Overregulation Was a Significant Cause for the Fall of the Roman Empire

Before I begin my rebuttals, I would like to reaffirm that I am not asserting that overregulation was the main, or even the most significant cause for the fall of the Roman Empire. I am only attempting to argue that overregulation was a significant cause. I am going to sort my opponent's arguments out. If I miss anything, please tell me in R4. I. The Barbarians While the 5th century barbarian invasions did cause the fall of the Roman Empire, it wouldn't have been possible without the deterioration from within due to other causes. Barbarians had been invading the empire since its existence. Why the empire was unable to defend its borders stems mostly from the debasement of the Roman currency. "At the beginning the debasement proved undoubtedly profitable for the state. Nevertheless, in the course of years, this expedient was abused and the century of inflation which had been thus brought about was greatly to the disadvantage of the State"s finances. "[1][2] This is what directly caused taxes to be raised. Further, citizens would pay their taxes in the debased currency and hoard the undebased currency. "By debasing the currency is meant that instead of a coin having its own intrinsic value, it was now only representative of the silver or gold it had once contained. "[3] This, coupled with the emperors' extravagance, emptied the Roman treasury. "The amount of gold sent to the orient to pay for luxury goods led to a shortage of gold to make Roman coins. "[4] This is what caused the Roman Army to be underfunded which required taxation. However, as taxation increased, revenues to the state actually fell due to widespread tax evasion. This forced the government to requisition property and force people to stay in one occupation. [1][5] By the end, there was no money, and the people, who had for centuries volunteered to defend the empire (i. e. Cincinatus) were unwilling to fight. They welcomed the barbarians. In the end, overtaxation and overspending (part of the definition) killed the empire. The barbarian invasions, which were the final blow to the Roman state in the fifth century, were simply the culmination of three centuries of deterioration in the fiscal capacity of the state to defend itself. [1] II. Economic vs. Political Issues Taxation and requisition of assets is definitely regulation, as it is preventing voluntary transactions from taking place. The rampant taxation drove away growth and trade and reduced the amount of money going into the treasury. Again, I included overtaxation and overspending in the definition of overregulation, and rightfully so. They both involve government interference in the marketplace. The emperor overtaxed the patricians in order to render them powerless. This made the burden of taxation fall to the lower classes, and this drove them into the small, closed estates of the wealthy, starting feudalism (see R2 part III for more information on this). Overall, even if there were errors in public policy, they were economic errors due to the regulation of the marketplace. The preexisting antagonism between the senators in the emperor fueled overregulation. Finally, I am not saying that "political issues" are less important than overregulation (see the beginning of my argument), although the errors in public policy could be considered to be overregulation because it is interference in the marketplace. Sources [1]: . http://www.cato.org... [2]: Bernardi, A. (1970) "The Economic Problems of the Roman Empire at the Time of Its Decline. " InCipolla,C. (ed. ) The Economic Decline of Empires, pp. 16"83. London: Methuen. [3]: . http://ancienthistory.about.com... [4]: . http://www.tribunesandtriumphs.org... [5]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...