The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
sherlockmethod
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

On the following proposed "economic stimulus" plan

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 10 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/12/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,624 times Debate No: 8795
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (63)
Votes (10)

 

wjmelements

Pro

The resolution is affirmed if the economy as a whole would be helped by these proposals. The resolution is negated if otherwise.
**********************
ECONOMICS FOUNDATION
******************************
"THE produce of labour constitutes the natural recompense or wages of labour." http://www.adamsmith.org...
"But the whole price of any commodity must still finally resolve itself into some one or other, or all of those three parts; as whatever part of it remains after paying the rent of the land, and the price of the whole labour employed in raising, manufacturing, and bringing it to market, must necessarily be profit to somebody." http://www.adamsmith.org...
"The occasional fluctuations in the market price of gold and silver bullion arise from the same causes as the like fluctuations in that of all other commodities." http://www.adamsmith.org...
"The labourer is rich or poor, is well or ill rewarded, in proportion to the real, not to the nominal price of his labour." http://www.adamsmith.org...
(I will present more economic background as needed)
**********************************************
My Economic Stimulus Plan is:

1. Eliminate the Minimum Wage

2. Gradually privatise most public land

3. Eliminate and/or privatise all government that is not involved in defense, the enforcement of contracts, the compensation of damages, currency, law enforcement, or the protection of inalienable rights (life, liberty and rights to one's private property)
This includes (but is not limited to:
-A. Regulatory Bureaucracies
-B. All subsidies
-C. All welfare, including corporate welfare, unemployment benefits, and entitlements
-D. Medicare, medicade, and social security
-E. NASA and other public research institutions
-F. The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, Housing and Development, Veteran's Affairs, Transportation and Labour
-G. The EPA
-H. The Small Business Administration
-I. The National Science Foundation

4. Ammend the U.S. Constitution so that currency must be kept to a gold standard

5. Eliminate the progressive income tax entirely

6. Eliminate the corporate income tax entirely

7. Eliminate the estate tax entirely

8. Eliminate the capital gains tax entirely

9. Establish a low national retail sales tax as the only source of government revenue

10. Work to open free tade with more foreign nations.

11. Work to pay off debts to foreign countries.
********************************************
QUICK REASONS FOR EACH
1. The minimum wage is the primary cause of unemployment. It keeps wage from naturally fluctuating and, as natural price deflation occurs, begins a spree of unemployment that becomes exponentially worse.

It also keeps jobs in America, though outsourcing will still occur, because the labour market is much more expensive in American than in third-world countries.

2. As more land becomes available to the public, the costs of rent and land in general naturally decrease. With an across-the-board cut in property/rent costs, prices drop. However, wages would remain about the same. This causes an increase in aggregate demand, which leads to an economic recovery.

The federal government alone owns almost 30% of all the land in the United States. http://www.calinst.org...

3. Unnecessary government drains the economy of surplus (wealth). Labour that does not produce wealth but takes it from the rest of the economy is a burden.
Other aspects of government would work best if privatised, such as NASA. This government monopoly is not producing wealth; rather, it is draining it. If privatised, it could do the same work, produce a profit (wealth), have multiple different companies, and allow more efficient and applicable scientific research to be done.

Further, companies that cannot survive without subsidies and welfare are not creating wealth.

4. This would limit inflation and re-enforce that our currency actually has sustainable value.

5. Eliminating this tax would increase the aggregate demand by over 40%. By eliminating the unnecessary government in step 3, this becomes practical.

6. By eliminating this double-tax on corporations, prices will drop even more. By eliminating the unnecessary government in step 3, this becomes practical.

7. This keeps more property in the private sector.

8. Eliminating this tax on investment encourages investment.

9. Government needs some form of revenue, and this seems the most efficient way to do that.

10. Expanding the market for our goods improves our trade surplus.

11. With less money leaving the country every year in interest, in the long-term, the United States will have a lesser burden on the economy.
********************************************
I anticipate a lot of fun with this debate, and hope that someone actually accepts it.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for offering this debate and after reviewing his economic plan, which requires a full scale government reconstruction, I conclude the plan would not benefit the US. My opponent offered this debate to me, and contrary to my other debates, I will not present an affirmative position. I will, as Con, only present the reasons my opponent's plan will not work.

The plan as a whole:
Examining aspects of Pro's plan in light of the current conditions of the US would be erroneous. The review must take place within the framework of his new government. My opponent's plan is indeed drastic as it requires elimination of regulatory agencies and progressive income tax at the federal and state level. (Please see comments concerning the state/federal question I asked prior to accepting.)

Eliminate the minimum wage and regulatory agencies.
Under his plan, the state and federal minimum wage is gone, as are the regulations dealing with overtime, work conditions, and child labor laws. Remember the regulatory agencies no longer exist. The, now eliminated, Department of Labor is the only agency that monitors child labor [1] and they monitor work place conditions [2]. The state and local governments would not be able to intercede as these areas are not "involved in defense, the enforcement of contracts, the compensation of damages, currency, law enforcement, or the protection of inalienable rights (life, liberty and rights to one's private property)". My opponent would recreate the very conditions that existed prior to the enactment of these laws. Here is a very brief history of union, state, and federal measures to enact child labor laws. [3] Other than unions, all these reforms are gone, along with the state and federal agencies that enforce them.

Would this situation benefit the economy? No, times have changed since the industrial revolution and the workers would not accept the lack of safe conditions nor would we accept companies using child labor in the US, we would unionize in order to maintain some standards and give workers more bargaining power when dealing with employers, but without the regulations, of course, as the department of labor is gone.[4] Unions would have a new found power under my opponent's plan and the conditions would be present to allow unions to proliferate, as they would take the regulatory roll the government now possesses without the government to regulate them. The union fees would be passed on to consumers [5] and the only ones making money will be the unregulated unions. Unions are declining, as the heritage article correctly explains, because they can offer little outside the government regulations on labor. The difference here, of course, is people outside of the industry could not vote for the union, at least in respect to the DoL we can provide political pressure.

Privatize public land:
I fully concede the federal government has not done well in preserving some of our national treasures [7] I see value in allowing the states to run some of these areas and allowing private ownership where appropriate, but my opponent's plan goes much further in scope. His plan requires the privatization of most government land. The problem under his plan is that the national parks, monuments, and resources do not have to be preserved. The property would fall into private hands with no guarantees. They could charge for admission, or block public access, or simply scrap the national landmark altogether. Some of the land is set aside for Indian reservations, which do not seem to fit within this new Government, so I ask what land specifically my opponent wishes to keep public and which private?

Personal Welfare and Education:
Certainly a hot topic, I share the frustration felt when watching people abuse the very benefits we provide them and chastise us for not giving more. As much as I deplore such actions, I cannot accept that the system is unfixable. The most important benefit of the welfare system is the help given to children. Single parents make up a large portion of welfare recipients. [14] Under my opponents plan, children will no longer receive help from the government for healthcare, nor will foster parents receive state or federal money to help raise abused and unwanted children. We could revert to the abusive past of orphanages, as no regulatory committees will be present to monitor the institutions. As long as the welfare system encourages unwed mothers to have children we will continue to see a rise in the crime rate associated with poverty on single parent homes, but my opponents plan goes to the extreme by eliminating all resources from the government leaving these children with nothing. Such a circumstance would drive the crime rate up, not down, and the expense of dealing with it by hiring more police, building more jails, and the clogging of the legal system will not benefit the economy.
In addition, the disbanding of the state and federal Depts. of Education will not allow these children to attend school and get, at least, a fighting chance to change their plight. With the government out of the education business, schools could not maintain without some serious fees. [8] Single parents on welfare in the current system would have to return to work and children would be unsupervised as the parent would not be able to afford to send the child to school. Public education is an easy target; our schools are not performing, but for most of us, it is all we have. My opponent's plan would eliminate the only source of formal education for most children in the US. Without an education, how will future generations obtain the skills necessary to succeed under my opponent's new US Government? I can find no benefit for the US here.
The Gold Standard
I have spent two days reading information on this topic from the Cato Institute and others. If I place the gold standard in my opponent's new plan and ignore the manner of implementation, it seems to work, but putting the standard in a hypothetical government and explaining it at all aspects of this new government is not feasible in this limited space. Other aspects of my opponent's plan render his proposal a poor policy move; I will not dispute this point.

Tax elimination and a national sales tax
My opponent's plan eliminates all government income except the national sales tax. The Cato institute supports a national sales tax along with a removal of many of the taxes my opponent lists; however, they do support an exemption, absent in Pro's plan, for those under poverty level. This is a form of welfare which my opponent's government must not provide. [9] [pro: rd 1] Even advocates of the fair tax support such welfare. [10] [11] The fair tax proposal recognized the poverty line, as presented by the now (under my opponent's plan) defunct department of Health and Human Services, and allowed rebates. [12] Under my opponent's new government the national sales tax does not allow for rebates for those below the poverty line, nor can the government recognize it, and his plan eliminates the very agencies needed to oversee such matters. The proposal my opponent offers is too hard line, does not allow for flexibility and does not address the regressive nature of such a tax, a point recognized by its most ardent supporters. [13]

Conclusion:
I have not addressed all points concerning the elimination of all the agencies my opponent provided, but I have addressed the affects of his proposal on a few of them. I do not have room to address all of them. Considering the above research, I would advise President wjmelements that his plan, virtually unattainable in the first place, would not benefit the United States and ask that he reconsider his proposal in respect to the state/federal Dept. of Labor, the Dept of Education, and the Dept of Health and Human Services and search out measures to reduce the size of these agencies instead of mandating their elimination.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

"The resolution is affirmed if the economy as a whole would be helped by these proposals. The resolution is negated if otherwise." This is still the criteria for whether or not the debate is won.

I would like to ask that my opponent post his sources in his arguments.

Now, responding to my opponent's negative case.

OVERVIEW
My opponent calls my plan "drastic". However, he makes no economic argument against it in this paragraph.

MY OPPONENT'S DROPPED POINTS
-My opponent has made no case against the elimination of the minimum wage.
-My opponent has made no case against the elimination of the EPA, DoT, DoA, DoC, ID, and many other government agencies.
-My opponent has made no case against the elimination of the corporate income taxes, the progressive income tax, the estate tax, or the capital gains tax.
-My opponent has made no case against free trade.

So, let it be known in the context of this debate that all of these decisions help the economy.

LABOUR REGULATIONS AND THE AGENCIES THAT MAKE AND ENFORCE THEM
My opponent makes the case that what the DoL currently does would be passed on to labour unions. This was my intention. He then argues that the increased size of these labour unions would cause wages to augment and therefore prices to augment. Under his alternative, the DoL, all of the same effects occur, as he and his source concede.
So, in terms of effects, they are equal.
Now, we shall examine their costs:
With a DoL, funds must be allocated to bureaucrats whose jobs are unnecessary (as their effect is achieved without them). Because these jobs are producing no wealth or positive effect, they are simply a drain on the economy. Eliminating this unnecessary drain would be beneficial.

My opponent makes no case for the existence of a minimum wage.

My opponent makes no economic argument against child labour.

PUBLIC LAND
My opponent's case against this policy is:
"They could charge for admission" (The funny thing is: government already charges for admission). [1] [2] [3]
"[They could] block access" (This would be unprofitable (they'd pass up the opportunity to make hundreds of millions of dollars [4] [5]); therefore, it wouldn't be done).
"[They could] simply scrap the national landmark altogether" (This would only be done if it was more profitable than keeping it up for public view. The more profitable option naturally helps the economy more by producing more wealth).
So, my opponent's three grievances will not harm the economy.

My opponent brings up Indian Reservations. Indian Reservations are not public land [6].
My opponent asks what land is to be private. This would naturally be the land freed by the elimination of unnecessary government agencies and land that government is not using. This may or may not include National and State Parks, monuments, etc.

WELFARE AND SUPPORT
My opponent makes a rather stark claim that children would be left out in the cold. This is not true. Without welfare, the National Retail Sales Tax would be much lower than otherwise. Without an income tax, etc., individuals would have more money to donate to charities, orphanages, etc.
If anything, the private welfare system is more efficient than the public welfare system because individual charities must convince the public that their money would go to a good cause. Naturally, this would cause the most needy to recieve the most benefits. Also, without public welfare bureaucracies, the system is even more efficient, as less money is wasted on do-nothing public employees.

EDUCATION
My opponent seems to assume that public education is really free, that it costs absolutely nothing.

In a similar situation to welfare, the education system is also most effective when privately managed. There is no central administration bureaucracy to drain tax dollars. Individuals would have more money available to pay for education.
Naturally, because education has been funded at mostly a state and local level [7], and with many of these states funded by sales taxes [8], the payment for education has already been mostly equal. Without this payment at the federal level, more funds would be available than necessary for a successful private education system.

So, all of my opponent's grievances here are also unjustified.

THE GOLD STANDARD
My opponent has effectively conceded this point.

A TAX SYSTEM
My opponent proposes two alternatives to a national retail sales tax system. They are the so-called FairTax system and a national retail sales tax system with a subsidy.

The inefficiencies within both of my opponent's systems is that they require bureaucracies to decide a poverty line and/or collect and manage information on incomes, expenses, etc [9]. Both create unnecessary public waste by doing so, and therefore add an unnecessary drain on the economy.
The National Retail Sales Tax is preferable because it only requires a collection bureaucracy, while alternatives require a collection bureaucracy, a system that oversees individual economic activity, and other unnecessary bureaucracies.

My proposed Retail Sales Tax system would most effectively ease the costs on the poor in ways that other sales tax systems work: by not applying the tax to groceries [10], etc. This would ease this small tax burden on the poor without creating a stalking agency like the current IRS.

My opponent's remaining claims concern the regressive nature of the tax. The NRST is only regressive in that it is more regressive than the current progressive system. (Here, regressive means "decreasing proportionately with an increase in the tax base" [11] and progressive means "noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income" [12] ). My opponent has not argued why a tax that is truly neither regressive nor progressive would not be ideal.

MY OPPONENT'S CLOSING STATEMENTS
My opponent makes an unwarranted claim that my proposal is unattainable.
Again, eliminating unnecessary aspects of government is ideal in that it allows more money to flow through the private sector and less into a wasteful and unnecessary public sector.

[1] http://www.yosemitehikes.com...
[2] http://www.yellowstone-natl-park.com...
[3] http://www.nps.gov...
[4] http://www.nau.edu...
[5] http://www.travelwest.net...
[6] http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov...
[7] http://www.ed.gov...
[8] http://www.salesandusetax.com...
[9] http://www.cato.org...
[10] http://www.denverpost.com...
[11] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[12] http://dictionary.reference.com...

Thank you.
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for his response:
Regarding my overview:
The overview was simply to frame my argument, nothing more. Please note I did address the minimum wage and child labor in the context of the new government. My opponent has presented a drastic overhaul to the government, so typical arguments concerning these issues in context of our current government are not relevant. All arguments must occur in the governmental framework my opponent offered. Under his framework unregulated unions would control labor; something my opponent intends to happen. This point coupled with deregulation of land use, regulations that preserve the land for future use, render all other points moot. I do not agree that elimination of all the regulatory agencies other than the few I listed would improve the economy. I simply do not have room to address them all, so I chose the ones that put the most pressure on my opponent's new government.
Taxes:
My opponent clearly stated the only income for the government would be a federal sales tax; therefore, all other taxes are eliminated under his plan including the ones he listed. I saw no need to address the individual taxes as they do not exist.

The new unregulated, quasi-governmental role of Unions and Organized Crime:

My opponent fully recognizes the new role unions would play in his new government, but does not address the horrid practices of unregulated unions and their connection with organized crime. As I stated, at least with the DoL we can provide political pressure and we have some oversight. Not so under his plan, as all regulatory committees and the regulations they enforce are gone.

I addressed the minimum wage in respect to labor unions as the elimination of the minimum wage along with all DoL regulations, including child labor, and OSHA are gone. The unions would organize in the hole left by these now defunct regulatory committees, offering similar service, at a huge price. This new found power, along with deregulation would allow the harsh world of labor-racketeering to proliferate once again along with organized crime. [1] [2] According to the FBI "We work closely with the Office of Labor Racketeering in the Department of Labor and with the U.S. Attorneys' offices in investigating violations of labor law." [3] Not anymore; the DoL does not exist. What is the economic impact of organized crime, especially with the newfound powers of the unregulated union? Hard to tell, but, "[I]t's estimated that global organized crime reaps illegal profits of around $1 trillion per year."[4] Organized Crime families would place their people at the head of the union and control the means of production by strong arm tactics on business owners. This has all been done before. Unregulated unions do not benefit the United States economy as the proceeds from labor would go to organized crime, as history has shown, and the means to combat such activities would necessitate the reestablishment of the department of labor. Why spend the money to eliminate an agency we would have to recreate to deal with the problems caused by eliminating it? But we would not recreate it under my opponent's plan, as the government is not in the labor business anymore. DoL regulations are in place to combat such problems.
Economic argument against Child Labor and for Education:
This subject has been addressed so many times. Here is a great discussion paper on the topic. [5 at section 2.2] Child labor decreases human capital and would more so under my opponent's plan as he can only assume people would donate money to schools. Contrary to my opponent's statement, I know public schools are not free and in Tennessee our property taxes provide for the bulk of school funding, not our sales tax. Although the unions would address child labor, as we both see, the union will not cover all businesses, most of them, but not all. A parent is under no obligation to allow the child to attend school. The economic impact in the loss of human capital would be detrimental to the US. Child labor is exploitation plain and simple. We have dealt with this issue in the past [12] and the economic drawbacks of allowing such labor are the reduction of lifetime wage earnings for the child. An uneducated adult without the ability to read or write does not contribute to society as well as one with these fundamental abilities.
Public Land:
The US Government does charge admission to some of the parks; I never stated otherwise. My opponent listed three: Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone. The government does not charge admission to the Smokey Mountain National Park, The Chickamauga Battlefield, most of the Smithsonian Museums [6], The Washington D.C. zoo [6], etc. Private bodies could purchase these areas and do several things; charge admission, close them off to the public for private use, sell them off piece by piece, or scrap them all together. My opponent lists some of the economic benefits of keeping the parks, and makes an assumption that the new private owners will keep them as tourist attractions as this will be the most profitable. This is certainly a possible use for the land, but the now unregulated logging companies may have a faster return on their investment without all the upkeep in reference to the Smoky Mountains. The Grand Canyon area is full of minerals – what interest would a mining company have in running a tourist attraction? Do you have any idea the market value for the donated exhibits in all the Smithsonian museums? Why keep them open, just sell the stuff to the highest bidder and sell the buildings, as condos in downtown DC carry a heavy price tag [7].
Private owners are perfectly capable of deciding to forgo long term benefits of ownership of land and make for a quick return all the while ignoring the future benefits.
Example:
We have a great example available in reference to the Grand Canyon. Uranium mines are popping up in a million acre buffer zone near our national landmark. Please note, the mining company is doing everything it can to maintain the area [8] (Good for them, by the way) not because these actions are cheaper or offer a better return, but because they are required. Private ownership of the land does not require such measures and the environmental regulations dealing with such activities are non-existent under my opponent's new government restructuring. All the numbers for tourism, offered by my opponent, do not hold when a negligent private owner allows the area to become contaminated.
Indian Reservations
I am aware that Indian Reservations are not public land, but the 30% number my opponent offered includes military and Indian lands hence the reason I asked [9] [10] [11]. Now, can the Indians keep the land as it is not private?
This plan is not attainable:
My opponent does not feel my claim concerning the attainability of this plan is warranted. I must disagree. The political make up of the US would not allow such drastic measures as the ones my opponent presents. His plan would manage to alienate some of the strongest political movements in the US and they have money and candidates. Any president attempting to implement such policies, especially as a whole, would have to contend with Congress, Environmentalists, Veterans, and the list goes on and on and it crosses party lines in the current two party system.

1.http://www.americanmafia.com...
2.http://www.fbi.gov...
3.http://www.oig.dol.gov...
4.http://www.fbi.gov...
5.http://www.lex.unict.it...
6.http://www.si.edu...
7.http://dclofts.com...
8.http://www.nytimes.com...
9.http://strangemaps.wordpress.com...
10.http://www.doi.gov...
11.http://nationalatlas.gov...
12.http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

My opponent has dropped his tax argument entirely. He has also dropped his case for a minimum wage.

UNIONS:
My opponent drops his economic argument against the shift of power from regulatory bureaucracies to labour unions.

My opponent also makes a crime argument. White collar crime has become an increasing problem in the United States, and the FBI has implemented strategies to combat it [1]. Further, since the crime my opponent refers to, the FBI has increased its ability to address white collar crime and its like [2].

Also, the DoL function that investigates labour racketeering would likely be incorporated into the FBI, where it belongs [3]. So, eliminating the DoL does not weaken law enforcement. The criminal concern is minimal, and the economic benefit is massive.

CHILD LABOUR
Child labour is most common in the poorest families of the poorest countries [4]. Child labour would be much less common, if not non-existent, in America, a wealthy nation.
The additional income that families will have because of the other factors improving the economy that my opponent has conceded along with the additional income recieved because of the end of the income tax and the income returned due to less government spending in general make American families less likely to be in need of their children's labour. In addition, child labour is frowned upon in America. This cultural aspect would further discourage child labour.

Even with the DoL, Child Labour in the United States is still a "significant concern" [5].

EDUCATION
My opponent has presented new arguments in the later rounds; however, I will address them. The benefits of education are significant enough for people to willingly pay for it. My opponent states that parents are not compelled to enroll their children in schools; however, he does not argue why children would not enroll in schools without this mandate.

My opponent has dropped his case as to the benefits of private education. Private institutions could easily buy up old public institutions (see PUBLIC LAND), so there would be an easy transition. Private education would benefit the poor [6], encourage competition [7], and focus more on skills needed in the workplace. For these reasons, private education would benefit the economy.

PUBLIC LAND
The summary of my opponent's argument is that most businessmen think in the short term. However, most of the things my opponent mention are potential business assets. It currently has an income of $800,000,000 annually [8] [9], and is therefore most likely to be used as an asset. That is, you can buy it now, make money off of it, and then sell it later for more than you bought it. Contrary to my opponent's (unwarranted) claim, businessment DO think in the long term and their businesses would not last long otherwise [10]. Whatever decision they decide will be in the interest of long term profit (conceded by my opponent); therefore, the economy is improved.

Besides that, most of my opponent's complaints do not concern the selling of downtown government buildings that are no longer necessary. This will yield the effect I described in the first round and will not yield the consequences my opponent predicted.

INDIAN RESERVATIONS
Indian Reservations have sovereignty [11], so this argument is irrelevant. Indian Reservation land is not "public".

SUMMARY
With free trade, the demand for our exports increases. My opponent has conceded that this will help our economy.

With no income tax or capital gains tax, individuals will be able to spend their money more voluntarily, yielding more effective allocation of capital. My opponent has conceded this point.

With no corporate income tax, prices can fall even more, and American goods can be more competitive in foreign markets. My opponent has conceded that this benefits the economy.

With no corporate income tax, the cost of living decreases. My opponent has conceded that this helps the economy.

With no regulatory bureaucracy, there is less capital waste. The same functions will be achieved through the invisible hand. My opponent has conceded this point.

With a gold standard, our currency will have a stable market value. My opponent has conceded that this benefits the economy.

Without the minimum wage, unemployment will decrease and the business cycle will be less severe. My opponent has conceded that this helps the economy.

Without subsidies and corporate welfare, market surplus will more effectively be the result of public demand, and my opponent has conceded that this is beneficial.

Those reasons alone are enough to VOTE PRO. However, there are more reasons than those:
-Public education waste will be eliminated
-Private education will allow the workforce to more easily meet the demands of the global market
-The general decrease in the size of the public sector will allow a greater size of the private secor as less market surplus is drained into bureaucracy

So, on balance, my plan will improve the economy.
Therefore, a PRO vote is eminent. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

[1] http://www.fbi.gov...
[2] http://www.fbi.gov...
[3] http://www.oig.dol.gov... (The OIG investigates government fraud as well as labour racketeering).
[4] http://www.america.gov...
[5] http://pangaea.org... http://pangaea.org...
[6] James Tooley: "Could For-Profit Private Education Benefit the Poor?Could For-Profit Private Education Benefit the Poor?" (Summary: http://www.eric.ed.gov...)
[7] Milton Friedman: "Capitalism and Freedom", Chapter VI.
[8] http://www.eric.ed.gov...
[9] http://www.nau.edu...
[10] http://www.roomreview.net... (It takes a creative approach, but it is still legit)
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...
sherlockmethod

Con

I thank my opponent for a well thought out debate and look forward to future debates with him. I do appreciate his articulate responses and a complete lack of rhetoric in any of his arguments. This one was enjoyable, and I thank him. I will not present new points but will solidify my previous contentions.

I will conclude by showing why I focused on a few points and ignored others. After accepting this debate, I took a list with as many regulatory agencies as I could find, looked at their functions and crossed them out, removed minimum wage, the fiat money system, added the new amendment to the Constitution, removed barriers to full out free trade with other countries, removed all taxes, and added the national sales tax along with a state sales tax, etc. I then made up several scenarios and plugged them into this new government to see how they would pan out. The biggest problems occurred when I removed the regulations concerning the work place, child labor, etc and found that the Union would take over some of these roles. And found that the removal of regulations concerning land use would deprive future generations from the economic benefit of protected land, land protected as national parks and land protected by environmental regulations.

The only point I will concede concerns the gold standard. Under my opponent's new government, I can find no economic reason to not institute the gold standard and a Constitutional amendment would do the job. I in no way advocate this standard under our current system. (See post script) I did not drop any of my arguments, I just presented them within the provided governmental framework, not the current one.

When examining large scale policy changes like the ones my opponent provides, we must examine the relationship between all the new areas to see what we find. I ask voters to view my challenges in light of this new government and not in the context of our current system. As a whole, my opponent's plan must be rejected, and I do urge him to reconsider his economic proposal in light of the contentions I offered.

I concluded that an unregulated Union is disastrous and history supports me on this conclusion and that unregulated use of land has enormous potential to destroy any future, or long term, benefit derived from the land. [3] [4] The cost of this clean up was enormous. [4] Nowhere did I say most businessmen only look at the short term investments, but all we need is one dimwit to ruin land and the future use is gone. Natural resources, like land, are not the same as a poor business venture that can be fixed by reusing the building. Once land is decimated, we don't get it back for a long time, if at all.

All economic benefits from the private ownership of national parks without the regulations keeping the area as a park do not hold when the area is bull dozed by a logging company. Future use is in jeopardy without the regulations. I see no economic benefit to allowing a private company to strip land or exhaustively mine an area without regard to environmental damage and, consequently, future economic use.

I showed how my opponent's plan removes the human capital gained by public education, and that removal of the public system allowed parents to avoid sending their children to school and instead use them for child labor; cultural arguments aside, we have done this before and the system was modified by regulations, thankfully. I did not write why a child would not enter into a contract for private schooling without her parent's consent as 5 and 6 year old children cannot enter into contracts. [1] I saw no reason to present the obvious. (My opponent specifically maintained current contract law) My opponent's position that child labor would be non existent in a wealthy country like the US does not address the fact that most wealthy nations have regulations against child labor and regulations for mandatory school attendance. Here is great report for future reading. [2]

My opponent's plan to move the OIG, a function within the DoL, contradicts his position as the regulations are gone and the OIG investigates violations of these now nonexistent regulations. My opponent presented no argument to consolidate departments and their regulatory powers; his plan eliminates them; therefore, I only addressed the elimination, not consolidation of any aspect of a regulatory agency.

Any single point in my opponent's argument assigned to our present government is irrelevant. I in no way concede any point would work in our present state as that was not the debate topic presented to me. I showed the consequences of a few and found they would be detrimental to the economy and presented those within the framework of his plan. In order to address the hundreds of agencies or even all the unique points of the new government is not possible in this format. My opponent can find no joy in claiming his plan works on balance as the plan was presented to me as a whole and all my analysis took place in that framework.

Conclusion:
President wjmelements plan to allow an unregulated union to control labor, combined with the elimination of protections for future economic land use and removal of the legal requirement mandating parents to provide early age education for children, hampering future earning potential, is not economically beneficial to the United States, Notwithstanding other contentions. I urge a vote for Con.

Very Truly Yours,

SherlockMethod
Former Policy Adviser to the President.
(Anyone hiring, as I am sure to lose my job after this one.)

1.http://www.chicagofamilylawblog.com...
2.http://www.katarinatomasevski.com...
3.http://en.wikipedia.org...
4.http://www.nytimes.com...
5.http://www.epa.gov...

P.S. I have some room so as a side note I recommend the book, "The Political Economy of International Relations" by Robert Gilpin. This book supports nothing I said, but it does provide some interesting theory concerning the gold standard in relation to the welfare state and the warfare state. The book was assigned in my 500 level courses, but you enjoy Wealth of Nations so you should have no problems with it.
Debate Round No. 3
63 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
MT,
I thought that was bad form. I have stopped asking people to look at debates. I am about to lose pt totals on one to RoyLathum and he is the only one to vote on it. I have learned to let the score go. I learned a lot here and look forward to debating wj again. Please RFD, as that is how I judge my debates.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Even though its PVP, I would like your opinion, MTG.
Posted by MTGandP 8 years ago
MTGandP
Well why didn't you PM me or something? :)

I will have an RFD up as soon as I get time to read this.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Interesting. I do not have any RL friends that vote on here, one or two that are looking at the LM debates but little more. I would like to see MTGandP and RR's RFD's on this one.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I liked it too. Too bad for the character limit.

In the last day or so, 7 points have been removed from your total, though not all at once... in pieces of 3, 2, and 2.
Which is odd:
Vote totals usually only go up. And when they go down, it is usually because of a banning, in which points are removed all at once in multiples of 7.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
I agree. I would like to see some RFD's as this was a great debate. I see your point about dispersed points now ... sorry. I came to this site for debates of this caliber so I win regardless of the points, as do you. I really enjoyed this one.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I meant that in a different way, but sure.

Interesting how the voting has changed...
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
Now two!!
Lol.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
I can only see 5 points divied up between the two of us.
Posted by sherlockmethod 8 years ago
sherlockmethod
I'm not sure how, to be honest. I don't vote on my debates and I cannot see 7 pts for either of us on this one.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BobShark 8 years ago
BobShark
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Blake93 8 years ago
Blake93
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by mongoose 8 years ago
mongoose
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by rimshot515 8 years ago
rimshot515
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
wjmelementssherlockmethodTied
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