Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

Note to the reader: my opponent's sources that weren't just linking to government agencies were biased. Liberty is a right of private companies because private companies are created by individuals, ran by individuals, and powered by individuals. Therefore, corporal liberty is a right of individuals. Rampant abuse of employess can be solved through striking, a liberty of the individuals, and rampant abuse of the consumers results in business suicide. Therefore, such problems do not need to be solved by government regulations, which in fact restrict their liberty. A) Regulation reduces the success of capitalism. My opponent contends that there are benefits to regulation. This is an incorrect assumption. My opponent contends that regulation protects companies from market failure due to monopolies, collective action, inadequate information, and unseen externalities. Monopolies- A monopoly is an industry controlled by one entity. This is harmful because competition has been eliminated. However, if a company takes advantage of this (raising prices, not innovating, etc. ) then there will be an increased demand for a new company to rise up with lower prices or more advanced innovation to defeat such a monopoly. Therefore, monopolies either help the public or defeat themselves. Regulation is unnecessary. Collective Action- I assume that my opponent means companies joining together and agreeing to raise prices for their own profit. This also defeats the companies involved. A company that does not participate will have a huge advantage in competition due to lower prices as well as the ability to leak this to a free press, which would defeat these companies. Regulation is unnecessary. Inadequate information- My opponent is referring to false advertising I assume. However, a free press can perform indipendent studies. A company lying about its product is suicide. The press would hold them accountable, and the company would be defeated. Knowing this, a company would avoid putting out false information. Regulation is unnecessary. Unseen externalities- If an externality is unseen, no regulation can defeat it. Regulation is unnecessary. Innovative benefits- (Copyrights and patents) Plenty of foreign companies avoid or do not enforce international copyright law. . http://www.ifla.org... Further, many companies and individuals either go around each other's copyrights and patents or steal eachother's patents anyways. . http://inventors.about.com... Copyright law is ineffective in protecting the market. However, a method is needed to protect innovative companies from idea-stealing. And such a method is not considerred regulation anyways. A regulation is designed to control conduct, while a copyright law is designed to ensure that a company profits in its ideas. Besides, stealing is traditionally considered to be traditionally immoral behavior, which is not considered regulation in this debate. Unsafe work conditions- Again, strikes are the solution. Strikes are cause by such things as unsafe work conditions. The result always harms the company. A company that can't get workers to work will fail. A result will be the forced improvement of working conditions. . http://www.ueh.edu.vn... Therefore, a smart company would not have unsafe work conditions in the first place. Regulation is unnecessary. Unsafe products- On the contrary: regulation keeps safe products from being put on the market quickly. My opponent has sourced three different government bureaucracies (do we need three? ) that thoroughly check every new product for every government regulation out there. It takes months for products to not only be tested by the companies that plan to market and sell them, but also multiple years for the government to check the products for the possibility of being against a safety regulation or for being harmful in some way. However, the selling of unsafe products is also market suicide for a company. The free press would report this. The company would go under and the product would not be bought. Knowing this, a smart company would not put out unsafe products. Regulation is unnecessary. Frivolous lawsuits- I ask my opponent to elaborate. If lawsuits are truly frivolous, then the justice system would not allow them. Regulation is unnecessary. Knowing that regulation is unnecessary, and their purposes don't need to be solved with regulation. Regulation limits the flexibility and thus the greatness of a capitalist market. Therefore, regulation reduces the success of capitalism. B) Government Regulation defeats the purpose of capitalism. My opponent got off topic and conceded this point. I'm running out of characters, so I will rebut his other arguments part briefly. $124 Billion in taxpayer money is insignificant when put into perspective. . http://www.infoplease.com... Further, instead of saying that the failure of a regulatory bureau can be solved with moe regulations, one can say that the bureau should not have existed in the first place. It can be argued that the federal government should not insure savings and loans, and such a governmental failure resulted in the loss of so much money. Further, in a capitalist system, the government does not bail out banks or other companies when they fail. To bail out such companies teaches them that the government will protect them when they make blunders. It is the fear of making such blunders that keeps them from making stupid loans, etc. Anomolies in business are part of a capitalist system. Foolish decisions cause companies to die. Failing to innovate makes companies die. Raising prices unfairly makes companies die. This death threat keeps them from doing such things. Regulation is unnecessary and harms the capitalist system. I await my opponent's response.