Deregulated Capitalism is Superior to Alternatives

I will now begin with my arguments. My opponent believes that deregulated capitalism that is based on the non-aggression principle is the best of any alternative to any economic theory out there. I will prove that this economic system when compared to a more regulated free market, such as in the social democracies in western Europe, would be less favorable for society as a whole. This argument is based on three contentions: 1. Deregulation Inadvertently Makes the Free Market Less Free In the case of deregulated capitalism there can be fierce competition among a plethora of consumer choices and this is good for the consumer. After all if a consumer does not like whatever one provider of a service or commodity is selling they can always go to another one. However, if these choices dwindle because one provider is out competing another or they decide to merge because they would make more of a profit by doing so this would create less freedom in the market. Since the goal of a provider in capitalism is to get the maximum output of profit with the minimum input of funds we see how it is rational to think that some of these cases in which a provider is bought out by another happen often. Consequently, this may bring down the quality of goods and may leave them at a fixed price that may be costly. Since the provider has no competition and and he could be dealing with a commodity which is in high demand (such as oil), it is completely rational for him to charge a very high price for a low quality product. Again, I refer to the goal of capitalism. We can see how these specific conditions would detrimental for consumers since A. they are not getting the best possible product out of a provider and B. They have no other choice so they have to buy an expensive product. Based on the non-aggression principle which is defined as: an ethical stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate (this also includes fraud upon a person or his property), there is nothing a government can do because price fixing is A. not aggressive B. it is not fraud since that is the price of the commodity if the provider so chooses it and no one can tell him otherwise (so technically he isn't lying. ) Furthermore not only can I provide rationality behind why monopolies form but I can provide examples of companies that have become monopolies during the 1800's and early 1900's, the most deregulated period of business in our history: Standard oil International Harvester and American Tobacco US Steel Finally a government that is not bound by the non-aggression principle can put anti-monopoly laws into place. This would make for more consumer freedom and an overall better climate since this makes the market more competitive which brings about lower prices and better products. 2. A System of Economics Based on the Non-aggression Principle Would be Less Safe and Discourage Economic Growth Since non-aggression principle covers consumers only in the cases of initiated aggression or fraud, it cannot possibly cover everything that can be detrimental to a consumers health. These things include lead in baby toys, toxic ingredients in products for consumption such as tobacco, food, water, alcohol, and finally safety regulations for automobiles which our society (reality) deems safe. Again, the goal of a provider in capitalism is to provide the smallest input possible with the maximum output possible, so the less you spend on safety without actually killing someone the better off you are. I have to objections to this, 1. Again deregulated capitalism fails the consumer since they again are not getting the best possible product because of a lack of safety 2. If the products that the consumer buys are hurting him it is irrational for him to buy these products. My opponent can come back and say you do not need, a car, tobacco, alcohol, or baby toys to live so you have a choice. Yes, I would grant him that however he says deregulated capitalism is the BEST of all possible alternatives, clearly, we see that a society in which consumers do not buy commodities for fear of dying is not the best of all possible alternatives (not to mention he still has to hurdle through the fact that we need water and food for survival. ) Again, my opponent can come back and say, the market would take care of safety regulations on its own by the choice of the consumer. However, there are direct examples from our history in which the market did not take care of safety regulations until government stepped in such as, the meat packing industry and pharmaceutical industry. Granted that safety regulations on the free market do not insure the safety of the consumer, however, this is better than the alternative. Finally in a system in which the free market is more trustworthy through a system of sanctions and rewards for being safe would encourage consumer input and thus make a society prosper. 3. Decreased Regulation Encourages Oppression of Workers The non-aggression principle fails the worker in the sense that so as long as the owner of a workplace does not initiate aggression or commits fraud against him it is within in his power to choose whatever he wants with the worker if the worker chooses to work at his establishment. This means things like wage, hours, benefits, breaks, and safety regulations are completely up to the owner of the establishment. Again, the owner wants to output the most as possible with inputting the least possible. If we hold this to be true (which anyone who has the slightest idea of what capitalism is would agree with me) it would be completely rational for him to pay his workers little to no pay (according to any standards in any society), give him no breaks, make him work as long as humanly possible, give him no benefits, and throw safety regulations out the window so long as productivity is up. One argument could be that the worker has a choice in where he wants to work and that is a rational argument. However, if most of the providers of a service are trying to act as rationally as possible they will all treat workers the same because that it is what will maximize their output. So the worker is left to choose between tweedle dee and tweedle dumb and they will choose either way because they need to survive. In a society in which a government lays out certain parameters for how a workplace should treat its workers would be more A. more prosperous because the standard of living would go up for everyone B. workers would have an incentive other than survival and thus live a more of a happy life.