Capitalism cannot fullt accomodate human needs without implementation of certain socialist policies

Government Regulation-My argument will go as follows. The forces of capitalism usually coincide with the needs of the people. This is what distinguishes capitalism from other economies in which the free market is replaced by economic planning. The principle of supply and demand governs almost everything. Capitalism in many cases is capable of functioning to create the needs of the people while still making a profit. If this were to happen all the time every time then logic follows that there would be no need for regulation. It would be wasteful and unneeded. Opponents of mixed economies state that the free market is completely capable of running itself or that nationalization would lead to an even worse condition than capitalism does. It seems that my opponent is arguing the first so my main goal is to present a possible scenario where the needs of people are trampled by the quest for profit. I will try to keep this scenario short. My scenario would play out in the presence of several factors, none of which are impossible. They are as follows: A)A researcher working for a large multinational corporation(a corporation which among other things, makes and sells prescription drugs)discovers a cure for all forms of cancer. They're are many private and public institutions working towards various cures so this is within probability. This is at the very heart of the idealistic capitalist system. Driven by competition, companies work hard to create products better than the others and sell more to bring in a larger profit. This usually creates relatively low prices and fair quality products. But so long as supply and demand are at a reasonable level. The discovery and inferred end to cancer is attributed to the capitalist system. B)The corporation this researcher works for contractually have the rights to all discoveries and the researcher is rewarded a large sum of money for his discovery. He receives his reward so long as the corporation keeps rights on the cure. They patent this cure in a way that it is impossible for any other corporations of the same nature to create their own version of the drug. This corporation now, through legal capitalist means, owns the only cure for the world's most deadly disease. C)This corporation, seeing the huge possible profit, decide that they will make the most of this golden opportunity. This corporation decides to start selling the cure to the public but at an astronomical price. The leaders of this corporation see that they control the entire supply and that demand will always be high so long as the disease s not cured. This is a big point. It is not economically in the corporation's best interest to cure this disease. The clear economical and capitalist choice is to keep demand high by keeping supply low. They control the entire supply and through manipulating the supply can also control the demand. We know that it is right in capitalist terms to financially exploit millions of people and let countless thousands die just to keep up revenue. Be assured that most people will choose life over money. People with cancer at least. But is it ethically right to let countless die and send countless more into poverty just to make money. Most will say no when looking at the problem through a human perspective. But through a capitalist perspective it would be illogical and irrational to let all that potential money slip away. Conflict between the free market does not happen very often but it does happen. Just look at exploitation of child laborers in Britain during the Industrial Revolution. The story I created was an extreme version, albeit a possible version. When ever this happens it usually happens on a smaller scale like employers trying to act economical and therefore lower wages and create poorer working conditions. This is especially problematic in countries where unions are weak and workers are especially expendable. Should government step in to try to make sure these things don't happen? In order to keep exploitation to a minimum government needs to try it's best to keep exploitation down. The free market as we have seen only works to the employers benefit. It is irrational to leave EVERYTHING to the free market to decide. Sure, you can leave most to the free market and even argue for limited government interference, this is a more rational position. It's a way of fixing problems when the quest for profit conflicts with basic human needs. Nationalization of some industries is basically the same idea. Take the police force for example. Most would agree that it is good that we have a police force. Sometimes one might disagree with actions taken by the police, but most reasonably agree that the country, while not being free of crime, is more safe with public police who are by a set of rules then a police force of hired mercenaries. Take education. Sure their are also private schools and some of them are better then public schools, but with a nationalized school system, it is harder for radical groups to subvert important teachings from any given curriculum. Science is a great example. There are tons of members of the christian right who would teach american history as a country founded by christians for christians or teach that science and evolution in particular are evil and the work of satan while rational people know this concept to be ridiculous in nature and not backed in evidence. Nationalized education also makes school mandatory til a certain age. Nationalization of education slowly raises and raises the intelligence of the average person. Forced education may seem authoritarian but it is necessary so that we don't become a country of people intellectually stuck in the eighteenth century. I will end my arguments here to let con post his arguments.