The Instigator
wjmelements
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

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...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,378 times Debate No: 6151
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (59)
Votes (3)

 

wjmelements

Pro

I affirm: Regulation harms a capitalist system.
Regulation limits liberty. Liberty is threatened by regulation. Liberty, among other things, is at stake.
Further, regulation worsens depressions and limits one's potential in a capitalist system.
The definitions:
Regulation-A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
This does not mean a regulation that limits traditionally immoral behavior (rape, murder, etc.).This certianly means such regulations like safety concerns and minimum wage. A maximum wage is also inluded in this definition, as well as many other things.
harms-to injure physically, morally, or mentally http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
defeats-to prevent the success of; thwart http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
capitalism-an economic system controlled chiefly by individuals and private companies instead of by the government http://www.azete.com...

So, in order for regulation to be considered to harm and defeat capitalism, it must:
a) reduce the success of capitialism
b) defeat the purpose of capitalism

A) Regulation of the markets reduces the success of capitalism.
Capitalism is successful because of its flexibility and ability to adapt to problems within itself. Regulation reduces this flexibility. Therefore, regulation reduces the success of capitalism.
Regulation also reduces the ability of individuals and companies to innovate. Therefore, the market is worse of than it would have been. Therefore, regulation restricted the success of capitalism.
I will elaborate as necessary.

B) The purpose of capitalism is for people to own and control their property. However, regulation controls conduct through the government. Therefore, regulation defeats the purpose of capitalism. Further, it limits its benefits.
I will elavorate as necessary in later rounds.

So, regulation harms and defeats capitalism. It restricts liberty, a key aspect of capitalism. Liberty makes capitalism successful.

I await an opponent.
Mangani

Con

I contend that regulation does not harm, or defeat capitalism, rather regulation helps preserve the integrity of a capitalist society, protect it's citizens and consumers, and ensures fair trade practices. I will address my opponents points.

"Regulation limits liberty"
-Liberty is not a right of private companies. Liberty is the right of the people to act, believe, or express ones self in a manner of ones own choosing. The "condition of being free from restriction or control" is detrimental to capitalism because rampant abuse of employees and consumers destroys business, and is contrary to the concept of democracy.

A- Regulation reduces the success of capitalism.
- My opponent contends that since regulation limits flexibility within the markets, it reduces the success of capitalism. He states that regulation reduces the ability of individuals and companies to innovate, and, therefore, the market is worse off than it would have been.

I agree that regulation limits flexibility to some degree. I don't agree, however, that this limiting of flexibility reduces the success of capitalism. Indeed a major aspect of capitalism is competition, and without regulation there would be no rules to protect companies from market failures. Market failure regulation protects companies from monopolies, ensures collective action and the public good, protects individuals and companies from inadequate information, and unseen externalities.

Regulation protects individuals from bootleggers and copyright infringement. (http://www.copyright.gov...)

Regulation protects workers from unsafe work environments. (http://www.osha.gov...)

Regulation protects consumers from unsafe products. (http://www.nfpa.org..., http://www.fda.gov..., http://www.ul.com...)

Regulation also protects companies from frivolous lawsuits. (http://www.ncsl.org...)

B- The purpose of capitalism is for people to own and control their property.
-My opponent contends that regulation controls conduct through the government, and therefore defeats the purpose of capitalism.

Regulation actually protects individual rights and property rights by regulating conduct. It was a LACK of regulation that led to the collapse of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), the precursor to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which currently protects consumers from bank failures. In the 1980's, the S&L crisis led to the loss of $124 Billion in taxpayer money, and it was due to the lack of regulation of insurance premiums charged to Savings and Loan companies, which were charged the same premium regardless of risk. (http://www.econlib.org...)

The S&L's were bailed out, as many banks and other companies are being bailed out today, though property owners and individual rights are actually being violated. It was de-regulation that led to the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, AIG, and countless other companies that have failed and/or will fail. An article in the Economist makes this statement: "If mortgage brokers had done their job and only made loans to people who could pay them back (i.e. with "reasonable" levels of default), we wouldn't have a financial crisis."

It was the lack of regulation that allowed these mortgage brokers to not do their jobs, and it was the lack of regulation that allowed other anomalies in business to occur. (http://economistsview.typepad.com...)

I await my opponent's response.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
wjmelements

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
Note to the reader: my opponent's sources that weren't just linking to government agencies were biased.

Liberty is a right of private companies because private companies are created by individuals, ran by individuals, and powered by individuals. Therefore, corporal liberty is a right of individuals. Rampant abuse of employess can be solved through striking, a liberty of the individuals, and rampant abuse of the consumers results in business suicide. Therefore, such problems do not need to be solved by government regulations, which in fact restrict their liberty.

A) Regulation reduces the success of capitalism.
My opponent contends that there are benefits to regulation. This is an incorrect assumption.
My opponent contends that regulation protects companies from market failure due to monopolies, collective action, inadequate information, and unseen externalities.
Monopolies- A monopoly is an industry controlled by one entity. This is harmful because competition has been eliminated. However, if a company takes advantage of this (raising prices, not innovating, etc.) then there will be an increased demand for a new company to rise up with lower prices or more advanced innovation to defeat such a monopoly. Therefore, monopolies either help the public or defeat themselves. Regulation is unnecessary.
Collective Action- I assume that my opponent means companies joining together and agreeing to raise prices for their own profit. This also defeats the companies involved. A company that does not participate will have a huge advantage in competition due to lower prices as well as the ability to leak this to a free press, which would defeat these companies. Regulation is unnecessary.
Inadequate information- My opponent is referring to false advertising I assume. However, a free press can perform indipendent studies. A company lying about its product is suicide. The press would hold them accountable, and the company would be defeated. Knowing this, a company would avoid putting out false information. Regulation is unnecessary.
Unseen externalities- If an externality is unseen, no regulation can defeat it. Regulation is unnecessary.
Innovative benefits- (Copyrights and patents) Plenty of foreign companies avoid or do not enforce international copyright law. http://www.ifla.org... Further, many companies and individuals either go around each other's copyrights and patents or steal eachother's patents anyways. http://inventors.about.com... Copyright law is ineffective in protecting the market. However, a method is needed to protect innovative companies from idea-stealing. And such a method is not considerred regulation anyways. A regulation is designed to control conduct, while a copyright law is designed to ensure that a company profits in its ideas. Besides, stealing is traditionally considered to be traditionally immoral behavior, which is not considered regulation in this debate.
Unsafe work conditions- Again, strikes are the solution. Strikes are cause by such things as unsafe work conditions. The result always harms the company. A company that can't get workers to work will fail. A result will be the forced improvement of working conditions. http://www.ueh.edu.vn... Therefore, a smart company would not have unsafe work conditions in the first place. Regulation is unnecessary.
Unsafe products- On the contrary: regulation keeps safe products from being put on the market quickly. My opponent has sourced three different government bureaucracies (do we need three?) that thoroughly check every new product for every government regulation out there. It takes months for products to not only be tested by the companies that plan to market and sell them, but also multiple years for the government to check the products for the possibility of being against a safety regulation or for being harmful in some way. However, the selling of unsafe products is also market suicide for a company. The free press would report this. The company would go under and the product would not be bought. Knowing this, a smart company would not put out unsafe products. Regulation is unnecessary.
Frivolous lawsuits- I ask my opponent to elaborate. If lawsuits are truly frivolous, then the justice system would not allow them. Regulation is unnecessary.

Knowing that regulation is unnecessary, and their purposes don't need to be solved with regulation. Regulation limits the flexibility and thus the greatness of a capitalist market. Therefore, regulation reduces the success of capitalism.

B) Government Regulation defeats the purpose of capitalism.
My opponent got off topic and conceded this point.
I'm running out of characters, so I will rebut his other arguments part briefly.
$124 Billion in taxpayer money is insignificant when put into perspective. http://www.infoplease.com...
Further, instead of saying that the failure of a regulatory bureau can be solved with moe regulations, one can say that the bureau should not have existed in the first place. It can be argued that the federal government should not insure savings and loans, and such a governmental failure resulted in the loss of so much money.
Further, in a capitalist system, the government does not bail out banks or other companies when they fail. To bail out such companies teaches them that the government will protect them when they make blunders. It is the fear of making such blunders that keeps them from making stupid loans, etc.

Anomolies in business are part of a capitalist system. Foolish decisions cause companies to die. Failing to innovate makes companies die. Raising prices unfairly makes companies die. This death threat keeps them from doing such things. Regulation is unnecessary and harms the capitalist system.

I await my opponent's response.
Mangani

Con

"Note to the reader: my opponent's sources that weren't just linking to government agencies were biased."
-This is ad hominem. Pointing out bias is not pointing out inaccuracy, and/or relevance to the information I provided.

"Liberty is a right of private companies because private companies are created by individuals, ran by individuals, and powered by individuals."
-The liberty of one should not infringe upon the liberty of many. Regulation, though not perfect and ever changing, attempts to protect the liberties of the consumer, the worker, and the competition, thus ensuring the survival of Capitalism and Democracy.

"Rampant abuse of employess can be solved through striking, a liberty of the individuals, and rampant abuse of the consumers results in business suicide."
-Simply saying so does not make it so. My opponent fails to mention the fact that throughout the history of Capitalism corporate greed, excess, abuse of workers, etc. has resulted in regulation. Yes, many workers united and protested, went on strike, etc., but these actions alone did not change the way companies operate. The book, Government and the Economy: A Global Perspective, Continuum International Publishing Group, states: "In a capitalist system, private control of these productive enterprises is protected by the rule of law and a regulatory framework."

"Therefore, such problems do not need to be solved by government regulations, which in fact restrict their liberty."
-Restriction of liberty does not destroy liberty, it protects it. In 1937, the British economist John Maynard Keynes, showed in "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" that regulation can be effective, and that economic stabilizers can reign in aggressive expansions and recessions. In 1969, Paul Mattick credited Keynes' economic policies as the primary reason why Capitalism was able to recover from the Great Depression (The Limits of the Mixed Economy, Paul Mattick, 1969).

A) Regulation reduces the success of Capitalism
-My opponent claims that my affirmation, that there are benefits to regulation, is an incorrect assumption. It is not an assumption, it is a fact. It is also a fact that there are negatives to regulation, but to say the benefits are an assumption is to ignore completely the success of regulated Capitalism throughout the world.

Regarding monopolies my opponent states: "However, if a company takes advantage of this (raising prices, not innovating, etc.) then there will be an increased demand for a new company to rise up with lower prices or more advanced innovation to defeat such a monopoly. Therefore, monopolies either help the public or defeat themselves. Regulation is unnecessary."

My opponent ignores history. According to economist Milton Friedman, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Though another company could hypothetically try to compete against a monopoly, it is the monopoly that controls access to the materials, product pricing, and market control. It is the smaller company that would have to raise their prices in order to survive. Take the example of a small company trying to compete with Wal-Mart. (http://www.nytimes.com...)

On Collective Action: Though my opponent fails to understand the logic of collective action in it's entirety, he does give a limited example- companies joining together and agreeing to raise prices for their own profit. He claims this defeats the companies involved, yet provides no examples of how this defeats the companies involved. I would like to point out the example of OPEC- The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. This year, while everyone else in the world was suffering a recession, OPEC countries were experiencing record profits- as well as the companies served by OPEC. (http://www.planetark.org...)

A quick example in the US is the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), and how it affects independent record labels and artists. (http://www.riaa.com...)

With regard to Inadequate Information- again, my opponent comments on the subject without doing research. This is not limited to false advertisement, which is actually now largely suppressed by regulation. My opponent claims that regulation is unnecessary. If regulation were unnecessary, then so would investigations by a free press. This is akin to saying laws against crime are unnecessary because vigilante justice will take care of criminals. Without regulation, there would be no protection against false information being presented by the free press themselves. The individuals and private companies my opponent would seek to protect by de-regulation would then become the victims. With no checks and balances, where does the buck stop?

My opponent claims that if an externality is unseen, no regulation can defeat it. I am amused by my opponent's continuous use of the word defeat. Economy is not a battle in which everything is black or white, success or defeat. Regulation protects consumers and business from unseen externalities. For example, regulations governing the FDIC protect consumers from losing up to $100,000 should a bank fail. Regulations provide for companies to file for bankruptcy, and corporate regulations protect individuals from losing their personal assets should their company fail.

My opponent claims that copyright laws are unnecessary, on the one hand, and on the other hand they are necessary to protect companies from idea stealing. That is a contradiction. Regulations are laws of conduct, and general and permanent rules of a governing body. http://www.gpoaccess.gov...

I have run out of room. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
wjmelements

Pro

"Regulation, though not perfect and ever changing, attempts to protect the liberties of the consumer, the worker, and the competition, thus ensuring the survival of Capitalism and Democracy."
One's purpose and one's result are two different things. In a similar fashion, anarchists and communists both believe that their system is perfect. However, this does not mean that it is. I am arguing that most of the problems that my opponent sees solve themselves.

"My opponent fails to mention the fact that throughout the history of Capitalism corporate greed, excess, abuse of workers, etc. has resulted in regulation."
This is true, but what happens and what should happen are two different things as well. One cannot assume that if protests against unsafe conditions had continued, it would have had no effect. Government just decided to regulate. That doesn't mean that regulation is best for the economy. And companies must appeal to the consumers in a capitalist system; otherwise, yes, they will fail. "Exceptional customer service results in greater customer retention, which in turn results in higher profitability." http://www.1000ventures.com...

My opponent contends that regulation protects liberty by...
Well, he didn't give a reason. So, nullify this claim.
He then sourced something that said that regulation can be effective and that it got us out of the Great Depression. However, it is commen knowlege that World War II got us out of the global depression, and that regulation might have prolonged it.
"The end to the Great Depression came about in 1941 with America's entry into World War II." http://www.americaslibrary.gov... This probably occurred in England as well.
"New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital." http://www.cato.org...
"J.M. Keynes -- a liberal icon -- criticized some of FDR's policies as hindering recovery from the depression." http://www.cato.org... (same source)

A) Regulation reduces the success of capitalism.
"...the success of regulated Capitalism throughout the world."
Yes, regulated capitalism has been successful. I am not arguing that. I am arguing that unregulated capitalism would be more successful. As conceded by my opponent, capitalism's flexibility is greatly weakened by safety regulations, etc., which I have already argued are unnecessary and collectively weaken capitalism. Therefore, they reduce the success of capitalism.

Monopolies- "Though another company could hypothetically try to compete against a monopoly, it is the monopoly that controls access to the materials, product pricing, and market control." On the contrary, it is impractical that a monopoly controls all access to the materials. For example, a monopoly (besides perhaps the government) could not practically own every silver mine in the world. Therefore, it is possible for another company to mine silver and sell it cheaper or in a better way. This company would be independent of the monopoly, and could easily compete with an oppressive monopoly in price; therefore, competition would be quite possible. Such competition ends the monopoly and forces the company to compete.
Besides, plenty of local grocery stores compete with WalMart. For example, Kroger offers fuel discounts and has a "Kroger Plus" program that all attract business. http://www.kroger.com...

Collective Action- My "limited example" was my best guess at what my opponent meant by that (he was very broad). Collective Action defeats the companies involved because it is easier for a non-participating company to compete with companies that have all joined together and risen prices. Further, OPEC does not help my opponent because no regulation could effect any Collective Action that OPEC took (it is international). http://www.opec.org...

Inadequate Information- It is not necessary for something to be illegal in order for it to have negative effects. If the public found out through a private investigation (either from the press or from competition) that a company was lying to them, then they would distrust the company, and never believe its advertisements again. This would drastically harm the company and probably kill it. Further, competition could use this information to smear such companies much like politicians do after the debates. Customers are obviously less likely to buy from corrupt companies. As a result, companies would volunteer to put out adequate information.

Externalities- Banruptcy is not a regulation, but a business right. Bankruptcy does not prevent externalities. This is what I thought my opponent was arguing. Further, the government handing out money to those who lose money when a bank fails does not accomplish much, for society pays this money right back to government through taxes. http://www.treasury.gov...

Copyrights- I was not claiming that they were unnecessary, only that they often fail through evasion or falsification. Copyright laws are necessary to protect and encourage innovation. They are a right of the individual or of the company, and are not regulations.

Regulation is indeed unnecessary. As I have proven through my various arguments, all intents of regulation can be accomplished without such regulations through the capitalist system.

B) Government regulation defeats the purpose of capitalism.
Capitalism cherishes liberty.
Regulations restrict liberty.
This contradiction shows that regulations on business are contrary to the nature of capitalism.
This point stands. It has not been argued against for two rounds in a row.

I request that my opponent not post until Wednesday afternoon so that I may post a thorough argument next time.
I thank my opponent and look forward to the next round.
Mangani

Con

"I am arguing that most of the problems..."
-My opponent has only presented hypothetical situations that the logic proves contrary. If given the opportunity to operate outside the rule of law, companies will do what they can to make a profit. My opponent claims to be defending Capitalism, but is, in fact, defending anarchism.

"This is true..."
-The same argument can be used against my opponent, however I have not acknowledged any of his hypothesis. He admits that it is true that corporate greed, excess, abuse of workers, etc. has resulted in regulation. This regulation attempts to confine business to the rule of law. Anarchism and Capitalism are incompatible.

"One cannot assume..."
-One can definitely assume this. When the rule of law is not on the side of the workers it is the controllers of commodities, services, products, etc. that have the upper hand. Protesting workers can be replaced by unemployed workers who are willing to work for less. Without regulation, any unhappy worker can be replaced with undocumented workers.

"Government just decided to regulate."
-Government doesn't just "decide" to regulate. Capitalism was designed to operate under the rule of law. Capitalism is the preferred economic system of Democracy, and has been the most successful BECAUSE of the laws that govern it.

"That doesn't mean that regulation..."
-Again, my opponent makes claims but does not substantiate them. Where are his examples of a successful, functioning anarchist economic system?

"And companies must appeal to the consumers..."
-What subjugates companies to consumers is the rule of law. Consumer protection laws are what protect consumers, not consumers themselves.

"Exceptional customer service results in greater customer retention..."
-That is true, but customer service does not protect the consumer. Customer retention does not mean the customer is not being ripped off, exposed to dangerous substances, or participating in horrible acts and employee abuse like sweat shops and child labor.

"My opponent contends that regulation protects liberty by... Well, he didn't give a reason. So, nullify this claim."
-My right to liberty will not be infringed upon by coercion, lack of competition, dangerous chemicals in my food, etc. etc. etc. Regulation definitely protects my liberty. If my employer is racist, regulation protects my right to a non-hostile workplace through equal employment opportunity laws. If an employer is sexist, those same laws protect women.

"However, it is commen knowlege that World War II got us out of the global depression..."
-I cited two renowned economists in making this statement. My opponent relies on a faulty assumption of coincidence. He shows no correlation other than the end of the Great Depression coincided with America's entry into WWII. That is akin to saying 9/11 occurred because Bill Clinton was no longer in office.

"I am arguing that unregulated capitalism would be more successful."
-Yet you have not shown how. Capitalism without the rule of law is not Capitalism, but anarchism.

"As conceded by my opponent, capitalism's flexibility is greatly weakened by safety regulations, etc..."
-I made no such concession.

"On the contrary, it is impractical that a monopoly controls all access to the materials."
-My opponent is attempting to refute an established fact of economy with his own opinion. I would suggest he study the issue before attempting to fool the readers with sheer verbosity. My opponent's silver example has already been proven untrue with my example of oil cartels like OPEC, and with the Democratic Republic of Congo's grip on the diamond trade.

"Besides, plenty of local grocery stores compete with WalMart. For example, Kroger"
-This does not refute my example. Kroger is not a small LOCAL business.

"My "limited example" was my best guess"
-Rather than guessing I suggest my opponent study the issue. I am sure he will realize on his own that he is wrong.

"Further, OPEC does not help my opponent because no regulation could effect any Collective Action that OPEC took (it is international)."
-I used the example to educate you so that you wouldn't have to guess. It is also a solid example of how the lack of regulation does not enhance Capitalism, rather it works against it.

"If the public found out through a private investigation (either from the press or from competition) that a company was lying to them, then they would distrust the company, and never believe its advertisements again."
-The tobacco industry got away with it for years. It was regulation that finally reigned them in. (http://www.druglibrary.org...)

"Banruptcy is not a regulation, but a business right."
-Actually, it's a process governed by regulation. Without regulation (rules and laws) there are no rights. (http://www.ncwb.uscourts.gov...)

"Bankruptcy does not prevent externalities."
-No, but it protects individuals and businesses from not only bad decisions, but unforeseen circumstances.

"Copyrights- I was not claiming that they were unnecessary, only that they often fail through evasion or falsification."
-So because laws sometimes fail we should remove them? The laws protect the copyright holder through remedy.
"Copyright laws are necessary to protect and encourage innovation. They are a right of the individual or of the company, and are not regulations." (http://www.copyright.gov...) The government begs to differ...

There are various proofs that capitalism needs regulation. Enron, Tyco- just to name a couple. Regulation dictates a minimum hourly wage, which protects workers. It ensures that employees are hired for their qualifications, not race, gender, religion, etc. Anti-trust regulation undid the Bell monopoly that prevented consumers from enjoying the prices of competition. I could go on and on, but the debate format does not allow enough characters.

Regulat
Debate Round No. 3
wjmelements

Pro

My opponent has ignored my request to wait a day before responding. In fact, he went out of his way to post on Tuesday night. This forced me to write an argument in minimal time. I apologize for my briefness.

"My opponent claims to be defending Capitalism, but is, in fact, defending anarchism."
Anarchism- The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
McCarthyism- The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Disagreeing with a certain action of government does not make one an anarchist. Claiming that I am an Anarchist in order to win a debate is McCarthyism.

"It ensures that employees are hired for their qualifications, not race, gender, religion, etc"
No, that would be the Judicial System in civil cases. A regulation is not needed to create a civil case. http://www.rbs2.com...

"So because laws sometimes fail we should remove them? The laws protect the copyright holder through remedy."
I am not calling for the end of copyrights. I was just quickly pointing out that they are insufficient. They are rights and not regulations. Again, this is because they protect traditional company rights. This right dates back to the time of the printing press. Therefore, it is traditionally unjust and not a regulation.
"The Venetian Moment; New Technologies, Legal Innovation and the Institutional Origins of Intellectual Property" by Christopehr May, (2002).

("This does not mean a regulation that limits traditionally immoral behavior")

"Regulation dictates a minimum hourly wage, which protects workers."
The hourly wage also boosts unemployment. Instead of making two dollars an hour, a minimum wage is created and the factory worker makes nothing and the factory is built oversees to create a profit. Further, the minimum wage indirectly results in the increase in the cost of all things that wage can buy. The factories must pay more, the grocery stores must pay more, etc. The result is an increase in expenditures which results in an increase in the cost of goods. This can result in inflation despite of its intents. Overall, the worker may seem to make more, but what he is making is worth less. http://www.heritage.org...

"This regulation attempts to confine business to the rule of law."
This is indeed what is being debated. I have argued that capitalism is harmed by such regulations because they harm innovative potential.
I have also proven through explanation that all regulations named in this debate are unnecessary. Therefore, they do not help the economy.
My opponent has conceded that regulation is anti-capitalistic.
-Regulation controls businesses.
-Regulation does not help individuals.
-Regulation creates a larger government than is necessary. Removing people from the workforce and placing them in government positions lowers production because government contributes no products for a functioning society.
-Regulation harms the potential for innovation by limiting what a company can and cannot do. Safety and other issues are eventually eliminated due to civil cases. Regulations are unnecessary to ensure this.
-All incidences of corporate greed are resolved naturally in a capitalist system. Government regulation is unnecessary.

My case is not that regualted capitalism fails, but that capitalism is harmed by regulation. Out simply, it would be better without. I have proved this at every obsticle.

Wrapping this up:
My opponent has called me an anachist. However, note that he has tried to expand the definition of regulation so that it encompasses all that government does. Rights are protected by the government through the Judicial system. Regulation is unnecessary to protect these rights.

It again becomes necessary to restate the definition of regulation:
"This certianly means such regulations like safety concerns and minimum wage. A maximum wage is also inluded in this definition, as well as many other things."

Further, when companies like Enron fail due to corporate greed, it is not government's job to step in. All the legal matters are settled (corrupt actions and money laundering are resolved) and then after the whole mess, people learn that they can't get away with it. Regulation wasn't necessary here.
Regulation harms businesses.
Regulation restricts liberty.
Regualtion limits the potential of a captitalist system.
Regulation defeats the purpose of capitalism.
Therefore, capitalism is better without regulations.
I urge voters to vote accordingly.
Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. I request that the voters leave a reason for decision after voting.
Mangani

Con

1. Anarchism (from same source) is also defined as: 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority. My opponent rejects the encoded rules and regulations that govern our Capitalist economy under the Uniform Commercial Code, and other written rules and regulations that govern our Capitalist system. Also from the same source: 1. a political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint and the substitution of voluntary cooperation among individuals. Because my opponent proposes voluntary cooperation in commerce over the rule of law, I contend that my claim that he advocates economic anarchy stands.

2. My opponent contends that the Judicial System governs civil cases, and regulation is not needed to create a civil case. My opponent has ignored every definition of regulation. A law tells you what to do, a regulation tells you how to do it. Laws are basically non-functional without regulations, and that is why we have the Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.gpoaccess.gov...) (http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu...). The Judicial System cannot operate without regulations, as everything done through the court system is governed through procedural rules. Indeed many of our rights are protected by laws commanding adherence to procedural rules (http://www.lectlaw.com...). My opponent also doesn't understand copyrights. Copyrights are not "rights" unless they are protected by law. The Copyright Clause of the US Constitution allows for legislation of copyright laws (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Copyright laws are codified under Title 17 of the US Code of Federal Regulations, and are, therefore, regulations as well as laws. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...)

3. My opponent's claims that the minimum wage raises prices and leads to company profits is contradictory to his claim that regulations harm Capitalism. Indeed, though I disagree with his assessment of the minimum wage, Capitalism is a profit driven economic system. He presented no rebuttal to my contention that regulation attempts to confine business to the rule of law, and so that argument stands intact.

4. My opponent now attempts to change his premise to state that regulated capitalism does not fail, but is harmed by regulation. His initial premise stated that regulation both harms and defeats Capitalism, and I even pointed out his excessive use of the word defeat in a previous round. Because this is a two part premise- regulation HARMS AND DEFEATS Capitalism, he has conceded this debate with this new premise.

In conclusion, throughout this debate my opponent has ignored the fact that Capitalism is an economic system in which land, capital goods, and other resources, are owned, operated and traded chiefly by private individuals or corporations for the purpose of profit. Private control of enterprise in Capitalism is protected by the rule of law. In the US, the laws protecting and governing this system fall under the US Federal Code of Regulations. Without the USFCR, the Judicial System has no cards to play against violators of rights. The Enron failure was precipitated by fraud, money laundering, and conspiracies amongst other crimes. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The indictment for the CEO alone was for 53 counts. The failure of Enron and the subsequent trials of executives helped preserve Capitalism. Had these regulations not existed these executives would have gotten away with cheating their employees out of millions (which they did regardless) more.

Restriction of liberty leads to the protection of liberty. Were everyone at liberty to make their own judgments on every issue this would neither be a Democracy nor a Capitalistic society. Note that my opponent does not claim that regulation DEPRIVES one of liberty- regulation merely governs liberty through procedural rules meant to protect us from one another, thus ensuring that our rights as private citizens, owners, corporations, and partnerships are protected from the abuses that occur even with these regulations in place. My opponent in his last argument attempts to single out specific regulations, but this debate is not about specific regulations- it is about regulations in general. Specific regulations can be changed, but our system of codification of laws, rules, and regulations should not be abolished because my opponent might disagree with some of these laws, rules, or regulations.

Capitalism does not exist without regulation. Without regulation Capitalism is anarchy. Without regulation, laws are unenforceable. Remember- this debate is not about the degree of regulation. This isn't about heavily regulated capitalism vs. lightly regulated capitalism, it is about regulated capitalism vs. non-regulated capitalism which would not protect anyone's rights. If no one's rights are protected by laws and procedures, then our rights to private ownership are left to the whims of the most powerful in the economy. This isn't about the bailouts that could have been PREVENTED through tougher regulation- the bailouts amount to Socialism. This also isn't about "badly" regulated Capitalism.

My opponent claims that government oversight is unnecessary. This is what has been preached by Republicans for the past 28 years. Where has that gotten us? The current economic crisis screams for oversight and tougher laws, but my opponent would have you believe that less oversight, and even no oversight is the answer. Let the companies govern themselves. Let plastic companies use whatever chemicals they want in their bottles. Let children's toys be colored with lead paint. Let farmers market their mad-cow tainted beef. Let avian-flu ridden chicken be shipped to US supermarkets from Asia. Can you just imagine the world if we had NO government oversight in our markets?

I think we all know things wouldn't work out as my opponent suggests...Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
59 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Um... this debate needed more votes.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Are you seriously still trying to get my attention??? Is there something wrong with you???
Posted by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
Mangani believes he is being vote bombed by a sixteen year old. He whines when someone asks him if he is a vote bomber and then says I am one. Aside from that, mangani is losing by twelve votes so my one vote doesn't even make a difference. The fact is: mangani lost this debate. I tried to give some advice. Because I voted against mangani, mangani tries to tell me that I am "psychotic".

As for the coercion: mangani's definitions, my definitions, all definitions show that laws are coercive!

Mangani fails to provide another form of private enterprise after I kindly asked several times. Because mangani fails to do this, I'm going to draw the conclusion that he can't. This means that private enterprise and capitalism are synonymous. so all of what was said earlier would be valid. Further, I didn't argue that they were synonymous until just now.

Once again, please look up policy style debate or cress-ex style debate, they are one in the same. This is debate that matters. Debate where ivy league schools PAY one to attend, as in scholarships for tens of thousands of dollars. Debate where national competitions are the most cut throat of any activity. Not this online "I'm Right," "No! I'm right," bull crap. It was based on this background that I voted. It was based on that background that I interpreted that affirmation as what we would be debating. I must deeply apologize in case I didn't happen to proficiently dumb myself down enough to your inane level of asininity to be an adequate voter. Damn my cursed level of intelligence. Ah, I digress and apologize for the last.

As per my original critique: I voted on definitions. Not these other matters. They were just things I wanted to give my opinion on. Excuse me for thinking that's what the comment section was for: To make...well...comments...on the debate. For a review of why I voted please look to my last comment.
Posted by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
If any one clicks to the debate rounds and looks to the very firs sentence they will see: "I affirm: regulation harms a capitalist system." Lets look at the meaning of the very first sentence of the debate. "I" I is used as a pronoun, in this case, replacing Pro. "Affirm" Affirm means to accept or confirm the validity of. "Regulation" Regulation means a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority. "Harms" Harms mean to have an adverse effect on. "A" A is used when referring to someone or something for the first time in a text or conversation. "Capitalist system" Capitalist system is a term of art meaning an economic system operating on the ideals of free market and private enterprise. So lets look at the meaning of the first sentence of the debate as a whole. We will replace the pronoun "I" with the antecedent The Pro. The Pro accepts or confirms the validity of: Rules or directives made and maintained by an authority have an adverse effect on an economic system operating on the ideals of free market and private enterprise. Throughout the debate, definitions provided by both sides prove this statement. Because of that, the Pro wins the affirmation. Because of my policy style background, the affirmation is what is being debated. Because The Pro wins affirmation, The Pro also wins the debate.
Posted by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
On coercion: According to YOUR definitions of coercion(This is me citing a believeable source that happened to be the same as Yours) laws do fall into those definitions. I use deffintions provided by YOU. Dont give me any of that "attempt to reconcile the two based on YOUR OWN OPINION." BS.

Now, once again, Are there other forms of private enterprise other than capitalism? I am just asking? Please just answer the question. I am not trying to imply any thing. Please, just to satisfy my own curiosity. What are some other types of private enterprise?

I am not taking any thing our of context. The title says: regulation harms and defeats capitalism. as per my policy style debate background, I interpreted this as a resolution. the pro then says: "I affirm: Regulation harms a capitalist system." As per my policy style debate background, I interpreted this as a plan and thus what you will be debating. I still stand firm in my decision. It is clear for all to see that the title says regulation harms AND defeats capitlism and that he says this at the end of his opening speech. It is also clear for all to see that the pro affirms:Regulation harms a capitalist system." YOU must be delusional to argue that this is not what the pro affirms.

I am even more offended at your last remark. I read you whining about how calling some one a vote bomber is offensive and not cool. I believe if you go to the fifth comment page of this debate you will se what I am talking about. You are doing exactly that to me. You even procede(on that same comment page) to imply that I vote bombed you. I voted based on what and who i believed won the debate. I did not vote bomb you.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Freemind, my calling you ignorant was not an ad-hominem attack because the point I am making is that you are being ignorant in presenting that line of argument in the first place, not that the line of argument is invalid because you are ignorant. Laws are not coercive by definition, and for you to suggest otherwise without citing a believable source nullifies your argument. Your ignorance is in that you ignore the definition of coercion, the definition of law, and attempt to reconcile the two based on your own opinion.

As for private enterprise, your question is begging the question- another logical fallacy. You are implying through your question that I am defining Capitalism as private enterprise, which I am not. That is akin to stating that I would define the word "star" as "the Sun", when there is obviously a definition for the word star, and a separate definition for "the Sun", only that the definition for "the Sun" would contain the word "star" within it. Because Capitalism contains "private enterprise" does not mean that either is defined as the other. Same for "Republic" and "Democracy", but that is another debate.

As for Pro's affirmation, you are taking his affirmation out of context because you don't want to admit you are wrong. This is sheer stubbornness, as it is ridiculous for you to argue against the obvious. His affirmation was "Regulation harms AND defeats Capitalism". He said this in setting the title of his debate, and in the closing sentence of his opening statement. This is clear for all to see, and you must be delusional to argue otherwise.

I am not interested in whether or not you are offended by my statements because you have proven through them that your intention is not to do the right thing, rather to antagonize me and claim to be biased "for" my position- obviously not true, given your continued ignorance to my line of argument.
Posted by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
On coercion:
Well I'm going to have to cry ad hominem here. You attack ME becasue I am Ignorant and making a philosophical argument. You fail to attack the argument itself. I am completely convinced that laws are coercive. I never said that this was a bad thing per se, only that it is true. I agree that some laws are necessary. But it does not moot the fact that they are coercive.

On to private enterprise:
I understand what private interprise is. I simply asked a question that I was curious about, and you procede0 to mock me with your "private enterprise does not take rocket science to understand." once more, I understand private enterprise. I'm just wondering if in your response you will actually answer my question instead of reiterating definitions of capitlaism. I asked: "Are there other forms of private enterprise[besides capitalism]? Hope you answer this time.
Posted by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
On the Pro's affirmation you did lose. he said "I affirm: regulations harm a capitalistic system." I believed that he proved that it did. His argumentation was not as impressive as yours, it was his definitions that mattered. It's not because of a bias, truth be told I'm biased against the pro. i take offense at your insinuation that i voted solely on my bias. Especially since i would have voted for you if I had.

No my theory statement is a part of policy debate. you should google it sometime. It's fairly intresting, policy debate, sometimes called corss-ex debate. So my statement about theory follows policy debate, and you wont agree with me but i stand firm behind my suggesting of reciprocity. It is better to attack then defend.

I never claimed that a definition does encompass every aspect. It is for that reason why I said "We will both be able to bring up hundreds of sources supporting or our interpretation of the fallacy." I can bring up plenty of sources suporting my interpretation, just as you will yours. I'm just saying where I produced my interpretations, not from the fertile folds of my mind.
Next Comment Please.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Capitalism is an economic system in which businesses owned and operated by private individuals and corporations market goods (land, goods, and other resources) for profit. NOTE- the definition does not literally state, as you and my opponent attempt to claim, that Capitalism is for profit- rather that individuals operate businesses for profit. Profit is a result of Capitalism, not the main purpose. The main purpose is to ensure private ownership. Regulations serve to make sure the system operates within the rule of law in order to protect this individual ownership, and by proxy, their profits. Regulation hurting profits =/= regulation hurting Capitalism because then that would mean that regulations cannot bar illegal profits, ie. money laundering, etc.

Same argument I've made several times already... do you follow yet? Or are you still lost?
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
"On the affirmation, I beleive that you lost."
-Look, I already know you are biased against me. I pulled the affirmation from his final sentence in R1, and you are trying to make it look as if it was just from the title. I showed a correlation between the title, and the affirmation.

"I believe that either debater can set the framework and theory of the round that they want. The pro set a thoery for gov't sites only"
-If you don't know logic, then this point is valid. If you know what you're talking about, then you'd know that a logical fallacy nullifies his argument, hence making it pointless to rebut after pointing out the logical fallacy.

"because I am a policy debate I follow legal definitions provided from sources such as Black's Law and Ballentine's Law, the two premeir legal dictionaries in the US."
-A definition does not encompass every possible application of that definition- even if your definition were complete. You are making an argumentum verbosium.

"Using the first, and therefore most commonly used, interpretations: laws are coercive."
-It is very ignorant of you to imply that laws are literally coercion when you are obviously attempting a philosophical argument. Philosophically you can complain that laws are coercion, but logically AND legally your point is moot.

Private enterprise does not take rocket science to understand. A private enterprise is literally a privately owned business. Capitalism is a system of economy based on private enterprise, as opposed to socialism which is state owned enterprise, or a mixed economy (like Australia) which has both.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Freemind 8 years ago
Freemind
wjmelementsManganiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
wjmelementsManganiTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
wjmelementsManganiTied
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