bring down the quality of goods and may leave them at a fixed price that may be costly. Since the provider has no competition and and he could be dealing with a commodity which is in high demand (such as oil), it is completely rational for him to charge a very high price for a low quality product. Again, I refer to the goal of capitalism. We can see how these specific conditions would detrimental for consumers since A. they are not getting the best possible product out of a provider and B. They have no other choice so they have to buy an expensive product. Based on the non-aggression principle which is defined as: an ethical stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate (this also includes fraud upon a person or his property), there is nothing a government can do because price fixing is A. not aggressive B. it is not fraud since that is the price of the commodity if the provider so chooses it and no one can tell him otherwise (so technically he isn't lying.) Furthermore not only can I provide rationality behind why monopolies form but I can provide examples of companies that have become monopolies during the 1800's and early 1900's, the most deregulated period of business in our history:
Standard oil
International Harvester and American Tobacco
US Steel

Finally a government that is not bound by the non-aggression principle can put anti-monopoly laws into place. This would make for more consumer freedom and an overall better climate since this makes the market more competitive which brings about lower prices and better products.

2. A System of Economics Based on the Non-aggression Principle Would be Less Safe and Discourage Economic Growth
Since non-aggression principle covers consumers only in the cases of initiated aggression or fraud, it cannot possibly cover everything that can be detrimental to a consumers health. These things include lead in baby toys, toxic ingredients in products for consumption such as tobacco, food, water, alcohol, and finally safety regulations for automobiles which our society (reality) deems safe. Again, the goal of a provider in capitalism is to provide the smallest input possible with the maximum output possible, so the less you spend on safety without actually killing someone the better off you are. I have to objections to this, 1. Again deregulated capitalism fails the consumer since they again are not getting the best possible product because of a lack of safety 2. If the products that the consumer buys are hurting him it is irrational for him to buy these products. My opponent can come back and say you do not need, a car, tobacco, alcohol, or baby toys to live so you have a choice. Yes, I would grant him that however he says deregulated capitalism is the BEST of all possible alternatives, clearly, we see that a society in which consumers do not buy commodities for fear of dying is not the best of all possible alternatives (not to mention he still has to hurdle through the fact that we need water and food for survival.) Again, my opponent can come back and say, the market would take care of safety regulations on its own by the choice of the consumer. However, there are direct examples from our history in which the market did not take care of safety regulations until government stepped in such as, the meat packing industry and pharmaceutical industry. Granted that safety regulations on the free market do not insure the safety of the consumer, however, this is better than the alternative. Finally in a system in which the free market is more trustworthy through a system of sanctions and rewards for being safe would encourage consumer input and thus make a society prosper.

3. Decreased Regulation Encourages Oppression of Workers

The non-aggression principle fails the worker in the sense that so as long as the owner of a workplace does not initiate aggression or commits fraud against him it is within in his power to choose whatever he wants with the worker if the worker chooses to work at his establishment. This means things like wage, hours, benefits, breaks, and safety regulations are completely up to the owner of the establishment. Again, the owner wants to output the most as possible with inputting the least possible. If we hold this to be true (which anyone who has the slightest idea of what capitalism is would agree with me) it would be completely rational for him to pay his workers little to no pay (according to any standards in any society), give him no breaks, make him work as long as humanly possible, give him no benefits, and throw safety regulations out the window so long as productivity is up. One argument could be that the worker has a choice in where he wants to work and that is a rational argument. However, if most of the providers of a service are trying to act as rationally as possible they will all treat workers the same because that it is what will maximize their output. So the worker is left to choose between tweedle dee and tweedle dumb and they will choose either way because they need to survive. In a society in which a government lays out certain parameters for how a workplace should treat its workers would be more A. more prosperous because the standard of living would go up for everyone B. workers would have an incentive other than survival and thus live a more of a happy life.
Debate Round No. 2


=== Pro Case ===

I've hit back Con's specific issues below, but I think his entire case can be reduced to the following:

"What if markets have bad outcomes? Government should create good outcomes"

1) Trivial Formulation

His thesis does not depend on the definition of "markets" or "governments". You could switch it around to say "What if states have bad outcomes? Markets should create good outcomes". You could replace either word with random nouns. This is simply an exercise in grammar. His approach is tautological.

2) Violation of Ceteris Parabis Assumptions

A) Double Standard

Con is trying to force me to apologise for bad businesses. Even if you buy that, why doesn't have to apologise for bad states? Why is he allowed to cherry pick European states and ignore Communist genocides? Why can't I single out the most politically correct corporations to defend capitalism?

B) Turn Against States

I can't because capitalism is just a system of negative rights. People can be jerks to each other. Similarly, states are law-monopolists who can violate negative rights. They can also be jerks and they have guns. Giving humans the right to attack each other solves nothing.

3) Assumption of Control

Part of Con's strategy is to say "business will do X, and government should fix it". Notice the underlined words. Why does he apply incentives to businesses? Why does he only have to point out what the government should do? After all, businesses should restrain themselves. The existential freedom of these institutions is inconsequential.

Just because he's advocating states doesn't mean he gets to control their behavior. This is the "magic wand" theory of statism. If he's going to point out that market incentives can have bad outcomes, he also has to deal with state incentives and show they lead to better outcomes. His analysis is totally incomplete.

4) Aggressive Monopolies are Bad

A state is an aggressive monopoly on final arbitration. There is nothing about this organizational structure that lends itself to the public good. Con concedes a limited invisible hand works under capitalism. Until Con demonstrates a superior invisible hand under statism, we default to capitalism.

=== Con Case ===

Con's argument is that markets work except when _____, so if I hit back his issues I win.

1) Deregulation Inadvertently Makes the Free Market Less Free

A) Theory of Collusion

Con thinks firms can collude and become uncompetitive. But this would create excess profit opportunities, allowing old firms to expand and new firms to enter the market. So as long as are no legal barriers to entry, we don't have to worry about collusion.

B) Capitalism and the Profit Motive

Con says Capitalism seeks maximum profit. This is trivially true. Individuals have a subjective set of values which drive them. Sometimes they seek monetary profit, but only as a means to subjective-profit. This is why people spend money on stuff that isn't money.

Subjective profit permeates all economic systems and creates no special disadvantage under capitalism. Milton Friedman is famous for pointing out that even socialist economies run on greed. The question is simply what system harnesses greed the best.

Even if Con thinks capitalism allows people to screw each other over, states can do it with guns. Malicious intent without guns (capitalism) is superior to malicious intent with guns (states).

C) High Profits

Con briefly complains about high oil prices. First, a high oil price incentivizes companies to invest more money producing oil. As these companies get more money, they expand their output and prices decrease compared to if there were no extra production. Con's argument reduces to the complaint that we do not live in the garden of eden.

Oil is also not a good example because OPEC is made up of governments, and they play a major role in world oil prices [1]. Governments are capable of the same harmful profit seeking behavior Con is so worried about under capitalism.

D) Standard Oil

Con has presented no evidence that Standard Oil is a good example of high prices/bad service. A cursory glance of the wiki article shows they cut Kerosene prices in half over 5 years [2]. What government has ever lowered the cost of its services so dramatically?

E) International Harvester

Research proved difficult. I'll just wait for a source or argument...

F) American Tobacco

The wikipedia article just says they were broken up by the Sherman act. It does not give any reasoning or statistics behind this decision. Again, I'll wait.

G) US Steel

No sources or proofs. For now, I will point to consistent anti-competitive steel tariffs in place since 1824 [3].

F) Anti Monopoly Laws

Presumably Con wants to break up companies before they get too large. This deprives consumers of economies of scale because he's capping the size of firms. For example, Google currently has about 2/3rds market share [4] and still provides excellent free services.

G) Natural Monopolies are Good

Con doesn't realize that monopoly prices can also be a good thing. High expected monopoly profits incentivize innovation. For example, a cure for cancer might never be invented if firms can't get monopoly prices out of it.

F) Monopolies are Fundamental to Markets

If a firm beats its competitors, it is because that firm has something unique and useful about it. I.e. it has a monopoly on some beneficial trait. This monopoly is positive because it enhances the industry's production strategies. The monopoly will persist until other firms can copy or improve on the strategy, lowering prices to their neoclassically competitive level.

2) Firms Won't Serve Consumers

A) Consumer Health

Con is afraid that firms will sell consumers harmful products. This can be ameliorated via a contract that says firms will not sell you poison.

Alternatively, intermediaries represent consumers and shoulder the burden of wise product selection. For example, electronics retailers almost universally require their electronics to have the UL seal of approval on it. UL is a private safety/quality certification company that tests and approves products for very low cost [5].

B) Firm Self Interest

Con thinks firms will screw over consumers because they are profit-maximizing. But consumers are also profit-maximizing, so there is a give and take. Firms can't offer bad products for fear of losing market share to superior products.

C) Safety Regulations

Improvements in working conditions cost money. They show up as higher wages for employers. So you can think of firms paying people in a combination of money, working conditions, skillbuilding, etc.

Firms offer certain a combination of these for a reason - to match worker preference. For example, sweatshop workers do not have central air conditioning because they prefer working at higher wage in heat. To provide air conditioning, wages would have to fall against the preferences of workers.

3) Worker Oppression

This is basically the same Safety Regulations argument. Cross apply my response.

I'll add that Competitive firms cannot systematically exploit workers because it creates a profit opportunity for other firms. For example, if Con is exploiting workers by paying them 10 cents an hour, I can expand and make more money by paying then $1 an hour. If this is still too low then I either have to raise my wages or another firm will offer even higher wages. This process continues until employees are paid their marginal contribution to firm revenue.

Con also mentions hours worked per week. Currently there is no hard cap on how long Americans can work, and yet most people do not work 80 hrs/week. The overall trend in the American economy has been consistently downward [6].




My opponent's attempt at reducing my argument to an exercise in grammar is a red herring. He is trying to distract the voter from the real issue. Obviously if you read the rest of my argument you cannot replace the nouns in my thesis. A mailbox for example, does not provide people with goods and services and a house cannot establish boundaries for the way the mailbox should do business. This is also wrong because my opponent provided a definition of the free market and I am just arguing based on it.

2. A.) Again, this is another red herring. I never used an appeal to emotion to force anyone to apologize, I simply stated what would be rational to a provider in a free market system according to Anthony Down's "An Economic theory of democracy". My opponent is also giving me a false alternative by creating a false analogy. Let's define a socialist democracy as it is defined in the oxford online dictionary:

A socialist system of government achieved by democratic means

now let us define a free market:

an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

Now let us define communism:

a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

So even if my opponents arguments were true he would have to apologize because this definition of free markets is consistent with my arguments as well as my opponents definition of a free market (naturally since I am basing my arguments on his definition of the free market.) On the other hand the oxford dictionary's definition of communism is not consistent with what I am proposing because the definition of communism does not contain anything about democratic means. Thus my opponent's analogy breaks down and my system of a socialist democracy is not liable for any states that commit acts under the banner of communism.

B.) Yes, people are "jerks" hence the reason why their should be laws against it. Society should and it does sanction you for being a jerk even based on your definition (depending on the degree of course a bully on the playground should not get the same sanctions as hitler should.) Yes the state has guns and so do the people if the people so decide hence the the definition of a social democracy. This is also a straw man since I never said people couldn't have guns to defend themselves against a coercive government. Yes the state can become a law monopolist hence the reason why these laws come to be through democratic means so the people can be a check on the federal government (through republican means or direct democracy, I didn't really specify and I suppose it doesn't really much matter so long as the people have a say.)

C.) My opponent again is creating another straw man. I never said that they WILL because my argument went more like this "IF business does X given a certain set of circumstances government should do Y." Yes, I completely agree with you, businesses should restrain themselves. However, based on rational and historical arguments they don't hence the reason we are having this debate. Yes, I don't get to control a states behavior but a given people that make up a given government can and based on the net aggregate of pleasure over pain I am saying people would think it would be rational to regulate business. I think the incentives of a democracy are pretty self evident... you don't do your job you get voted out.

D.) Again, I agree with my opponent but again a system of checks in balances in which the people are involved takes care of the state becoming an aggressive monopoly.

A.) this doesn't even make sense given the definition of a monopoly, exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. If a firm has full control of a market and can manipulate the prices however they want, why would they allow the entry of new firms that could possibly lower prices? My opponent's effort to explain my argument away makes even less sense when we look at a real life example of a firm that is the closest to a monopoly in the US, Wal-mart.

According to an Article written by Jeff Hwang says wal-mart is having a negative impact on competition. He writes:

"According to Business Week, "for every Wal-Mart supercenter that opens in the next five years, two other supermarkets will close." And this is done without creating new jobs."

According to this analysis, I would ask my opponent, if wal-mart (an old firm) is entering new markets why is it that so many super markets are closing and there are no new ones to replace them? I mean according to you're argument if X expands their should be more opportunities for little x to join the market? Why is this not the case for wal-mart?

B.) Capitalism and the Profit motive: This argument is fallacious. My opponent's argument goes like this I use x to get y because it's of importance to me however since I have y, x is no longer important. However, what if y is sustained by x wouldn't I want to get the most of x as possible so that I could ultimately get more y? Again we see a straw man, I never said social democracies are immune to human greed (this would be illogical since greed is almost a necessary condition of being a human) , what I am arguing is that their could be regulations to ease suffering as a consequence of greed.

- Yes states can become coercive if they have "guns" but citizens can arm themselves if they so choose that is why they are part of a democracy. If the democratic process no longer works society can turn against it's coercive government and start over again.

C.) My opponent is leaving his argument incomplete to support his case. He forgets the part where a monopoly can create an artificial shortage of a given product to bring up their prices. So yes, they can expand their output and they could bring down the prices of their product or they could choose to create an artificial shortage to bring prices up. This would actually be more rational since the cost of manufacturing would be less and you would be getting more money. Don't bring the tired argument that socialist want to create a utopia. Yes, I do grant you that opec is made up of governments but this is a false analogy since most of these countries are either A. Dictatorships B. absolute monarchies. Obviously this is not what I mean by a social democracy. However, I do take responsibility for a bad example.

The examples that I stated of monopolies in the 1800's were not an example of what my opponent has framed but merely an example of monopolies that can and will form in deregulated free market. However I do have examples of the abuse of standard oil's power as a monopoly, they include:

(1) Temporarily undercutting the prices of competitors until they either went out of business or sold out to Standard Oil.

(2) Buying up the components needed to make oil barrels in order to prevent competitors from getting their oil to customers.

(3) Using its large and growing volume of oil shipments to negotiate an alliance with the railroads that gave it secret rebates and thereby reduced its effective shipping costs to a level far below the rates charged to its competitors.

(4) Secretly buying up competitors and then having officials from those companies spy on and give advance warning of deals being planned by other competitors.

(5) Secretly buying up or creating new oil-related companies, such as pipeline and engineering firms, that appeared be independent operators but which gave Standard Oil hidden rebates.

(6) Dispatching thugs who used threats and physical violence to break up the operations of competitors who could not otherwise be persuaded.
Debate Round No. 3


The tags have been completely destroyed. I'll do my best to keep this organized.

=== Pro Case ===

1) Trivial Formulation

I know that free markets/states are defined differently than mailboxes, but the structure of Con's argument does not depend on these definitions. Let me try several examples since I have space:

If free markets cause problems, governments should fix them
If governments cause problems, free markets should fix them
If free markets cause problems, free markets should fix them
If Bobby causes problems, Randy should fix them

Those statements are all true. They reveal nothing because the sentence will be true as long as "Problems should be fixed". It is non sequitur to choose any particular noun combination and make it the basis of your political philosophy.

2) Violation of Ceteris Parabis Assumptions

A) Double Standard

We both agree that I should have to bite into any harms created by free markets. However, he does not think he bites into the harms of communist dictatorships because he is only advocating politically correct governments like Euro microstates.

He can't cherry pick whatever system he wants for at least two reasons.

First, democratic socialism is not the logical consequence of state intervention. DemSoc institutions have no genesis mechanism. He's just fiating "Good Government" into existence while ignoring incentives and social theory. He chooses a good outcome where everyone is plugged into functioning institutions, claims that as his starting point, and calls it political philosophy. I could make the free market look pretty good too if I started everyone off plugged into friendly businesses... But I don't. I have to show how institutions are built in capitalism. He needs to show how institutions are built when you violate the Non-Aggression Axiom.

Second, he suffers from selection bias. He's looking at successful DemSoc states, but doesn't talk about DemSoc failures. I doubt there is an easy list of DemSoc governments and movements, but altogether demsoc probably has something like a 10% success rate [1] His advocacy comes down to gambling an entire country's future just because he's afraid of monopoly pricing.

B) Turn Against States

Again, Con invokes his "bad things are bad" approach when he says there should be laws against jerks. It would be nice if we could snap our fingers and make everyone play nice, but we cannot. The introduction of the state and removal of the Non-Aggression Axiom solves nothing. It makes things worse because you allow citizens to attack each other through the state apparatus.

Con's response seems to focus on individual gun rights, which is not what I'm talking about.

States monopolize law by definition.

3) Assumption of Control

Con concedes that he doesn't get to control state behavior. He just says people might think it prudent to regulate bad market outcomes, and pays brief lip service to democracy.

Individuals will fail to vote seriously in democracies because the chance their vote will influence an election is virtually zero if there are more than 10 people. Even an election that turns out 49.999% to 50.001% will still differ by hundreds of votes. If nobody votes seriously then democracy is totally ineffective.

He also mentions interpersonal comparisons of utility which are impossible because we lack an objective touchstone.

4) Aggressive Monopolies Are Bad

Con thinks the majority might be able to restrain the federal government. This is a red herring. In a democracy, the majority is sovereign. They elect the judges who interpret laws, the legislature who make laws, and the executives who enforce laws. There are no checks and balances that can hold power over the majority.

=== Con Case ===

1) Deregulation Inadvertently Makes the Free Market Less Free

A) Theory of Collusion

Con completely drops collusion, and now wants us to consider if there were already a monopoly on some commodity. Again, Con doesn't explain why he can ask us to examine random outcomes as theoretical starting points, but what the hell. The answer is simply that other firms can enter the market by offering lower prices. The monopolist can't stop them from entering the market because you're not allowed to physically attack other people under capitalism.

His wal-mart analysis is backwards. If fewer physical fewer stores can satisfy demand, more resources like empty buildings and workers are freed up to be used in the rest of the economy, expanding economic output.

In Con's world, everyone sits around duplicating each others' efforts and society never moves forward because "going out of business" is evidence of "monopoly" which means "bad" in newspeak.

B) Capitalism and the Profit Motive

Con... confuses me. But everything's okay because he concedes that greed is part of the human condition.

His whole claim to fame is that there could be regulations to mitigate the effects of greed. There could also be magical teleportation pads that solve the energy crisis. Theoretical possibility is not relevant to political philosophy.

Con misunderstands and thinks I'm talking about arms proliferation again... "Screwing people over with guns" means aggression, which is what I want to focus on. Maybe they use sticks or bazookas. I don't care. The point is that giving people the right to attack each other doesn't solve anything, especially if some of them are jerks.

C) High Profits

I don't get a response on the price mechanism. Extend to demonstrate how the market tackles monopolies.

Con complains that monopolies might reduce output and raise prices, this temporary at worst. The high profits in a monopolized industry fuel competition that brings down prices.

Con doesn't think the OPEC example applies to him because they are not social democracies. But we're not letting him just cherry pick the best possible theoretical state, so these countries serve as an example of what can happen if you violate the Non-Aggression Axiom.

D) Standard Oil

Con gives a list of some naughty things Standard Oil has done. First, some of these are actually anti-capitalist since they involve initiation of force against competitors. The other techniques such as secret dealings were available to ALL oil companies, and therefore do not present special advantage for Standard Oil.

His source on this is also from, a linux help website. It contains no external links to the points he references. Wikipedia is a superior objective source... maybe we could both just use that.

Con does not respond to my overall point that the price of Kerosene was cut in half over 5 years. Seriously, no government has ever become so efficient so quickly.

E) International Harvester/American Tobacco/US Steel

Completely dropped. Everything below this was dropped. Most debate paradigms count drops as concessions...

F) Anti Monopoly Laws

Extend harms to Con because he deprives consumers of economy of scale.

G) Natural Monopolies are Good

Because they incentivize innovation and the creation of new industries.

H) Monopolies are Fundamental to Markets

Because improvement requires firms to gain unique edges over their competitors.

2) Firms Wont Serve Consumers

A) Consumer Health

Harms mitigated via contract, intermediaries, and private certification.

B) Firm Self Interest

Firms serve consumers diligently because they are trying to maintain/capture market share from other firms

C) Safety Regulations

Firms also compete for employees, so working conditions improve as employers demand a larger portion of their wages go to working conditions.

3) Worker Oppression

Competition between firms raises wages to the employee's marginal contribution to the firm.

Also extend my observation and source on hours/week worked.


[1] I'll do some actual number crunching if challenged on this. Here is an incomplete list I'm afraid to do lots of research because Con may just sit around disputing my selection choices.



1. You can give examples of your objection all you want it still doesn't hold any truth. Yes, this WOULD be true if I didn't provide any evidence for my thesis but I did. I show historical instances in which the free market does cause problems and and the instances where government has has solved those problems effectively. Now, this is not a concession, pro likes to think that a concession means that his opponent agrees with him although that is not the definition of a concession, again he leaves out part of his definition to help his case.

2. How is this cherry picking? The system of government does not fall under the same definition of the system of government that my opponent proposed. If anything, my opponent is guilty of a faulty generalization. Just because States have one thing in common (that they are both governments) does not mean they are the same. I didn't use symbolic logic since my opponent is confused by this. You have different types of states you have democracies, monarchies, oligarchies, theocracies, etc.

Objection #1. I don't really know what this objection really has to do with... well anything since we are arguing which system of government is better and I am arguing for democratic socialism. Again just because democratic socialism has something in common (state intervention) with another form government it doesn't make them equal.
Objections #2. My starting point is a consequence of the short comings of the non-aggression principle. Since this principle does not benefit most people it is rational for them to make laws that limit abuses of the free market hence we create institutions that effectively stop this. Iceland, Norway, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, France, those are socialist democracies that are effective and who have a better standard of living than the United States. How many countries can anyone name with a government who's economic policy is purely based on the non-aggression principle (they don't even have to have a better standard of living than the US)? NONE. So if my opponent wants to use this argument he destroys the premise of his argument since it has never been tested.

B.) My opponent is trying to belittle my argument by saying that things that are commonly seen as bad should not be outlawed. His argument comes down to "we can't stop people from doing bad things, so lets only do something in the most extreme of cases." My opponent is being ambiguous, how does the state allow people to attack each other when the law would prevent it? For his second rebuttal I like to remind my opponent that he used the examples of the state having guns. I just used his logic to show him that people can revolt if they see their government is becoming dictatorial or too coercive.

3.) This is a straw man I never conceded since I never disagreed in the first place. Furthermore if my opponent's logic that people's votes don't count is true than a state can become aggressively coercive in any form of government including my opponent's. Thus his objection from round 3 breaks down.

4.) Actually, we can point to our own government to see that the majority is not the final say. We have a two bi-cameral congress. One represents the majority (the house) and the other represents the minority (the senate). These two houses balance each out thus you have a check. My opponent should read up on history so he doesn't make absolute statements.

1.) This is not a random outcome, my opponent is creating a red herring by simply calling it one. You said new firms are allowed to enter if a firm has a monopoly over the market. I gave you a real life situation where this isn't the case.
You're not allowed to physically attack people under capitalism but a monopoly is allowed to lower prices so that weaker firms are not competitive. Again, for the third time, I go to the definition of a monopoly. My opponent's objection of buildings being freed up is analogous to if a farmer works a plot of land the whole season and his crops burn down before he can yield anything it is not all bad since he has more room to work with. Again, I never said this but my opponent likes use straw men to further his case. It's actually sort of funny that my opponent is using a term from 1984 as an ad hominem since the writer Eric Blair (George Orwell) actually identifies himself as a democratic socialist. Fail.

B. Ok I won't use symbolic logic as it confuses you. Using money to by things you like does not make money lose its value. You could like things that involve lots and lots of money so therefore you want to make as much of it as possible. Again, I did not concede to you because i never said greed wasn't a part of the human condition, you're putting words in my mouth again. Again not only did I say it "could use regulations to mitigate the effects of greed," I gave you real life examples where it was effective. Again, I ask you how does regulation of the free market give people the right to attack each other? Again, you have an unsubstantiated claim. Why is there any reason to believe that artificial shortages are temporary? Again, this a faulty generalization socialist democracies do not operate the same way as the nations in opec. My opponent wants to say that because they have one thing in common they are all equally tyrannical. According to my opponents definition of cherry picking we can include his form of government since telling people not to murder or commit fraud is a form of coercion. My opponent's economic system on the other hand has a lot of things in common with the United States in the pre-progressive era both were virtually unregulated and they were under a democratic system. My standard oil objection points out the shortcomings of an economic system that strictly employed a non-aggression principle stance.

A. It made the market smaller
B. it did illegal (non-capitalist) things and continued to until government intervened

My opponents objections actually supports my case.

One example of a commodity that governments are better at providing is healthcare. The United States which has a private healthcare system pays more per capita than any country in the world. In the best case European countries spend 3 times less on healthcare than The US does. Let's see here... I think paying 3 times less is better than paying 2 times less. Oh yeah and the consumer pays nothing. Not only do they offer it for free but France, Canada and many others allow private companies to compete. Britain has sustained this for over 45 years.

E) International Harvester and American Tobacco intentionally deceived consumers by saying their product would cure anything from menstrual cramps to asthma. Again this deception went on till government intervened.

G) My opponent is guilty of ambiguity. How exactly is breaking monopolies up not letting an economy get to a full scale? If anything it's harmful to a consumer because there are less choices.

2) A. My opponent is basically saying... we'll trust the market so long as they promise they won't hurt us, this doesn't sound to reassuring.
B. ) Yes, this is true so long as there is competition
C.) This sounds good ideally but this is not the case since companies have used Coercive means to dismantle unions so the worker would not have a voice. Even in my opponents stance this could be perfectly legal since it is not aggressive to fire an employee if they so choose to join a union.

I hope those are trustworthy enough for my opponent even though he uses a cite that freshmen english classes don't let you use as a source.
Debate Round No. 4
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago

How do I prove to you that you're a moron?
Posted by Double_R 7 years ago

"My opponent's attempt at reducing my argument to an exercise in grammar is a red herring. He is trying to distract the voter from the real issue."

"My opponent again is creating another straw man."

"My opponent is trying to belittle my argument by saying that…"

Welcome to the world of debating Sieben.
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago
The debate ended before I could use examples. I was actually planning on turning his ireland example because they were basically socialist and then cut themselves down to bare minimum. They had unsurpassed growth rates till the economic crash, in which their central bank played primary cause.

Tbh I don't think examples are good. Here is why - I consider it a form of trolling and I can outtroll my opponents if I really want to.
Posted by baggins 7 years ago
Close and well argued debate. But tough to judge.

Con argues that in absence of regulation, big business can be jerk. Pro counters effectively that government can be (actually usually is) a bigger jerk. Examples provided by Con re not very effective, specially since the sources are not that good.

I would have voted 3:2 for Pro. I am making it 4:2, since Pro has provides good presentation which is easier to follow. Con's argument is tough to read - though that is partially a result of the challenging topic.

I am bit dismayed that Pro did not use example of India. Indian industry bloomed when the regulations were eased in 1992, ending what is known as 'license/permit raj'. 'Raj' is rule. You needed license or permit to start any business. Corner a particular number of permits through corruption and then your 'raj' starts.
Posted by dcarvajal1990 7 years ago
I ran out of room the 3rd round, this is not an excuse however. These rebuttals do not have to be considered by the voters if they choose not to. I was simply responding to my opponent's objections. I wasn't tying to postulate a new political philosophy, I was showing you why yours was not superior to alternatives by giving you real life alternatives in which the economic systems were superior.
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago
Though I will say to this to Con... you really don't understand why you can't just pick socialist democracy and call that political philosophy? Its because political philosophy is theory about how institutions are built, and socialist democracy is a system where everyone is plugged in to pre-existing institutions (the democratic state).

You: "I only support states that already have good institutions in place. The institutions also have to be well behaved with established and functional checks and balances."

But you wouldn't let me say: "I only support markets that already have good institutions in place. The institutions also have to be well behaved with established and functional checks and balances".

So you apply incentives and game theory to me, but for some reason they don't apply to you. Just because you DEFINE socialist democracy doesn't mean you get to claim it, and it certainly doesn't mean its a valid political position... After all, self-controlled happyfun freemarkets is definable too, but no one takes it seriously because it simply defines away a whole host of fundamental social problems. You're doing the same thing.
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago
Yeah he has a lot of new arguments in the last round. I can't respond to his claims about healthcare and stuff. He also kept leaving his monopoly points incomplete in previous rounds, finally explaining in the last round that he's worried about predatory pricing.
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago
Right. Another round would have been good.

Use your own judgement... generally new arguments in the last round is considered abusive. As far as I can see I just flowed everything. Con kind of keeps changing his mind about arguments/sources he wants to use.
Posted by XYZABC 7 years ago
Number of rounds is unbalanced. Do you have any voter guidance?
Posted by Sieben 7 years ago
If you do, I'll point it out to the audience and ask them to vote against you. Its up to them though. It is generally frowned upon because we have limited character space for a reason.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Grape 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not show any meaningful understanding of Pro's argument and seems to have a grudge against periods and other punctuation, which made his already incoherent case even harder to read. We can vote for Pro right away because Con does not follow the ceteris paribus rule or even understand it.
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Oh dear God, this was painful to read. Con misunderstood 90 percent of Pro's arguments. I thought they stopped performing frontal lobotomies decades ago...
Vote Placed by baggins 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: 4:2 to Pro. Analysis in comments.