The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Unregulated Capitalism is a moral system, and is perfect as it is

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
joshuar1996 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 553 times Debate No: 99178
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Many people support are pro capitalism with the proviso "it's not perfect but it works", and that it should be regulated. I claim on the contrary that laissez-faire capitalism, unregulated capitalism, is perfect, and is the best political system.

And that there should be no regulation whatsoever. No ECC, FDA, FED etc. And no anti-trust laws.

There should be only three things that are responsibilities of the government: the army, the police, and a judicial system.

My argument is simple: capitalism is not an economic system, but a moral system, of which economic aspects are a necessary consequence. This moral political system respects inalienable rights by drawing borders between private property of one man, and private property of another.

All dealings between citizens are _voluntary_. As such, the common criticism against capitalism that it is exploitation is impossible, just from the definition of the terms. One can't be exploited if he engages voluntarily.


hello! I accept your debate.

When it comes down to economy, you have to be careful because the majority of economic forms only benefit the rich and elite, not excluding capitalism. But fortunate as time progressed, we've morphed capitalism into a working class and middle class benefit. An economic form where what you gain you can either keep or profit of it .

You are stating that capitalism should be unregulated. Like its counter part communism; it can easily be just as bad as communism. Without regulation capitalism becomes an unethical and in the long run not progressive. In the late 1800's sure it was good but as you can see, it drove many small business owners to bankruptcy; while people like Rockafeller prosper. There was no regulation but it treated workers horribly and in the end of the day only the top really benefited. Without regulations, owning a business would be suicide!

Capitalism can easily be as worse as communism. And being a moral system is not right. Capitalism thrives on inequality and workers. And unregulated capitalism will destroy small business and in the long run destroy competitions and establish ruthless monopolies, and interventions diminishes . like steel monopolies, there will be secret trust and also international competitors will destroy any domestic businesses in the U.S

In the end. Capitalism will never be perfect because it establishes more money for bigger companies such as McDonald's, Google, and Walmart. No morals when greed is a major issue. It doesn't establish a good government because the government it self will be influenced by corporate lobbyist and the people will become expendable . How can there be any inalienable rights if in the end of the day, only the person with the most money will have the most rights.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent states that capitalism, if unregulated, allows small businesses to fail, big businesses such as WallMart to prosper, and also states that this is unethical. However, the only measure of ethics of a political system is whether it preserves inalienable rights of each separate individual.

The inalienable rights of individual are the right to his own life, to his property, and to products or results of his actions (which become his private property). Furthermore, within the sphere of his rights, his freedom is absolute.

To provide a concrete example, consider Robinson Crusoe, who is stranded on an island. Since there are no other men on the island, he requires no political system. If he fails to reap a harvest, then he would die from hunger, a situation for which he can blame only himself. (The analogy to draw at this point is that a small business may fail because it is not doing a good enough job).

Now another man arrives on the island. Lets call him "Friday". At this point, a political system is required, because the two men have to co-exist. If a political system of capitalism is accepted by the two, then both Robinson and Friday would have the same rights.

Friday would be able to decide how he wants to live his life. His one option is to build his own house and a crop field. Another option is to work for Robinson in exchange for food and shelter, which happen to be the terms that Robinson offered. He (voluntarily) chooses to work for Robinson. When the agreement expires (or if it has an exit clause), Robinson may choose to fire Friday leaving him stranded without food. In this case Friday still has his dignity, because he has his inalienable rights to act. He can proceed to build his own house and a field of crops. Most likely Friday already began slowly to build-out his private home, and create savings of food, all while working for Robinson, so that when he is fired he is all set to continue his life in a different way.

In the future, the two men can again reach new voluntary agreements. For instance, they may choose to exchange among themselves different types of crops.

This concludes the example, which served to illustrate that under unregulated capitalism individuals are free, and all their dealings are voluntary.

I will now switch to other points my opponent made. I will address my opponent's example that Rockefeller strangled small businesses. Rockefeller was able to produce a superior product for a smaller price, and individuals chose voluntarily to buy the product from him, rather than to buy more expensive and inferior product from small businesses. As a result, those businesses failed. That this happens is the outcome of free-will choices, and in no measure an evaluation of capitalism. Forcing people to buy a product they don't want, and to pay for it more than they want, would be going against their individual rights to decide and act according to those decisions.

My opponent also states that capitalism leads to monopolies. Monopolies, in every case, were created by the government giving favours to one business instead of another. This happened not in unregulated capitalism, but in the mixed economy, which is not the kind of political system that I defend in this debate. In unregulated market a small company can create an innovative niche product, and overtake a big company in that aspect. As a result, no company could dominate the market for too long. Many small companies choose (voluntarily) to be bought by the bigger company, but no one can force the owners to sell.

It is true that even without government regulation some businesses may cooperate to join to become a big business. If this business produces a good product and a price that individuals are willing to pay, it is ethical because it does not impede on anyone's inalienable rights.

Please note that there is no such moral imperative that any small business should be competitive enough with any other (big or small) business. Competition on the free market depends on the product and price, and nothing else. But because all engagements are voluntary, no one is hurt by this. If a business lost its market share, because another business does it better, then the individuals in the former business can start another business or work for another business. Either way, they will continue to voluntarily engage with other people.

My opponent makes more special case points which I will address below.

First, my opponent says that greed is immoral. Greed is the desire to have more than one already has. This is not immoral, and the right of every individual to desire so. Such desire does not impede on anyone's individual rights, because the desire is in one's mind. People may act on whatever desires and ideas they have, rational or irrational. This is fine as long as they do so within the sphere of their rights. In case of business, an owner of the business may desire for his business to make as much money as possible, and this is perfectly moral.

Second, my opponent talks about lobbyists. In the political system I am defending there are no lobbyists, because the government simply has no policy makers who could be influenced one way or another. If two companies (or individuals) have a disagreement, they would resolve would it in court. Note that a lobbyist can not influence a judge -- that would be a bribery, and would be persecuted by police.

Third, my opponent states that the person that has the most money has the most rights. This assertion is invalid in the proposed political system of unregulated capitalism, because inalienable rights have nothing to do with the amount of money one has.

Fourth, he states that the measure of success or failure of a political system is what happens to masses of people (classes), rather than individuals. This is a wrong way to judge a political system, because fundamentally individual people deal with each other. Every group is composed of individuals that associate with the group voluntarily, and allow the group leaders to be their spokesmen, within the domain of interest that unites the group.

Overall, my opponent argues about capitalism as en economic system. Even if capitalism was less efficient economically than some other political system, it would still be the only ethical system, and the only one to accept. For instance, if slavery was shown to produce a bigger GDP for a country, it would not be a moral political system, and should not be accepted.

Only a political system that respects basic rights of individuals is ethical. There is only one such system possible: unregulated capitalism.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
First, only socialism necessarily deteriorates into cronyism of lobbyists. Under laissez-fair capitalism bribes would have no effect, because the government does not engage in making any regulations, and therefore, can not relax a regulation for a particular business.

Second, donations to government can be arranged to be made in an indirect form. Here are some suggestions Ayn Rand herself made on this topic in "The Virtue Of Selfishness".
Posted by Bi0Hazard 1 year ago

He believes the state should be funded by voluntary donations, otherwise known as "government by the bribes".
Posted by Bi0Hazard 1 year ago
With the same title actually.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
I held a similar debate on EDEB8 website.
Posted by Boris7698 1 year ago
Bam: in laissez-faire there will be no taxes -- people will support government voluntarily. Afterall, people support the church voluntarily. If they value the government as much as the church -- and they should because it protects their rights -- they would support it.

Also, a minimal government wouldn't need as much money as current big ones, that we are accustomed to. At times of war, people will be interested to contribute more, because, again, they care not to loose the war. (btw, wars should only be fought for your own country's border. Citizens will not, and should not, fund wars for the sake of other countries).
Posted by BAM1979 1 year ago
Pro is a bit confused.

You can't have "unregulated capitalism" and "no regulatory agencies" if you have police, army and state courts. Taxation must exist for those things to exist, and therefore - regulations.
Posted by jo154676 1 year ago
I think con confuses capitalism and corporatism
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.