The Instigator
Shtookah
Pro (for)
Losing
76 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
84 Points

The deregulated "free" market is unsustainable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/5/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,965 times Debate No: 13570
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (24)

 

Shtookah

Pro

Free Market - Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.

Externality - Activities and conditions whose benefits (called external economies) and costs (called external dis-economies) are not reflected in the market price of goods and services. The primary feature of an externality is that one entity's action directly or indirectly changes the options available to other entities.

Regulation - Principle or rule (with or without the coercive power of law) employed in controlling, directing, or managing an activity, organization, or system.

The free market has been a beloved ideal economic system for the majority of modern nations around the globe. (Particularly in U.S.) A system that is based on supply and demand, profit motivation and individual empowerment. Through the exploration of this economic system; Many great accomplishments have been achieved through what we are lead to believe is simply just the magic of the market place. In other words.. The free market is accepted in modern society as generally self-sufficient.

In the United States, whomever considers themselves to be on the right end of the spectrum usually will say that the only problems that face our economic system is the government's regulations. Regardless of what purpose the regulatory agencies had been established for; If the regulations in question were to interfere with "business as usual", it would be considered blasphemy..

THIS is a problem. When having a society that revolves around profit motivation and self empowerment, one can't help but wonder what keeps the peace? How can we make everyone accountable? How can we protect the "American Dream" and equal opportunity if we believe that big business is to big to fail? (Keep in mind the federal reserve is about as federal as federal express) How could we possibly create a system that is 100% work-based compensated? How can we fight poverty if there is no incentive? How are we supposed to end war, when those whom exploit it make millions from it?

Questions like these and many others are left unanswered, and above all else are frowned upon. However intellectuals through history have shed light on this very subject time and time again. Ether it would be the myth of the free market's false divinity of work based compensation. "The payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product" - Albert Einstein.

Or the alarming growth of intertwining of the private sector over the government. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."-Thomas Jefferson

****Those who advocate a completely deregulated free market with the expansion of tax cuts do a major disservice to their public.. Not only are they encouraging the major decrease in federal revenue (Single handedly under funding various national programs.) but they advocate to make the private sector more and more unaccountable..****

The premise of the very claim of "The free market is unsustainable" can be summed up in very simple philosophical way. If you have a society based on profit motivation and innovation created from dire struggles to compete.. Or in other words a society inspired by a materialistic rhetoric that paints the image of only to look out for number one. Eventually the people involved in this society will have created a permanent upper class that will inevitably and exponentially create an unbeatable force that by no means can be competed with. Creating what we would refer to as monopolies. When a corporation has the power to basically control the means of more than half, or g-d forbid 3/4's of certain market or industry.. Something is very wrong. Not only are these private externalizing machines dominating the markets by out rages numbers, they are protected by the very society that they harm. I.E. Tea baggers, neo-cons and faux liberals who push for deregulation.

But enough talk, let me list some examples of dominated markets in America that are currently harming society and what some people would say, destroying the "American dream."

1. The beer industry.
Dominated by : Anheuser-busch and the newly merged corporation, Millercoors.
Percentage of the market: Anheuser-busch (50%) Miller and Coors combined (29%)
Source: Beer institute 2008 US market share for brewers.

2. The energy drink industry.
Dominated by : Monster and Redbull.
Percentage of the market: Monster (28%) Red bull (38%)
Source: http://www.istockanalyst.com...

3. fallowing my two very random examples.. Lets talk about the most obvious examples of dominance that destroys the American dream.. I'm talking of course, about Walmart.
*Walmart Stats*
*The Walton family donates approximately 2% of the net worth to charity..(86.6 billion)
* The average salary of a Walmart employee is about 20,000.. The salary of CEO Mike Duke is projected at 19,200,000.. (924X the average salary of a walmart employee)
* Walmart has the largest case action EVER in history of sex discrimination. (1.6 million lawsuits)
*Hypocritically Walmart ran a "Buy American" campaign suggesting that to shop at their store would mean your buying American made products; When in reality, nothing could be further than the truth. (80% of Walmart suppliers are in China. 10% OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF CHINAS EXPORTS go to Walmart..)
*In 2000, Walmart was sued 4,851 times or once every 2 hours.
*90% of Americans live within 15 miles of a Walmart.
Source: http://www.businesspundit.com...
---------------------Closing statement-----------------------
I realize how for my first couple of examples are little all over the place and unless you see eye to eye with me on my ideology, you wont exactly understand my argument. Basically to put in simple terms my argument is this. A system motivated and revolving around profit, and characterized to have ideally the least amount of responsibility as possible can not be sustainable for humanity. The free market is an system of favoritism (Not like NAFTA is exclusionary...........<.<), immoral actions, exploitation and creates an extremely unhealthy and almost a psychologically abused society. Yes in fact I am making some rather harsh and practically unheard claims.. But those of you advocate a deregulated and highly "free market".. Are most likely not going to care nor bother give two sh*ts what I have to say. I could say the that general body of a corporation has loaded history of stripping rights from people and undermining legislation left and right. But human rights don't me jack to them if it means in the end they have less money. I could say that corporations were given the identity as a single entity or a legal "person" to combat union workers and to ignore any sense of moral code for the grounds of limited liability. But then again, whomever I will be debating against most likely is anti-union, and anti any form of worker representation or any sense of labor laws.. So I guess I'll leave it to my opponent too be to decide and elaborate why he believes the free market is sustainable for workers, the environment, the American Dream and simply humanity..
RoyLatham

Con

Pro seems mainly to want to chat about topics related to free markets. I'll do that, but I'll first address the resolution.

1. I accept Pro's definition of "free market."

The definition of "unsustainable" is "not sustainable; not to be supported, maintained, upheld, or corroborated." http://dictionary.reference.com... The resolution asserts that free market economies cannot exist, but rather must collapse to be replaced by government-regulated economies.

There are many examples o free market economies being sustained. Markets existed before the existence of governments, so clearly free market economies are sustainable. "Trade in a grander sense, between distant places ... involves entrepreneurs and middlemen, people willing to accept delay and risk in the hope of a large profit. The archive found at Ebla gives a glimpse of an early trading city, from the middle of the third millennium BC." http://www.historyworld.net... None of the early trade involved government regulation or subsidy, and it florished for thousands of years.

It's rather remarkable how much trade went on without benefit of government supervision:

" ... Native Americans had been involved in long- distance trade for at least 3,000 years, and Mississippian people continued to exchange material and objects with distant communities. For example, Mississippians living along Mill Creek in Union County used high-quality stone found along the creek to make hoes for farming. These hoes were traded throughout Illinois and the Midwest." http://www.museum.state.il.us...

"Northwestern Indians who lived near the Ganges River played prominent roles as middlemen in the China-Mediterranean silk trade because as early as the third century AD, they understood that silk was a lucrative product of the Chinese Empire. The trading relationship between the Chinese and the Indians grew stronger with increased Han expansion into Central Asia. The Chinese would trade their silk with the Indians for precious stones and metals such as jade, gold, and silver, and the Indians would trade the silk with the Roman Empire. Silk proved to be an expensive import for the Roman Empire since its trade across Indian and Central Asia was heavily controlled by the Parthian Empire." http://library.thinkquest.org...

Free markets are clearly sustainable without government. The resolution fails.

2. Now, on to Pro's stream-of-consciousness remarks.

a. Pro sets up a straw man by falsely claiming that free market advocates are demanding that there be no government whatsoever. We can rely on Milton Friedman to voice the role of government in free markets. It is to provide "for the maintenance of law and order to prevent coercion of one individual by another, the enforcement of contracts voluntarily entered into, the definition of the meaning of property rights, the interpretation and enforcement of such rights, and the provision of a monetary framework." http://practicalutopian.wordpress.com... So government "keeps the peace" in the markets.

b. The markets hold producers accountable, since in a free market transactions only occur when there is a benefit to both parties in the transaction. Unlike government, companies can fail and go out of business, and it happens all the time. No one who believes in free markets thinks that there should be businesses too big to fail; only government prevents them from failing.

c. We do not want a society where compensation is solely "work-based." Risk must be compensated, otherwise no one will take risks and the economy stagnates. The time value of money must also be compensated. Money available now is inherently worth more than money sometime later; that is a law of nature not subject to repeal. It has always operated in all societies, and always will.

d. The cure to poverty is prosperity. Hong Kong prospered as China wallowed in poverty; South Korea continues to prosper as North Korea remains impoverished. Prosperity comes from free markets, not from government, and every example shows that.

e. Pro complains about the alarming intertwining of the private sector and government. He's right. Getting government out of the private sector is called "free markets." Wall Street contributors top the list of Obama donors. http://www.opensecrets.org... That is because they favor the intertwining of government with private enterprise. They get an advantage by being large and sophisticated enough to master the wildly complex regulations, and they want the "too big to fail" guarantee. The financial regulation law accomplished both those goals.

f. Pro is completely wrong in claiming that the Tea Party movement favors such intertwining. "According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, writer of Mad As Hell: How the Tea Party Is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System, the primary event which triggered the Tea Party movement was the federal bailouts of private companies. Activists consider them to be unconstitutional, ineffective, and immoral since they involve the redistribution of wealth from citizens to private entities." http://247wallst.com...

So why do Obama and his allies favor intertwining of government and private enterprise? They have discovered that it is more acceptable to the public to maintain an illusion of free enterprise while government determines virtually every detail of what so-called "private" companies can do. Then as the government directed policies fail, they can blame free enterprise and take over explicitly.

g. Pro cites examples of industries in which there are two principle competitors and contends that is a failure of free enterprise. The signs of a non-competitive market are lack of consumer choices. He cites beer, energy drinks, and Walmart "big box stores." In each of those industries profit margins are completely reasonable and there are plenty of consumer choices. Is it really true that there are only two choices of beer or energy drinks? Nonsense. Just go to any supermarket and look at the myriad choices. Is it true that Walmart is the only big box store? Visit Target or Costco.

Walmart Stores has a profit margin of 3.47%, and it has fluctuated around 3.5% for a decade. http://ycharts.com...

Neither beer nor energy drinks are necessities, so if producers raise prices too high demand plummets. The beer industry recently consolidated after many years of poor profits, so there is brief surge in profits, but consumption is dropping. The markets forces are at work. Energy drinks are mainly sugar and water with a few dabs of chemicals, with market success determined by advertising. It is like a fashion product, subject to fads. It is not remotely a case for government regulation. It's like arguing that Gucchi charges too much, so government must intervene. The solution is rather or consumers to not buy the product at the price demanded.

3. Pro summarizes, "A system motivated and revolving around profit, and characterized to have ideally the least amount of responsibility as possible can not be sustainable for humanity." To the contrary, a system motivated by profit is the most sustainable for humanity. Profits are only achieved by producers bringing to market something that consumers want to buy at the price offered, so that both the producer and the consumer benefit from the free market transaction. If the producer fails to do that, the market puts him out of business.

Government, by contrast, is never put out of business, no matter how poor the product or service. It is the ultimate monopoly in which there is no accountability.

Excessive government is not sustainable, free markets are.
Debate Round No. 1
Shtookah

Pro

It appears I'm going to have to make some clarifications..

1. When stating there being an alarming growth of an intertwining system of both the private sector (i.e. Wall street) and the government.. That addresses the issue of a too powerful private sector and NOT government.
But con simply does not view it this way because he clearly is a lover the Reagan mentality of government. (Little side track:Probably one of the most overrated U.S. presidents...ever) Meaning that, no matter how overpowering of a hold corporate America has on it's federal government, he does not, will not, nor will he ever view this as a problem of private enterprise. He will view it as a problem of federal government. Thus showing this little feud is really just a matter of misconception.

2. Con stated the markets hold producers accountable because apparently in every "free market transaction", both parties benefit. Yikes. I would hope that con really was meaning for that statement to be directed to domestic transactions, if so, that he may have a point. However, on foreign transactions, occurring between impoverished nations and our dangerously overpowering private sectors I'm afraid he's wrong. Certain terms come up when talking about foreign transactions with our private industries.. Slave labor.. Human Trafficking.. Terms that really I would hope that the general public would consider bad and certainly NOT a benefit by any means. I hate to over use an example but hey when talking about the harms of the free market, of course your going to come across Walmart quite frequently.

http://humantrafficking.change.org...
Also some other great links with relevance to labor-
http://www.humantrafficking.org...
http://ihscslnews.org...
http://www.free2work.org...
http://www.hrea.org...

And thirdly Con has expressed his feeling about my comments towards Tea-Baggers fallowing up with an unnecessary rant about Obama and I'm guessing insinuating that I am one of his "Pinko-Commi Allies" and there for, should be outed as such. Well, to clarify I did not mention the president ONCE in my opening statement nor did I ever applaud any particular action under his administration. Matter in fact, I happen to think Obama is quite the poor president as well, but for obviously very different reasons. Yes Obama is a major tool to Wall street that's a pretty well known piece of knowledge. And as far as foreign policy goes, the difference between him and bush are practically invisible. I'm sure con believes Obama is a "far-left" president with a "socialist" agenda.. Well I'm here to tell you, as someone who considers them self to be a pretty far left individual and have a rather socialist ideology, that President Barrack Obama is not far left by any means. He is bullsh*t artist of a politician, who is a horrible centrist and is in fact a faux-liberal and runs under the title of being a "revolutionary". To say that Obama is a tool to corporate America and Wall street, and at the same time call him a socialist are two very contradicting claims. He CLEARY favors big business just as usual for every American president. And if you think just running my mouth, here's an article of out spoken ACTUAL socialists who debunk that notoriously retarded of a claim.
http://www.politicsdaily.com...

Now lets get back on topic: Is the deregulated free market sustainable?

In order to believe that it is in fact sustainable for humanity then you must have some certain beliefs. You would have to beleif that profit motivation is the best means of motivation for society. I argue that it's actually quite unhealthy for society and leads to very unnecessary problems. Another mind set one must have in order to defend the deregulated "free" market of being sustainable for humanity is to have a major distrust towards government and a love affair for private enterprise. (Might I point out a government that has a constitution and a promise to promote the general welfare.)

I'm going to summarize a short list of examples that will elaborate my "grass-root" argument of making the case that the deregulated free-market is in fact UNSUSTAINABLE.

a. Grows a manipulated generation of masses that in affect harm society and do not participate nor practice democracy.
http://tvnewslies.org...

b. Has a repeating history of anti-trust violations and sound frequency of unlawful acts to society.
http://www.corporatewatch.org...

c. Places profits before people.
http://www.personsinc.org...

d. Manipulates the public opinion and the very aspect of the life.
http://www.adbusters.org...

e. Uses think-tanks and lobbying to in a sense create a war on democracy.
http://www.prwatch.org...

f. Undermines journalism.
http://foxbghsuit.com...

g. Breeds poverty.
http://www.socialistalternative.org...

Now as a last statement, I would just like to point out that to see proof of our current system not being sustainable can be done by just a self evaluation. Look at your life, how big of a role do corporations play in it? And ask yourself, In a world were we slap prices on LIVING NECESSITIES, (emphases on the LIVING aspect..) is that by any means just or moral? And can we pursue such a society that primary revolves around the almighty dollar?
RoyLatham

Con

1. I gave solid historical examples of free markets being sustained for centuries and people prospered as a result. Civilization arose during an era of free markets, before government regulation was invented. Native Americans alone proved Pro wrong by developing prosperous unregulated free trade. Pro does not even address the examples that clearly negate the resolution, let alone argue against them. That failure suffices to lose the debate.

2. a. Pro had no rebuttal to my claim that free markets acknowledge the role of government in "keeping the peace," as Pro put it.

b. I claimed that free markets hold producers accountable. Pro rebutted that purveyors of slave labor and human trafficking are not held accountable. Those are not free market transactions. A person who is forced to work against his will is not in the free market. It is a proper function of government to prohibit slavery.

Pro invites me to read a bunch of websites and make a valid case for him. I decline.

I'll comment on Pro's apparent confusion between low wages and forced labor. Pakistan, say, is perfectly free to set a minimum wage of $20 per hour, or anything else they wish. It's up to them to decide whether or not that benefits their people. Before globalization, Pakistan was continually on the verge of starvation. Their economic status has vastly improved due to low wages being far superior to no wages. That is true in India and China, when highly regulated economies and entirely theoretical high wages brought about famine. Free markets brought them significant economic advances.

c. I rebutted Pro's claim that economies should be "work-based." Risk must be rewarded for progress to be made. Pro had no response.

d. I claimed that the prosperity brought about by free markets was the cure to poverty, and gave examples including Hong Kong compared to Maoist China. Pro had no response.

e. Pro says that it is bad to have private enterprise intertwined with government. I agree with that broad point. We don't have free markets when that happens. I pointed out that of late it has been government that has initiated the interference, pointing to the Obama Administration. Pro says no, that free markets are producing a take over of government by private enterprise. His argument is that free markets are unsustainable because they lead to government and private enterprise becoming one. If so, how would government-controlled markets avoid the problem of government control?

The answer to the problem of keeping government and private enterprise separate cannot be increased regulation of private enterprise. That is precisely the intermingling that Pro and I agree is undesirable. The correct resolution of the problem of keeping them separate is to set up laws and ultimately Constitutional guarantees that keep them separate. This is aided substantially by free enterprise that fights the unfair advantage that occurs when government intrudes by favoring some enterprises over others. For example, the big Wall Street firms received bailouts from government, while smaller firms did not. Smaller firms take note of this and protest, demanding an end to bailouts. That makes free markets sustainable. The participants to not want government to intrude.

Competitors also do not want to compete with firms that use fraud or deceit. The free market works to expose the wrong-doers. Government, by contrast, is an entity unto itself and much more difficult to limit.

f. Pro claimed the Tea Party movement wanted the intertwining of government with private enterprise. I provided polling data proving hat was not the case, and in fact the movement was initiated in opposition to bailouts. Pro made no rebuttal, but claimed I had ranted about Obama. A rant is a litany of unsupported accusations; I had two sentences explaining the Administration's reasons for operating through businesses.

g. Pro offered three examples that he claimed proved that free markets were unsustainable. He cited two competitors having 79% of the beer industry, two competitors having 66% of the energy drink market, and Walmart having a large market share. I refuted each case. It only takes two competitors to make a market, and in each industry cited there are many competitors. Pro did not respond.

4. Pro starts over, going back to "A system motivated and revolving around profit, and characterized to have ideally the least amount of responsibility as possible can not be sustainable for humanity." He makes two mistakes in that assertion. The root motivation is not profit, it is security. People seek to survive and hey can only do that but gaining rather than losing. Maximum responsibility is achieved by having individual buyers and sellers responsible for making sure than every transaction is good for both sides. A irresponsible private seller than cannot provide value goes out of business; an irresponsible government that cannot provide value raises taxes. Sustainability can only be achieved by eliminating bad players. In a free market, that is automatically enforced every day. Governments are far less sustainable.

Pro then lists complaints, in each case stating his conclusion and inviting me to read some long-winded references so I can build his case for him, which I am then supposedly obliged to refute. I decline.

However, I will discuss Pro's first reference. It is a video in which a guy claims that the entire news media is a vast conspiracy to suppress the truth. Fox News, MSNBC, and everyone else are all alike. Examples of the truths suppressed are: there is existing practical technology to make cars that run without gasoline, the real truth behind 9/11 is you-know-what, and the fluoride added to water is really rat poison. OMG. The guy elaborates by pointing out that World Wrestling Federation was fed to change their name from Federation to Entertainment, revealing under pressure that the matches were actually entertainment, not real athletic competitions. OMG again, ... those wrestling matches aren't real!? Actually, the World Wildlife Federation had the trademark on WWF and there was nothing more to it than that.

The guy in the video is a nutcase. However, the nutcase guy at no point even claimed that private enterprise was the root of the conspiracy. Private enterprise would be the logical culprit in concealing that cars could run on water, but 9/11 and fluoride cover ups would be more likely the work of government. The video guy says there are 43 CIA agents placed in the media who run the whole thing, so that points to government as the culprit.

Pro did not make a case for his point, the referenced video does not make a credible case for anything, the video claims are actually counter to Pro's case that free markets are unsustainable, and the video guy making claims is a full-blown loony. All of Pro's other sources are in the same vein, presenting wild conclusions based upon fantasy.

5. Pro asks,

"Look at your life, how big of a role do corporations play in it?"

Corporations provide products and services I need, with greater choice and at a far lower price than does government. They have provided me with jobs doing useful, valuable things. That's great. Only government forces me to pay for things I don't want or need.

"And ask yourself, In a world were we slap prices on LIVING NECESSITIES, (emphases on the LIVING aspect..) is that by any means just or moral?"

Yes, it is absolutely just and moral that people have to earn a living rather than force others to support them.

"And can we pursue such a society that primary revolves around the almighty dollar?"

Indeed we can. The alternative, well proved, is to join failed states like North Korea and Maoist China.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
Shtookah

Pro

The proposition is certainly not negated.

1. Con parades over the fact that I did not comment or respond to his claims of historical societies being temporarily sustained by unregulated "free markets". The reason why I did not respond to his remarks is merely because I do not see how historical basically ancient societies that existed before the birth of the modern corporation can have any relevance towards our current capitalist society.

2. If free markets so willingly acknowledge the role of government, then why do they constantly breed the activity of disregarding and undermine governmental regulation and legislation. (Let alone undermine our democracy)
http://www.poclad.org...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modern day corporation is what my opponent advocates. A corporatist society. Globalization.. His only contrary examples for comparison to his ideal economic system that being the deregulated "free" market, are the systems that which were under Mao.. Which in reality is a system of fascism, not at all in relevance to communist philosophy.

Con uses this as a means to de-bunk regulation and all it represents. However let me list a couple examples of where regulations do in fact matter and are indeed a major force of good.

Regulation for nursing- Require fair and ethical practices. Protects health, safety and welfare of the public vulnerable from unsafe practitioners.

Regulations for daycare- Make major contributions towards improving child development and quality of care.
http://www.childcareonly.com...

Fallowing regulatory agencies that have improved the standards of living.
*Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service*
*Consumer Product Safety Commission*
*Department of Veterans Affairs*
*Employment Standards Administration*
*Environmental Protection Agency*
*Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*
*Farm Credit Administration*
*Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy*
*Food and Drug Administration*
*Nuclear Regulatory Commission*

So indeed when con goes off on how poor contributions to society regulations make; con is in fact false. In addition, here is an article on the general base of regulation and the public interests.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu...

*This an extremely dangerous combination of characteristics that create an unsustainable society.
FACT: The United States makes up approximately 5% of the worlds population and consumes up to a horrifying 24% if its resources. This is a direct result of the modern day "deregulated free market society". A society based upon self indulgence, and no sense of collectivism is not sustainable for society.

Source for claim: http://www.mindfully.org...
Here's sources for the same claim in case con wishes to challenge its legitimacy ..
http://www.independent.co.uk...
http://www.theinsider.org...

FOR THE RECORD: I have in fact listed several arguments WITH mind you an overwhelming amount of sources for said claims. Con admittedly replies that he simply declines to bother to glance at any of my sources. "Pro invites me to read a bunch of websites and make a valid case for him. I decline."

Now lets move on to the focus of the modern day corporation. For this artificial immoral entity is what makes up this unsustainable deregulated free market. For starters, the corporation is a power hungry force that was created under two very simple premises. To make as much profit as possible and at the same time have as little as accountability or liability for its actions. The corporation is an antagonist of an entity that is self-destructive and flat out harmful to society. To help con meet eye to eye with my perspective I will use the words of his own idol; The Nobel prize winning economist Milton Freidman "Asking a corporation to be socially responsible makes no more sense than asking a building to be." THIS quote completely debunks the idea of corporations being a identified as a legal person. However in the eyes of the law they have been in fact given the legal status as a person. A long time ago, corporations used to be a force of the community to build infrastructure. (Publicly controlled) Corporations were not allowed to buy and sell virtually anything! But all of that changed during the civil war to industrial revolution. The modern corporation was born.. During this time, newly free'd slaves have be benevolent on the current liberation. Unfortunately what they did not realize at this time was that the United States government was being undermined by a specific group of lawyers.. These lawyers were representing corporations. For what purpose you might ask? For more power.. And at this time I'm sure there were a lot of people like Roy who most likely felt this was a time of great "corporate liberation" but in reality this was a time enslavement against the underclass of society and the further aggravating oppression against workers all across the nation. Richard Grossman, the founder of POCLAD, (Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy) elaborates on the harms corporations have contributed to manipulate late and further corrupt our democracy. http://www.poclad.org...

In defense of the corporations, I think it is in fact appropriate to distinguish those who contribute to society from those who don't. Yes it is true that there business leaders in the world today who are not consumed with money, and whom do care about the environment and do care about societal issues. And have indeed made very beneficial contributions to society. HOWEVER, these select few of the corporate world are completely made insignificant when analyzing the rest of the multi-national corporates harms. On top of that, let me add that its not the individuals in particular whom I claim to be unsustainable, its the system. Top business leader and captain of industry, Ray Anderson, founder of Interface Global Leadership Team recognizes that our current system is indisputably unsustainable. For more info : http://www.interfaceglobal.com...

*THE BIG PICTURE*
In conclusion, we are currently living in a society that has a veil of ignorance. A world filled with great injustices at every corner. A world filled with poverty, war, pollution and manipulation. The deregulated "free" market is the direct source of all these problems. Corporations care nothing to fight poverty and those whom advocate it do nothing to combat it as well; Matter in fact are manipulated to the point where they view fighting poverty is wrong. Without a doubt the previous statements I have just most likely made Tea baggers giggle with joy. And to them I just want to say, that I'm not alone.Like it or not culture objects this system. From the injustices towards are gross and sickening income inequality in this country, to the exploitation of workers all across the world, too even our fricken source of food which have become genetically modified and extremely unhealthy for our society just for the sake of cheaper costs.. Con brags about the quote "cheaper prices" corporations bring him and fill him with absolute joy.. Well those prices are low for a reason, they're low because they pay their workers sh*t and do not make products with quality in mind whatsoever. And finally, to those whom object government and object regulation.. I'd just like to say that you're ALLOWED to participate in your government, you are not however allowed to participate in corporations actions. (They are NOT democratic) So don't fear government..You live in America.. Be happy..

Believe in PUBLIC interests not PRIVATE, and you will have achieved sustainability.
RoyLatham

Con

In a debate, the way a case is made is to make one or more contentions that support a resolution, then to support each contention with arguments. Each argument should contain logical reasons based upon facts. The purpose of a reference is to provide a an authoritative source that supports a claim of fact. An unsupported opinion is a claim made without any discernible basis in the reality.

In this debate, Pro gives his opinion that "the deregulated free market is unsustainable" but he gives no reasons why, nor any factual evidence to substantiate his opinion. He references others who sometimes seem to share his opinion, but other times just seem to have random conspiracy theories that make no obvious sense. Pro might have offered some theoretical argument the "unregulated free markets cannot be sustained because ... " He didn't do that. He might have attempted to show in history where unregulated free markets could not be sustained. He didn't do that either; of course there is no such thing. Pro rambled around the resolution without addressing it.

I provided historical evidence that unregulated free markets were in fact sustained. Free market thrived before government regulation was invented, and that was the case from the silk road trade to Native American trade very long distances. Pro says he doesn't see how "societies that existed before the birth of the modern corporation can have any relevance towards our current capitalist society." Whether Pro sees it or not, the principles of economics do not change with time. If Pro wanted to claim they had, he should have either constrained the resolution or at least made he argument before the last round. The debate is about "free markets" not about "modern corporate capitalism."

In modern times, with corporations fully in play,we see that free markets produce immensely more prosperity than regulated markets. That's been shown in Hong Kong, South Korea, and the other examples I cited. The evidence is the more free the market, the greater the prosperity. That is contrary to Pro's claim that free markets are unsustainable.

In this round, Pro argues that "nursing" and "day care" have been improved by having regulation, and that the regulatory agencies in a list he provides have "improved standards of living." He provides no arguments or evidence that any of them have improved standards of living. It seems to me that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Farm Credit Administration, for example, are not even regulatory agencies, that while the Consumer Product Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency have improved health and safety, then probably did not improve the standard of living. In any case, whatever regulatory agencies do to make things better or worse, their mere existence does not prove Pro's claim that free markets are unsustainable. We'd have a booming economy without them.

Consider what would happen if the Consumer Product Safety Commission did not exist. Before the Consumer Products Safety Commission existed, the private Underwriters Laboratories certified the safety of products. "UL is the trusted resource across the globe for product safety certification and compliance solutions." http://www.ul.com... A product bearing UL approval was and is preferred by buyers. Consumers prefer products that are safe over products that are not safe and free markets naturally assign value to safety without regulation. Companies buy insurance to protect them from lawsuits, and independent certification of safety as well as direct inspections by insurance companies work in the free market.

People buy insurance in free markets to protect against losses. Insurance companies then have an interest in promoting safety to minimize there payouts. Here is an example of insurance company safety promotion on the web: http://www.statefarm.com... People buy insurance voluntarily in the free market because they are worried about injury and about losses due to fire and other hazards. Regulatory agencies do not protect companies from lawsuits, so companies voluntarily buy insurance to protect against lawsuits. Insurance companies work to make sure that their client companies do not make products that are dangerous. Besides, having defective or dangerous products is very bad for sales.

The main protection against dangerous products is that markets want safe and reliable products. Might is be that regulatory agencies help inhibit marginal producers? Perhaps, but it might be that without the regulatory agencies, consumers would be more demanding of things like UL approval. The regulatory agencies were supposed to protect consumers from defective Chinese toys and from the Bernie Madoff scam, but they did not. Without the supposed regulatory protection, skeptical consumers might well have demanded more reliable private inspections and certifications.

Free markets provide what consumers want, including safety and quality. Even if we were to grant that regulatory agencies improve safety or other aspects of certain markets, it does not prove that free markets are unsustainable. The logic is that if a problem appears, buyers are going demand it be fixed, and they will withhold their purchases until it is fixed.

Pro most recently claimed that nursing and child care benefited from regulation. If the government did not regulate those activities, it is quite likely that consumers would demand some kind of independent inspections or certifications. For example, parents would want child care providers to have some certification from an association before they left their children with a provider. Lacking that, they would perform a lot of their own checking. Shared child care has been going on in communities all over the world for a very long time without the benefit of government regulators.

Pro points out that the US has 5% of the world's population and uses 24% of the world's resources, and he finds this to be a bad consequence of free markets. In fact, it is a product of prosperity, and prosperity is a good consequence of free markets. It's true that people in abject poverty use few resources. India and China are prime examples of growth and prosperity produced by free markets. Today, China is rapidly increasing its use of resources. Fortunately, economics is not a zero sum game.

In a free market economy, everyone can get richer without any practical limit. Advancing technology allows growth by expanding the resources. For example, we know how to get electric power from satellites that convert solar energy to microwaves beamed down to earth. It is now too expensive, but it will get cheaper as the technology improves.

Pro summarizes, "A system motivated and revolving around profit, and characterized to have ideally the least amount of responsibility as possible can not be sustainable for humanity." The truth is quite the opposite. Companies that do not bring value to the marketplace go out of business. Only government can sustain irresponsibility, because the alternatives are far more difficult to achieve.

Pro says, "I am making some rather harsh and practically unheard claims..." I have been hearing them continually for fifty years. Pro has not said a thing that is novel. One peak of the claims of unsustainablity was around 1970. Books were published to great acclaim, and a computer model of the world economy agreed: the world faced economic collapse before the year 2000. It didn't happen. Prosperity has never been greater.

Corporation are a type of collective, providing a legal means for group activity. A corporation may be for profit or not-for-profit. The charter can impose any desired restriction on the type of business and business practices that owners want. There is nothing more to it.

Free markets are proved sustainable.

> Note Pro's ad hom attacks throughout.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
Thanks
Posted by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
RFD:

Anti-Votebomb. Con clearly won. Had I been in a position to vote fairly I would only have given arguments and conduct to Con.

"From this we can conclude that something is seriously wrong with the water supply in that city."

I chuckled quietly to myself.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
RFD:

I gave 7 points to con because (a) he won and (b) to counter the rampant uniformed voteboming for Pro.
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
Yeah and you say I'm the one who ad homs..
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
The vote bombing is mostly from DDO members in Barrington, IL, same as Shtookah. None gave an RFD. From this we can conclude that something is seriously wrong with the water supply in that city.

For the record, quoting an unqualified opinion is not a reference to fact.
Posted by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
Lol @ all the votebombing.
Posted by Shtookah 6 years ago
Shtookah
hahaha
Posted by mongeese 6 years ago
mongeese
@ Shtookah: Sorry, but when you start claiming that the free market is the cause of land wars in Africa, there's something very wrong with you.

@ OreEle: I personally suspect some vote-bombing. I've seen no justification yet of a vote for Shtookah.

@ Cody_Franklin: Agreed.

@ belle: Care to explain?
Posted by belle 6 years ago
belle
mongeese: i believe you are mistaken. in fact, upon reflection i think you will find that you are very wrong indeed.
Posted by Cody_Franklin 6 years ago
Cody_Franklin
@ Shtookah's comment

That whole paragraph reaffirms why you lost the conduct point.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by DDO.votebombcounter1 4 years ago
DDO.votebombcounter1
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Erick
Vote Placed by Erick 4 years ago
Erick
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: (:
Vote Placed by jat93 5 years ago
jat93
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made no real argument and did his best to ignore various arguments Con raised that proved his point, including sustained free markets and the failed economies of countries where government intervention was prevalent (and occasionally the subsequent success when the government had less and less of a role). Pro systematically knocked down all of Con's claims and sources.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering all the absurd votebombs just in case another one comes along. Pro made no real argument.
Vote Placed by LiquidLiquid 6 years ago
LiquidLiquid
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
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 Grape 6 years ago
Grape
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 ethopia619 6 years ago
ethopia619
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
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 Anacharsis 6 years ago
Anacharsis
ShtookahRoyLathamTied
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:25