Should small businesses have restrictions from the Federal Government?
Debate Rounds (3)
I accept the debate.
Good luck to Yeeet2016, I hope we have an enjoyable debate.
Basis of Argument
This debate is about whether small businesses should have restrictions from the Federal Government.
Federal Government = Federal Government of the United States of America. Although there are other federal governments, from context I believe it is clear that this is what CON meant.
Small Businesses = Businesses with less than 500 employees. 
Restrictions = a law or rule that limits or controls something, the act of limiting or controlling something 
The topic of contention is about whether small businesses should have restrictions from the Federal Government. I will make the case that it is superior for there to be restrictions imposed by the Federal Government rather than no restrictions at all.
At some points I may refer to businesses generally rather than small businesses specifically. This is only because the point refers to all businesses and so specifying it also includes small businesses is unneccesary.
Social and Economic Case
Even the most strident Capitalist does not simply insist that capitalism works by magic, but rather by asserting that the process of producing commodities is driven by the desire to accumulate capital on the part of the employer and the desire for wages from the employee.
Some negative side-effects of work can be accounted for in a market based structure, even if doing so is somewhat callous. If a employers wants to have someone do incredibly dangerous work, they must therefore pay higher wages to compensate. But not everything fits within the framework and must therefore be dealt with by regulation.
Cambridge Professor of Developmental Economics, Ha-Joon Chang has talked about one obvious example of this kind of failure, pollution. As Professor Chang points out:
"Even Milton Friedman admitted there there are instances in which markets fail. Pollution is a classic example. People 'over-produce' pollution because they are not paying for the costs of dealing with it. So what are optimal levels of pollution for individuals (or individual firms) add up to a sub-optimal level from the social point of view"
Pollution is not something that businesses need to worry about producing. Their individual impact is small and even the accumulated effect will largely impact future generations. However as a society the combined levels of pollution do matter to us very much and may have an impact that threatens the entire future of human civilisation. Therefore this is just one example of how the market cannot handle all issues that come from economic production and the federal government needs to step in to enforce critical standards.
Another important example is fishing, where unregulated fishing by individual firms can deplete the overall amount of fish, damaging prospects for everyone. 
Unrestricted Capitalism is very poor at handling areas where co-operation is in the greater long-term goof of everyone involved - even it's own future economic good. Capitalism's focus on short-term profit means that restricting the ability of small businesses to take actions which result in long term damage is beneficial.
The Moral Case
Much of what we consider to be moral today has only come to pass due to federal regulation.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a key landmark in the rights of People of Colour. It was this act which made it illegal to discriminate in employment based on race. Indeed at the time it was discrimination in employment which was thought to be "the most widespread and undoubtedly the most harmful to its victims and the nation as a whole." 
Whatever your stance on the issue of racism today, I don't think I need to quote sources for the repellent and widespread racism that abounded before the 1960's to be seen as a negative.
Therefore as the market does not enforce moral boundaries which we as a society care about, regulations which restrict the right of businesses to discriminate are needed for a more just and equal society to stop people's human rights being violated.
As a democratic nation, the people of the USA have the fundamental right enshrined in the US Constitution to elect representatives who will pass laws on their interests. The constitution specifically includes the provision for the regulation of interstate commerce , which due to the nature of commerce in modern society is most commerce that happens.
As there are obvious examples of businesses impacting consumers and communities, such as the high cancer mortality rates around the Appalachian coal mines as just one of numerous possible examples.
Trying to deny people access to their constitutional right to elect representatives who will pass laws to address their grievances is therefore against the most basic and fundamental rights of the USA.
 23 Things they Don't tell you About Capitalism, p. 169
 United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)
As per the original, I will use R3 for rebuttals.
I would note that my opponent mostly seems to have dealt with continuing his argument from R2 rather than rebutting, violating his R1 rules of "First round accept debate. Second state facts. Third rebuttals." I would therefore ask to be awarded conduct on this basis.
Before I deal with specifics, due to the lack of sources used by my opponent there is no evidenciary value to my opponent's statements. In fact as he also doesn't use logical constructs or reason, his argument contains little besides unevidenced claims and assumptions that are never grounded.
My opponent does not ground his claims in the topic at hand. He fails to do this in two ways.
Example 1: "It's been proven that in a country where the Federal government isn't regulating small businesses the country brings tremendous wealth to the economy. This was evident under Reagan's presidency, as well as Eisenhower."
Unless my opponent is trying to claim that there was no small business restrictions under Eisenhower, this kind of claim is irrelevant. The purpose of the debate as made clear in the topic and my opponent's R1 statement of " I believe government should have NO PART in restricting and business" is that there should be no restrictions. Not less then there are currently, but none. As he's presumably not trying to claim that there were none (which is prima facie absurd) it is irrelevant.
If he is trying to claim there are none, then he's clearly wrong. For instance the Sixteenth amendment which allowed the federal government to force businesses to pay various kinds of taxes and duties which they couldn't previously (a restriction, as they must do this to operate and which fits my R2 definition) then he is obviously wrong.
Another example of this includes a statement like "As seen like i stated previously Obama has essentially killed the economy of this country." Was the country previously run without any restrictions? Again, it was not. His point might be relevant to a debate entitled "Should small businesses have LESS restrictions from the Federal Government?" where he hadn't specified in R1 that he was talking about "NO PART" in restricting business.
These are not relevant to the topic as they never relate to the central point under discussion.
Example 2: "Under president Obama our national GDP has hovered around the .9% area. This is unacceptable."
Random claims of badness, generally linked to Obama. He does not offer any proof that things would be better without restrictions for small business, so there are irrelevant to the debate at hand.
This argument forms the core of my rebuttal, that his argument is unevidenced and non-topical. I believe that if voters search his argument for topicality applying the examples I've given, he does not at any way relate his claims back to the central topic at hand.
Beyond this however I will also deal with a couple of specific claims. Although based on my explanation I believe I don't need to, I think it will be beneficial to further show that his claims cannot be taken at face value.
"Under president Obama our national GDP has hovered around the .9% area"
Incorrect. The GDP has changed substantially over time. It has not been at .9% or below since 2009 which was due to the economic crash that happened before Obama took office.
Since then it has consistently been over .9%, usually in the 2%+ range. The World Bank has forecast it will stay at this 2%+ range for the entirety of its current forecast, assuming no changes (like getting rid of all restrictions.
"Because Obama isn't taxing the wealthy at a higher cost, approved NAFTA and couldn't care less about the important small businesses leaving this great country."
Although most of this is too vague and unsupported to address directly, at least in the amount of time and space it would take, his claim that NAFTA was approved by Obama stands out as this is easily checkable.
NAFTA was spearheaded by the first Bush and signed into law by Clinton over a decade before Obama was elected president.
"You have yet to give me a clear reason as to why small businesses need to be regulated."
I believe I have, and that in part the rationale is the same as yours. Both of us made claims that there would be an economic effect which justified there being an advantage in their being/not being restrictions.
The main difference is that I elaborated on how and why my economic outcome would actually appear rather than just giving an opinion and I offered sources to back this up.
I then went further and offered moral and democratic based reasons on top of the economic reasons, again not merely giving opinions but explaining why I held them and offering evidence and reason to back them up.
More importantly I connected these back to the main topic, showing the difference between no restrictions and restrictions and how restrictions were better.
I believe you are the one to have have failed to justify any of your claims and that additionally what unsupported claims you have made are blatantly off topic. Moreover, I believe that I have shown that this is the case by quoting you and explaining the reasoning behind my claims in relation to what you have said.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by illegalcombat 10 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.