The Instigator
mv
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Aziar44
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

laissez-faire should exist but does not

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: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,998 times Debate No: 817
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (10)

 

mv

Pro

well to start off, it's french for "leave alone". obviously pertaining to the government and its interference of the people. typically it's the separation of economy and state. but our government has forgotten that our nation was to be established on a laissez-faire capitalistic system that would allow people to actually have rights without the government overlooking each individual thoroughly. do you think we have a state of laissez-faire in our nation?

on paper, capitalism seems like the only moral system and principle that can possibly be used. we are considered to be living in a "capitalistic" society. we are considered to have rights, the very rights promised to us through the declaration of independence and the constitution. but do we really have those rights? in order to have laissez-faire capitalism, you must have individual along with property rights and if you do, this system is established to protect you. capitalism should be defended on a moral basis, not on a political or a utilitarian one. it's obviously not in the best interest of the government to "protect" us if we have the patriot act breathing down our necks.

it's a fact that after only a mere 45 days following the attacks on 9/11, congress passed the patriot act with virtually no debate. the patriot act itself contains vital flaws that threaten your fundamental freedoms by giving the government the power to access your medical records, tax records, information about the books you buy or borrow without probable cause and the power to break into your home and conduct secret searches without telling you for weeks, months, or indefinitely. is this protection or intervention?

this act threatens the standards of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments which include FREEDOM of speech, FREEDOM of unreasonable searches, NO person deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law and RIGHT to fair and speedy trial. in the first year of the patriot act's existence, at least 8,000 arab and south asian LEGAL immigrants were interrogated solely on the basis of religion and ehtnic background...

i didn't know capitalism meant profiling.

i think it's time to stop lying to ourselves and realize that our government isn't going to leave us alone anytime soon. it's time we stop calling ourselves a capitalistic society. it's interesting to have people consider us a successful nation when in reality, we can easily fall like that of fascist italy or communist russia. if our government wants to keep laissez-faire as the basis of all its decisions, then don't you think it's about time they do so?
Aziar44

Con

Aziar44 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
mv

Pro

ok i'm not exactly sure what to say if someone doesn't respond to my opening argument so as soon as you bring up any opposition to what i said in round 1, i will counter it.
Aziar44

Con

Hello mv, sorry about the long wait. Been a bit too busy to really put my heart into the debate for the past week but now I've got time to put into it.

For starters, I'm going to disagree that laissez faire SHOULD exist. It clearly does not in my opinion either, but I only need to refute one part of your argument in order to be proven correct.

Laissez faire should not exist. The negative effects of laissez faire far outweigh the positives. For one, welfare would be completely gone. I think you and I can both agree that simple charity and the market economy are not going to support the 36 million people in poverty and would actually make more people in that category. Welfare, though not a perfect system, is necessary in some form to keep the poor from complete desolation.

The Great Depression was saved by government action. Social programs and welfare were set and up and saved this nation from utter destruction and a possible Germany-like fate. If laissez faire were employed during this time, the nation would have been plunged into further despair.

Let us say laissez faire were implemented right now. Of course things such as wiretapping and The Patriot Act would be gone. More importantly though, tariffs that help American workers, anti-trust regulations, social programs that aid the poor, and even minimum wage.

Soon America would be dominated by massive foreign conglomerates and huge US businesses because of the lack of anti-trust regulation and no mass minimum wages. That would make the poor poorer and no government program could even help the poor, charity certainly would not be able to make up for the massive amount of poor.
Debate Round No. 2
mv

Pro

hey azjar, don't worry about being late or whatever. i'm just glad you aren't like the other people that accept a debate then never present an argument. so thanks for responding.

-welfare

first of all let me remind the readers of this debate that welfare is the extortion of wealth from those who produce by the "humanitarians" in government which is then distributed to those who consume yet do not produce in return. under this system of capitalism, it says that the producers are slaves while the "humanitarians" are thieves. the thieves are initiators of force which is one founding principle laissez-faire opposes. by initiation of force i mean that people will use force of any sort to achieve their ends. much like a bank robber. but i ask you, how is a bank robber different from someone on welfare? the difference is that the government actually condones a poor person to take the money away from us where as a robber usually conceals his/her identity and sometimes kills for the money he/she is about to steal. obviously i am opposed welfare and do not think it is necessary in any way. "That a man does not have riches and another does, is no excuse for the first to rob the latter -- neither is it a moral justification for the state to rob the first for the benefit of the latter." despite the direct opposition to welfare, capitalism DOES allow for the poor to create a fortune but it all goes back to government interference. when you look at early 20th century america, we can agree that hundreds of poor immigrants who couldn't speak english flooded our country. yet within just a generation, they became our elite. all of this was accomplished without government regulation and welfare. even today, immigrants and/or those that were simply born into poverty are here starting with nothing yet ending with a great fortune or a fortune that would not require them to ask for money. you just don't hear about this happening too much and it is a lot more rare to see this because of the immoral and irrational REGULATIONS that don't allow the people that urgently need to accumulate capital to do so. laissez-faire did not create poverty, it inherited it.

-the great depression

let us also realize that again, government regulation created the depression. there was a nationwide decrease in production and bad investments were made into unprofitable industries. these bad investments can only exist when the government overrides the system of checks and balances provided by the free market. basically making money cheap. this cheap money results in irrational investments into industries that would appear unprofitable if the government did not intervene into the money supply. the result of these bad investments initially made is a depression and then the market tries to recover from basically throwing money away. in this case we call it, the great depression. laissez-faire should have existed in the first place to prevent this from ever happening.
you go on to say that the government basically saved our nation during the depression. let me tell you what the government DID. the fed was created by a government supported agency that was supposed to be in charge of our monetary policy. the federal reserve is no more federal then federal express. it is a privately owned bank set up by big business and big corporations that contribute to why we are in debt. the government borrows money from the fed so they can overspend like they currently do. the fed charges interest that way they can remain in business. the interest they charge is where our taxes come in. taxes are charged by the government to keep repaying the fed the billions of dollars they owe them. so you mean to tell me the government saved us by taxing us? who would've thought that years later it would bite us in the butt. and by the way, there is no law requiring us to pay taxes, so why do we? if the federal reserve was actually federal, then don't you think the government would have made a law requiring the payment of taxes? but they can't make a law for us to pay into something they thought would be the solution to the great depression which ended up contributing to our debt.

-patriot act

thank you for helping me prove why laissez-faire should exist. in the first round i briefly discussed why the patriot act violates our freedoms and in the end results in at least some sort of profiling. this was the basis of my argument, that we are called a capitalistic society yet we have people in washington wanting to pass an act violating our freedoms. how interesting.

-tariffs

a tariff is a tax on goods upon being imported. how would this tax benefit us? better yet, how do tariffs help the american worker? tariffs do nothing but create firms that distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power. also, look into the principle of comparative advantage. what matters during trade is the opportunity cost of production, NOT the absolute cost.

-anti-trust regulations

i'm afraid you are mistaken my friend. the anti-trust laws we have today are designed to prohibit monopolies and unfair business practices which is one thing laissez-faire is in accordance with. what anti-trust regulations are you talking about that laissez-faire would do away with?

-social programs aiding the poor

if social programs that aided poor actually existed, we wouldn't need welfare would we? i have already discussed how laissez-faire would not "make the poor poorer".

-minimum wage

it shouldn't exist so thank you again for helping me prove laissez-faire should exist. why should EVERY worker getting payed at minimum wage receive the same pay when you and i both know not every worker is as good as the other? they should get paid based on their productivity and quality of the product. you cannot place an equal monetary value on inconsistent production. minimum wage just gives more people the incentive to not try as much as they could and not produce the best possible product they can make so long as they get their paycheck.

everything i've said about laissez-faire boils down to elimination of big business and government regulation that would regulate EVERYTHING. i don't see where you're getting the idea that laissez-faire is the culprit to "massive foreign conglomerates and huge US businesses". laissez-faire stands for the complete opposite as i have proved in my previous arguments. anti-trust is a good thing but don't blame laissez-faire for the lack of it. blame the government. certain regulation is good for our country like anti-trust, but at the same time the government needs to understand its role: protection of its citizens not unecessary interference.
i had fun in this debate but i wish round 2 existed.
Aziar44

Con

As for welfare, I do not agree with the current system either. But you must admit that welfare indeed helped save many people from total destitution during and after the Great Depression. Is the system now to my liking? No. But reforms are needed, not a "system" of charity that is used to keep the poor afloat. It wouldn't work. I am not saying that welfare is perfect, it clearly is not. But it is the best we've got for now until we change it and the government being completely hands off would only exacerbate the problem of poverty and I think I've illustrated why.

I will give you the point on the Patriot Act. But I will say again that what would you rather have your society be? A society where the government monitors suspicious phone calls but the lower class is helped out by the government so they can get on their feet? Or would you rather be in a society where the government cannot listen to any phone calls but the lower class gets NO federal aid and health care is entirely based on privatization and greedy insurance companies?

Laissez faire certainly would not support governmental universalization of health care. Right now the US is ranked in the top 10 of the "most laissez faire" and I will quote Gotid24 (in the comments section, thank you Gotid24) here:

"Our health care system is one of the worst, if you want to live, you better be rich. And our education system is worst. We are like walking commercials, and our owners are the logos we wear and depend on. The are slowly destroying and taking control of the world. When is it enough, how greedy can greed be???"

So our government is one of the most laissez faire, especially in the realm of health care, and we have a very poor health care system compared to equally industrious nations. It's not coincidence. Our government does not do enough to support the disadvantaged and poor of this country. Welfare doesn't work very well and health care has left over 45 million Americans uninsured. If you've seen Sicko you also know how the businesses are screwing people over. Obviously, the businesses care most about making money and the lives of patients come second (or lower).

SCHIP and other possible solutions have been shot down by Republicans who want to "keep the government's hands" out of the matter. But the fact is that the government has to intervene in a lot of situations. It is its duty to help the helpless and obviously if people were extraordinarily good and donated to charity in massive amounts we wouldn't have this problem of extreme poverty and uninsured Americans. But we must face reality. People are not that incredibly generous. The government has to help them.

Let's suppose minimum wage were gone today. Of course, some companies would pay people a lot based on their skills and performance. But you cannot honestly tell me that companies would not pay people less if there were no minimum wage. It makes no sense. Businesses are based on profit so if they could pay their employees less and keep them, why wouldn't they? The minimum wage is a decent way of getting more money to the lower class without welfare-type means.

In conclusion, I believe you have shown that laissez faire government is good in one or two aspects: wiretapping and that the government can sometimes in fact slow down the processes which may solve problems such as the Great Depression. BUT I believe that the negative aspects of laissez faire far outweigh the positives. Laissez faire would let big business rule and the poor would suffer and remain poor and uninsured. We are one of the most laissez faire nations in the world and our health care system leaves 16% of the country uninsured and even those that are insured are not taken care of properly.

P.S. On the matter of anti-trust regulation, laissez faire does not favor it. Breaking up monopolies through this kind of regulation violates laissez faire policy. "The laissez-faire period ended by the beginning of the 20th century, when large monopolies were broken up and government regulation of business became the norm. The Great Depression of the 1930s saw the birth of Keynesian Economics an influential approach advocating government intervention in economic affairs." (Financial & Investment Dictionary. Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms. Copyright � 2006 by Barron's Educational Series, Inc.)

Good debating with you, I wish Round 2 would have existed as well but oh well, a good debate regardless.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Gato 9 years ago
Gato
The problem with liberal fundamentalism is that it assumes a lot.

Like extreme Socialism, it is only perfect if EVERYONE accepts it and believes in its promises.

Because efficiency and societal harmony are equally important in my opinion. The best system will always be a hybrid of the two ideologies.
Posted by mv 9 years ago
mv
let me also point out something i left out regarding anti-trust regulations. it is not the purpose and concept behind it that i disagree with, i disagree with what the government has turned them into. the government has made it to where we punish successful businesses for being successful. they believe that a free market will result in the forming of monopolies which is something laissez-faire opposes.
Posted by mv 9 years ago
mv
i can assure you gotid, laissez-faire much like aaron russo serve to expose the government for what they're really worth. there is no law requiring us to pay income tax and give our paycheck to the government. under laissez- faire, income tax would not exist. see what happens when we put the government in charge of our monetary system?
Posted by Gotid24 9 years ago
Gotid24
Hey Aziar, you said the:
"Soon America would be dominated by massive foreign conglomerates and huge US businesses because of the lack of anti-trust regulation and no mass minimum wages. That would make the poor poorer and no government program could even help the poor, charity certainly would not be able to make up for the massive amount of poor."
HELLO WHAT COUNTRY ARE YOU LIVING IN???BECAUSE ITS NOT THE UNITED STATES. We are run by corporation and politicians. We are a country the runs on the debt of the people, they call it credit, but I'll call it by its real name... the "Slavery of DEBT." To even get an o.k education, a student must take out massive loans, that place him into debt. Its a trapt, and we fall into them quickly. After we get our education, we must find a stable job that could help us payback our massive debt.
Our health care system is one of the worst, if you want to live, you better be rich. And our education system is worst. We are like walking commercials, and our owners are the logos we wear and depend on. The are slowly destroying and taking control of the world. When is it enough, how greedy can greed be???
Posted by Gotid24 9 years ago
Gotid24
If laissez faire gets rid of the income tax( the flat tax), I'm all for it.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Aziar44 8 years ago
Aziar44
mvAziar44Tied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 9 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by pablo 9 years ago
pablo
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by tremendoustie 9 years ago
tremendoustie
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by TheMasterBrask 9 years ago
TheMasterBrask
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by keepitcasual68 9 years ago
keepitcasual68
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mv 9 years ago
mv
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Moonpup 9 years ago
Moonpup
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
mvAziar44Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30