The Instigator
henryajevans
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Subutai
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Laissez Faire Capitalism is Disgusting and Immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2013 Category: Economics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,985 times Debate No: 37684
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)

 

henryajevans

Pro

R1 is acceptance only.
No forfeits
Subutai

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
henryajevans

Pro

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Subutai

Con

Well pro has the BoP, so I guess I'll wait until he presents some arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
henryajevans

Pro

Laissez Faire Capitalism is the equivalent of getting a thousand dogs in a room and throwing meat in. The stronger dogs overpower the weaker dogs, killing or wounding them, and get all the meat for themselves, while the weaker dogs go hungry. In fact, this metaphor is too complementary to Laissez Faire Capitalism. In the metaphor, the stronger dogs don't force the weaker dogs to make more meat for them, with the promises of someday giving them some meat of their own.

Laissez Faire Capitalism is not freedom. It leads to authoritarianism in its most brute form, that of the likes of Pinochet, Suharto and Somoza. It is the act of a government relinquishing its responsibility to guarantee the welfare and freedom of its citizens, instead favouring what helps the elite. Anyone who believes that it is freedom must merely look at its effects. Not in the spacious Gatsby-esque mansions in Beverly Hills we are shown are the result of hard work and dedication, but in the developing world, where people toil to manufacture consumer goods for the people in better off countries. I shall give three examples of Laissez Faire Capitalism in action, and we shall see the extent of the excellence of the ideology.

The Pinochet Regime in Chile is an excellent example of Laissez Faire Capitalism, partly due to its distilled nature, partly due to its contrast with the Allende Regime before it. Allende was the left-leaning, but more importantly, democratically elected, President of Chile. Chile's principle export was copper, and the mines had been nationalised in the 1960s. In 1972, the height of Allende's popularity, Chileans had the highest standard of living ever previously enjoyed, with universal healthcare, social housing and free milk for children. However, this annoyed President Nixon and the mining corporations that backed him, so they orchestrated a coup in 1973. General Augusto Pinochet took power as part of a junta, and ruled a military dictatorship until 1990 (incidentally, his best friend Margaret Thatcher, an equally odious and repugnant creature was removed from power). During that time, Pinochet's strings were pulled by a clique known as 'The Chicago Boys', a group of US investment bankers and corporate executives that ran Chile's economy. The mines were privatised, as was the countryside, and even basic resources, such as water and road maintenance, were sold to foreign investors. This resulted in a dive in Chilean living standards, and ultimately resulted in an economic collapse that required the government to renationalise all of the industries Pinochet privatised, and more after that. Not only did his economic policies result in disaster, but his reign saw one of the worst periods of atrocities and human rights abuses ever seen. By the end of 1973, his first year as ruler, two hundred and fifty thousand people were being detained in concentration camps worse than those of the Nazis, with nearly four thousand people dead, another eighty thousand people incarcerated and two hundred thousand placed into exile. Pinochet enjoyed the unwavering support of senile despot-lovers Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, with his death squads and secret police receiving all training and equipment from MI6 and the CIA. No elections were held until 1988, when Pinochet was beaten, but refused to step down until 1990. Pinochet's Chile is one of the best examples of Laissez Faire Capitalism, and did it result in freedom for all, preserving peoples' rights and giving Chileans a good standard of living? No, no, and of course not. Capitalism is the opposite of freedom.

Britain under Thatcher and the IMF is another example of capitalism at its best. Prior to the IMF's imposition of neoliberalism in 1976, Britain had enjoyed almost full employment under Atlee and Wilson's socialist governments, with high taxes for the rich, excellent provisions for all in the forms of social housing, universal healthcare and a huge public sector that encompassed hospitals, steelworks, shipyards, telecommunications and mines. Thatcher privatised all of these save the NHS, and almost all state-owned factories were closed; not because they were not making profits, but because the margins were not big enough to fill the pockets of the investors. This resulted in mass unemployment in huge swathes of the country, namely the post-industrial North, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Midlands and Wales. Places such as Essex only recovered because the increased demand for housing in London spilled out into the Home Counties, thus perpetuating the North-South Divide that still persists to this day. Poverty rose from 10.5% in 1975 to 22.8% in 1990, and has never fallen below 18% since. Unemployment increased from 700,000 in 1975 to 3,000,000 in 1982, which amounted to over ten percent of the population, the worst levels seen since the Great Depression. Since then, unemployment has not gone below 1,500,000. This figure is exacerbated further if one looks at the structural and regional unemployment, which rose to 75% in some areas centred around industries closed by the dogs Thatcher threw the public sector to. The same can be said for her cosmetically adequate GDP growth, which was almost entirely concentrated on London and the Southeast, while the rest of the country was both stagnating or declining. Also, with her union-bashing, she destroyed British Trade Unionism, the only way in which the workplace can be subject to democracy; and also eradicated the Labour Party's main source of funds, which meant that they had to look for funds in the same place as her, therefore under Blair, they adopted the same policies as her successor Major; and today, voters in the UK have the choice between the centre-right Conservatives, the centre-right Liberal Democrats and the centre-right Labour Party. No other parties are politically viable for office, and the three major parties are virtually indistinguishable in terms of their policies. This means that she turned Britain into a Dictatorship of the Corporation, as the corporations determine party politics and therefore government policy by supporting candidates that look after their interests, effectively purchasing elections. Even a libertarian such as yourself must acknowledge that a country can only call itself a democracy when the people can choose between parties which have different lines. The Labour Party is now pro-austerity, pro-privatisation and anti-immigration. Blair extended the policies of Thatcher and Major, and extended their effects, thus depriving the British people of an alternative to neoliberalism. The social costs of Thatcher's policies were disgusting, and the policies themselves, which consisted of what former Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan described as 'Selling off the family silver', were immoral, since they transferred the stake in society previously held by the citizenry to the investors, centralising power in the City of London and in foreign investors, neither of which can be considered accountable. Along with her ally Ronald Reagan, another free-market fetishist, she created the low-tax, deregulated conditions that caused the banking crisis and the global recession of today, yet the media, which is almost exclusively owned by people who supported her thanks to her policies, idolised her then and have canonised her now. She boasted about being the first leader to beat back socialism, as if that was a good thing, and, along with her pets Howe and Lawson, ruined the lives of millions of people, not just in Britain, but across the world with all of the dictators she supported, such as the aforementioned Pinochet, kleptocrats Mobutu of Zaire and Suharto of Indonesia, and genocidal feudalist Pol Pot of Cambodia, whose army that killed an estimated three million Cambodians was supplied and trained by British special forces; and fun-hating puritan fascists the Taliban of Afghanistan, who were trained and armed by MI6 and the CIA. All of these were supported because they were either fighting or suppressing democratic left wing sentiment.

In the words of Fidel Castro,

They talk about the failure of socialism, but where is the success of capitalism in Africa, Asia and Latin America?
Subutai

Con

I would like to thank henryajevans for presenting his arguments.

Before I begin, I want to present a definition of Laissez Faire Capitalism, because it appears that a lot of pro's argument isn't relevant to what it really is. Here is the definition: "...[It] describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies."[1]

Now to begin my argument, it's necessary to end the myth that Capitalism is a Darwinistic system of sorts, meaning that it is the survival of the fittest. "The wealth and technology that capitalism creates — e.g., the medical miracles that now routinely save previously "unfit" people — demonstrate that capitalism's benefits are not restricted to the fittest... That means that virtually all survive better, making capitalism dramatically anti-Darwinian." How exactly could a system that benefits everyone be a dog-eat-dog system?[2]

In truth, because Capitalism champions the principle of private property, "jungle law" is averted in exchange for a more individual rights approach that benefits all in the system. "The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle's destructive competition for meager subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one's self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market — the contractual society — that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the "weak" to live productively … in a regal style compared to the life of the "strong" in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes."[3]

Is is simply a coincidence that income levels have spiked over the past 300 years? The spike corresponds to the arrival of Capitalism as an economic institution. It's no coincidence.[4]

Next, my opponent cites two people who are supposedly arguments against Capitalism because of the horrors they created by instituting it. But, if we look back at the definition I proposed at the beginning of my argument, we see that both of these cases can be thrown out because the government was involved. As an article from the Mises Institute, the leading authority on Austrian Economics puts it on Pinochet: "Despite the fact that General Pinochet was able to use his powers as dictator to enact major pro-free-market reforms, dictatorship should never be seen as justified merely as a means of instituting such reforms, however necessary and desirable they may be. Dictatorship is the most dangerous of political institutions and easily produces catastrophic results. This is because a dictator is not restrained by any need for public discussion and debate and thus can easily leap headlong into disasters that would have been avoided had there been the freedom to criticize his proposed actions and to oppose them. And even when his policies may be right, the fact that they are imposed in defiance of public opinion operates greatly to add to their unpopularity and thus to make permanent change all the more difficult."[5]

This leads to two holes in my opponent's argument. One, any economic plan, including Capitalism, forced onto people will never succeed. Further, this is not how Capitalism should work - Capitalism should be instituted by the desire of the people to have private property and free enterprise. Two, there is an adjustment period - blindly switching fom Communism to Capitalism is never good; this is why Eastern Europe's economies are doing so poorly, even after trying Capitalism.

Even worse for my opponent is the number of blatant lies he has in his arguments, like, "The Labour Party is now pro-austerity, pro-privatisation and anti-immigration." This is blatantly wrong: http://news.bbc.co.uk.... There are many more that I wish to not waste the time going into.

Overall, most of my opponent's argument is misguided, irrelevant, or just plain wrong.

To conclude my argument, Capitalism allows for the efficent exchange of goods and resources. In socialism, the Government decides what and how much of a product is produced, and who should get that product. This is obviously inefficent because the Government can not satisify the needs and wants of all of it's population (which is why Socialism works better in small countries). In Capitalism, the consumer gets to decide these things, so the consumer gets what he wants. This efficient system eliminates long-term shortages and surpluses. "The single greatest benefit that capitalism provides is that it enables human choice."[6]

Further, Capitalism allows for competition, which lowers prices for consumers and virtually eliminates the threat of shortages. "Competition in the marketplace is good for consumers"and good for business, too. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of products and services high."[7]

"In enriching most those who are most productive, capitalism allows the survival of billions of people who would not otherwise have survived. In fact, capitalism gives everyone — particularly the weakest, whom it is accused of harming — the best chance not just to survive but to thrive. One of many ways this is revealed is the vast increases in leisure that markets have made possible, while real incomes dramatically increased at the same time. This could not result from "dog eat dog" competition."[2]

Sources

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]: http://mises.org...
[3]: Rothbard, Murray. Man, Economy, and State.
[4]: http://capitalism.aynrand.org...
[5]: http://archive.mises.org...
[6]: http://www.hillsdale.edu...
[7]: http://www.ftc.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
henryajevans

Pro

henryajevans forfeited this round.
Subutai

Con

Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
henryajevans

Pro

Rebuttals

The technology is only available to the majority of people (in the developed world anyway) as a result of government intervention. In all of the grown-up countries, there are systems of healthcare that socialise this technology, thus making it available to the masses. Anyway, not all technological advancements are done by capitalism. Penicillin, the motorway, Volkswagen, computers, the internet, space travel, most modern weapons, nuclear power, motorways, calculators, the biro, wind power, GPS, formula milk, the microchip, amphetamines and most modern vaccinations were all either invented by people in government departments, or mostly funded by the government in developing. We would still have these with socialism, or even communism, but since it would have been unprofitable to introduce many of them, capitalism would not have invented many of them. I think you are forgetting that the USSR put the first man in space, as well as the first satellite and space station, and also the radio antenna and the prototype for the mobile phone. Necessity is the mother of invention, not capitalism. Anyway, in the US, if it was not for the questionable schemes of Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare, they would not be available to all of the previously 'unfit' people, and there are many 'unfit' people (forty million at a conservative estimate) that still do not receive the medical inventions.

The market is order, I concede. It is order intended to benefit the few over the many, to ensure that the plebs line up to work for the benefit of the few, and occasionally allow a few of them to ascend to their ranks as part of the pyramid scheme. You are adhering to Smith's principles in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which advocate the Invisible Hand, and everybody striving to do well for themselves would somehow mean that even if people miss their objective of becoming billionaires, they would still have increased their own wealth substantially. This is a pyramid scheme, since if it worked, which it doesn't, it would require an unlimited stream of people to form the underclass to work as chattel for the people who have succeeded. Smith's theory was superseded by most academics and people with minimal knowledge of economics by Nash and von Neumann's Game Theory in the seventies, and this was cemented by Friedmann admitting that his ideas about laissez faire capitalism and the money supply were flawed.

I agree with you that the wage spike is no coincidence. We had this little thing called the industrial revolution, which started in Britain in the mid eighteenth century, and became widespread as populations grew substantially thanks to successive good harvests; and new technologies were invented and adopted such as Newcomen and Watt's steam engines, etc., which increased production substantially. In the capitalist economies of Britain, France and the USA, the desire for raw materials to fuel the industrial revolution motivated them to seek resources overseas in Africa and India in the case of Britain and France, and further west, in the case of the USA. But the Industrial Revolution was not a purely capitalist phenomenon. Russia and China did not experience their industrial revolutions until the twentieth centuries. Under Stalin in Russia, there were a series of x year plans to mechanise agriculture and build new factories, hence the alliance of hammer and sickle. Similarly, under Mao in China, there was the Great Leap Forward, a somewhat more successful attempt at kickstarting an industrial revolution that was consolidated by Xiaoping and built the foundations for China to become the world's preeminent power. Before capitalism, there was mercantilism, a sort of half-baked form of state capitalism that revolved around controlling trade that brought a wage spike to areas that did a lot of trading such as Italy, Greece, the Netherlands and the Baltic. It had many of the hallmarks of capitalism, in that the wealth was largely concentrated in some entrenched pseudo-aristocrats at the top, and the wealth trickled down gradually to the masses in both financial terms and in terms of providing services, such as sanitation or infrastructure. Standards of living were not, as your link says, 'the best that society could afford'. They were considered to be appalling by their peers as well. Society could afford to improve the conditions considerably. Perhaps you should look at the lavish conditions of the rich at the time, in the face of mass poverty. The top five percent of people owned forty percent of the country's wealth, and in places such as London, Manchester and Liverpool, the aristocracy, gentry and capitalists enjoyed double the life expectancy and roughly six times the literacy rate of the workers. The lack of knowledge about any alternatives is not an excuse either. Writers existed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that championed the causes of redistribution, worker self-management and anarchism. Thomas Paine, Camille Desmoulins, Jacques Hebert, Gracchus Babeuf, Robert Owen, Claude de Rouvroy, David Ricardo, Pierre Leroux, Wilhelm Weiting, Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Engels, Charles Hall and Charles Fourier are just a few eighteenth and nineteenth century writers that were anti-capitalist or pro-socialist in terms of ideology, and some of the ideas could go back as far as the teachings of Jesus, Mazdak, Plato and Aristotle. The ideas were present, and there were movements of workers that started quasi-trade unions as early as medieval times, in addition to the guilds, which were essentially trade unions for professionals to ensure that the correct amount was produced. During the Industrial Revolution however, attempts at equity were vigorously, often violently, resisted by the ruling classes. The actions of industrialist Robert Owen are an example of what the Industrial Revolution could have been. By pooling the profits and distributing them to workers according to their output in a medium-sized community in Indiana, Owen managed to improve the standards of living of the ordinary people dramatically by providing services such as healthcare and education free of charge, forbidding child or slave labour and using the profits of industry to improve working and living conditions in the surrounding area. Entrenchment is what has caused capitalism to flourish against the odds, at any sign of a labour dispute or the spread of ideas, they would send in private strikebreakers to intimidate or assault the people defying them, bombard them with propaganda and use temporary workers instead, firing all the workers that dared to demand better conditions. The wage and standard of living increases of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were caused by a mixture of union action to demand better conditions and pay, which compelled the employers and the government to introduce things such as the minimum wage, social security and safety regulations; government legislation such as public health legislation, the introduction of free and compulsory education, healthcare, social security, improved systems of welfare and public works projects like new sewers, housing and paved roads, all done by the government; and the adoption of new procedures such as the internal combustion engine, electricity and the telephone, all of which made production less costly, more productive and more efficient. Capitalism was also not necessarily responsible for these. In the Soviet Union, agriculture was mechanised with tractors and agrichemistry without the assistance of capitalism, and after a few major issues were dealt with, it had a very strong agricultural sector, and as a result, higher population growth and a higher standard of living. Saying that there was actually a universal wage spike rather than a spike in the industrialised countries is a fallacy in itself, since the spike has hardly reached most of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Yes, GDP growth has increased, but living standards have plummeted, as have real wages and literacy rates, while rates of undernourishment, death, suicide, murder, crime and wealth inequality have all skyrocketed. Examples of this include Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, India, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Russia and Nigeria.

I didn't just cite Pinochet and Thatcher for the horrors created in instituting free market capitalism, but for the negative consequences of the policies themselves. They also indicate that free-market capitalism does not lead to freedom, because it exerts authority over others in order to entrench itself. Money is a very powerful tool for influencing individuals and populations, and as long as they are pacified with some of them becoming wealthy, thus giving the rest of the population the impression that they would be too; the system can continue. Pinochet's reforms resulted in a huge crash that brought the economy of Chile to its knees due to the avarice of the mining companies and the reductions in productivity caused by the lowering of the standard of living. This meant that the government had to nationalise more of the economy than it previously had, and the crisis was narrowed by a New Deal-style economic programme. Thatcher and her peers and successors' reforms culminated in the financial crisis of 2008 and the current recession, caused by the housing bubble that functioned as a Ponzi scam in which the people that arrived at it too late bore the main blows, while those who got in early were virtually untouched. However, I agree that the statement about dictatorships and the need for popular movements in favour of an ideology was spot on. It applies to socialism as much as capitalism, though I challenge you to find any examples of countries that went from socialism to capitalism in the developing world through peaceful action.
Also, the Labour Party's rhetoric suggests otherwise, as does the rewriting of Article 4.
Subutai

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for coming back and preseting some more arguments.

My opponent first argues that innovation is not caused by Capitalism - a view which is profoundly mistaken. To use just some of my opponent's examples, Capitalism has allowed for the creation of computers, the internet, calculators, the mircochip, GPS, and the biro by providing an environment conducive for innovation.

The reason for Capitalism's innovation is competition: "Competition in the marketplace is good for consumers—and good for business, too. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of products and services high. It benefits businesses by promoting innovation—improvements to make products different—and often, to make them better in ways that consumers want."[1]

This has been shown time and time again. For example, "Without competition Apple would have never created their Ipod, Microsoft would have never created Windows, and Google would probably be non-existent. Competition is essential because it leads to one very important thing, innovation." On a related, but different example, "It's clear that if one company's technology held an overwhelming advantage over the mobile OS market, innovation would suffer to the detriment of all mobile phone buyers." Laissez Faire Capitalism prevents monopolies from forming.[2][3]

To conclude this point, private businesses are always more efficient in innovation than government. As this article argues, "Capitalism has made advances possible, not solely in providing life's necessities, but in science, technology, and knowledge of all types upon which human society depends. Freedom attracts innovators and explorers and gives life to their ideas. Freedom for people to act in their own self-interest is the mainspring for a diversity of ideas, innovations, and experiments that lead to the discovery of new products, services, and other means of production."[4]

As for Obamacare' supposed "positive" effect on the people, consider this: "CBO estimates that health insurance will cost $15,000 per year on average for families soon after Obamacare is fully implemented, rising rapidly from there. That is the individual mandate tax on the middle class and working people."[5]

You still cannot deny that the spike in per capita GDP happened simultaneously with the rise of Capitalism over state-control and mercantilism:


[6]

Further, it's economic freedom, not state control that leads to prosperity:



[7]

Next, my opponent argues that Capitalism is a "pyramid scheme". Admittedly, yes, Capitalis does entail inequality - but that's not bad: "You cannot achieve excellence and progress unless you have inequality and diversity. Division of labor and specialization are natural outcomes of the multiplicity of natural conditions. Economic progress requires the freedom of individuals to use the diverse talents and localized information that only they can possess. Our material abundance and opportunities for fulfilling work are largely the result of the productivity and creativity of our competitive economic system, despite the existence of many bureaucratic barriers."[4]

The purest version of a pyramid scheme is government. The government steals power from the people and gives to itself until there are a small number of powerful bureaucrats who make all of the decisions, and the vast majority who have little say how they are governed. That is not a feature of Laissez Faire Capitalism. That is a feature inherent in government because of its very nature.

Next, my opponent posts this ridiculously long paragraph of, basically, an irrelevant rant. To begin with, mercantilism is not Capitalism. It has been one of the great triumphs of human evolution that the latter overtook that former. Any of the bad effects that were the result of mercantilism is not a valid argument against Capitalism - it could even be considered to be an argument for Capitalism. The industrial revolution was the transition period between the two systems. While yes, there were significant flaws in the system, it was still an advancement on the earlier system. People lived better off overall during the industrial evolution than in earlier times. The Government's intervention in the economy has not helped the people; it has lowered the economic increase over time. Finally, Russia and China were behind in their evolution because they still had too strong of governments. Both were later taken over by statist communists that ruined their economies and people to the point of collapse. Only when the markets in China began to open did China start to grow - it was not Mao's policies, but Deng Xiaoping's that helped the people of China. Russia has never recovered as it is still, overall, close to the horrible state it was in at the fall of the Bolshevik power bloc. There's more in his long paragraph that are ridiciously incorrect, but I think I've weeded it down to the essentials.

At for one of the places that he should have braked for a new pargraph, he says that most of the world has not experienced economic growth because of Capitalism:



[8]

Most of the places my opponent mentions are not exactly in the green territory. And what does economic freedom correlate with? To start with, economic growth:

[9]

This pretty much makes my point. In a combination of the second and third graphs, here is a graph showing economic freedom versus prosperity with the locations of the countries plotted given:


[10]

Again, the places that my opponent mentions don't score high in economic freedom and they don't score high in prosperity, either. It is Europe, North America, and some of Asia that score high economic freedom (and high prosperity), not Africa and Central & South America.

Finally, my opponent tries to salvage his argument that Pinochet and Thatcher are valid arguments against Laissez Faire Capitalism. Again, not only has he provided no evidence that their economic policies were bad for their respective countries, but he continues to ignore the irrelevancy of his argument, as there is a government involved. Between the reaction time of a change from socialism and capitalism and the government's forcing of it on its peoples (at least in the case of Chile), his argument is invalid.

You see, "If we are to keep the term "capitalism" at all, then, we must distinguish between "free-market capitalism" on the one hand, and "state capitalism" on the other. The two are as different as day and night in their nature and consequences. Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government — the State — to accumulate capital for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence."[11]

As an interesting conclusion, my opponent has aksed me to find a peaceful protest of the people for capitalism over socialism. To that, I offer my conclusion, "In a profound sense, the free market is the method and society 'natural' to man; it can and does therefore arise 'naturally' without an elaborate intellectual system to explain and defend it."[11]

Sources

[1]: http://www.ftc.gov...
[2]: http://www.jmorganmarketing.com...
[3]: http://www.eweek.com...
[4]: http://mises.org...
[5]: http://www.forbes.com...
[6]: http://capitalism.aynrand.org...
[7]: http://markhumphrys.com...
[8]: http://www.heritage.org...
[9]: http://www.youngresearch.com...
[10]: http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com...
[11]: https://mises.org...
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by csarebel 3 years ago
csarebel
@Anonymouse

...west also forces its products on the third world, and if they don't comply, they get attacked. the most authoritarian country in the word is the usa...

At best you have been crimiinformed by someone.
Posted by CorOdin 3 years ago
CorOdin
I am sensing that the conduct in this debate is going to be very bitter, but I hope the argument recognizes that laissez faire system is the only system where violence is not used to achieve economic success.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
Forced doesn't always require force. If you're a farmer in the Third World and your only options are to either sell your farm for a knockdown price and move to the city, or have it bulldozed and live in poverty, you're going to go with selling. No one would go with the other option, because both options are bad - you have the choice of living as a poor person or living in absolute poverty.
Posted by jeh123 3 years ago
jeh123
Capitalism is the only way possible to make CASH nowadays. If you're telling the world's poor to stay poor for the foreseeable future, I'm sure they'll be just fine with that?
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
transactions in capitalism are sometimes forced, and almost always based on deception. for example, paypal can freeze your account, and keep all your money, if you log in from a different ip. this has happened to thousands of people, and talked about by paypal employees. the u.s and the west also forces its products on the third world, and if they don't comply, they get attacked. the most authoritarian country in the word is the usa, a capitalist regime. it has the most prisoners in the world, 6 times more than China per capita. women area also frequently forced into prostitution in capitalist regimes. thailand and the netherlands is the most notorious for prostution, and both are capitalist regimes.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 3 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Define oppression. Because all transactions within Capitalism are voluntary and are not force, rather, government oppresses on these individual voluntary transactions and therefore have become authoritarian.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
No, it is the freedom to oppress others, and therefore leads to private authoritarianism rather than the statist variety.
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 3 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
No, Capitalism is freedom, and anything else is force and therefore, authoritarianism.
Posted by henryajevans 3 years ago
henryajevans
It is, and Laissez Faire Capitalism is the path to it
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 3 years ago
Deathbeforedishonour
Authoritarianism is disgusting and immoral. :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by the_arbiter 3 years ago
the_arbiter
henryajevansSubutaiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: How do you forfeit twice in one debate?
Vote Placed by Valar_Morghulis 3 years ago
Valar_Morghulis
henryajevansSubutaiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided substantially better arguments. Also gets points for FF. Con used sources. Conduct is a tie.
Vote Placed by countzander 3 years ago
countzander
henryajevansSubutaiTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had better conduct; he followed the rules established in round one. Pro, the Forfeiter, twice violated the rules of a debate he himself set up. Spelling and grammar were acceptable on both sides. Con had the more convincing argument. Pro did not seem to understand what Laissez-Faire Capitalism is, as Con pointed out. Further, Pro's argument also hinged upon a few examples in the developing world, ignored the many capitalistic success stories, and cited no references whatsoever. Con convincingly pointed out that capitalism, not socialism, is likely responsible for the standard of living enjoyed by both the rich and the poor.