Deregulated Capitalism is Superior to Alternatives

The tags have been completely destroyed. I'll do my best to keep this organized. === Pro Case === 1) Trivial Formulation I know that free markets/states are defined differently than mailboxes, but the structure of Con's argument does not depend on these definitions. Let me try several examples since I have space: If free markets cause problems, governments should fix them If governments cause problems, free markets should fix them If free markets cause problems, free markets should fix them If Bobby causes problems, Randy should fix them Those statements are all true. They reveal nothing because the sentence will be true as long as "Problems should be fixed". It is non sequitur to choose any particular noun combination and make it the basis of your political philosophy. 2) Violation of Ceteris Parabis Assumptions A) Double Standard We both agree that I should have to bite into any harms created by free markets. However, he does not think he bites into the harms of communist dictatorships because he is only advocating politically correct governments like Euro microstates. He can't cherry pick whatever system he wants for at least two reasons. First, democratic socialism is not the logical consequence of state intervention. DemSoc institutions have no genesis mechanism. He's just fiating "Good Government" into existence while ignoring incentives and social theory. He chooses a good outcome where everyone is plugged into functioning institutions, claims that as his starting point, and calls it political philosophy. I could make the free market look pretty good too if I started everyone off plugged into friendly businesses... But I don't. I have to show how institutions are built in capitalism. He needs to show how institutions are built when you violate the Non-Aggression Axiom. Second, he suffers from selection bias. He's looking at successful DemSoc states, but doesn't talk about DemSoc failures. I doubt there is an easy list of DemSoc governments and movements, but altogether demsoc probably has something like a 10% success rate [1] His advocacy comes down to gambling an entire country's future just because he's afraid of monopoly pricing. B) Turn Against States Again, Con invokes his "bad things are bad" approach when he says there should be laws against jerks. It would be nice if we could snap our fingers and make everyone play nice, but we cannot. The introduction of the state and removal of the Non-Aggression Axiom solves nothing. It makes things worse because you allow citizens to attack each other through the state apparatus. Con's response seems to focus on individual gun rights, which is not what I'm talking about. States monopolize law by definition. 3) Assumption of Control Con concedes that he doesn't get to control state behavior. He just says people might think it prudent to regulate bad market outcomes, and pays brief lip service to democracy. Individuals will fail to vote seriously in democracies because the chance their vote will influence an election is virtually zero if there are more than 10 people. Even an election that turns out 49.999% to 50.001% will still differ by hundreds of votes. If nobody votes seriously then democracy is totally ineffective. He also mentions interpersonal comparisons of utility which are impossible because we lack an objective touchstone. 4) Aggressive Monopolies Are Bad Con thinks the majority might be able to restrain the federal government. This is a red herring. In a democracy, the majority is sovereign. They elect the judges who interpret laws, the legislature who make laws, and the executives who enforce laws. There are no checks and balances that can hold power over the majority. === Con Case === 1) Deregulation Inadvertently Makes the Free Market Less Free A) Theory of Collusion Con completely drops collusion, and now wants us to consider if there were already a monopoly on some commodity. Again, Con doesn't explain why he can ask us to examine random outcomes as theoretical starting points, but what the hell. The answer is simply that other firms can enter the market by offering lower prices. The monopolist can't stop them from entering the market because you're not allowed to physically attack other people under capitalism. His wal-mart analysis is backwards. If fewer physical fewer stores can satisfy demand, more resources like empty buildings and workers are freed up to be used in the rest of the economy, expanding economic output. In Con's world, everyone sits around duplicating each others' efforts and society never moves forward because "going out of business" is evidence of "monopoly" which means "bad" in newspeak. B) Capitalism and the Profit Motive Con... confuses me. But everything's okay because he concedes that greed is part of the human condition. His whole claim to fame is that there could be regulations to mitigate the effects of greed. There could also be magical teleportation pads that solve the energy crisis. Theoretical possibility is not relevant to political philosophy. Con misunderstands and thinks I'm talking about arms proliferation again... "Screwing people over with guns" means aggression, which is what I want to focus on. Maybe they use sticks or bazookas. I don't care. The point is that giving people the right to attack each other doesn't solve anything, especially if some of them are jerks. C) High Profits I don't get a response on the price mechanism. Extend to demonstrate how the market tackles monopolies. Con complains that monopolies might reduce output and raise prices, this temporary at worst. The high profits in a monopolized industry fuel competition that brings down prices. Con doesn't think the OPEC example applies to him because they are not social democracies. But we're not letting him just cherry pick the best possible theoretical state, so these countries serve as an example of what can happen if you violate the Non-Aggression Axiom. D) Standard Oil Con gives a list of some naughty things Standard Oil has done. First, some of these are actually anti-capitalist since they involve initiation of force against competitors. The other techniques such as secret dealings were available to ALL oil companies, and therefore do not present special advantage for Standard Oil. His source on this is also from linfo.org, a linux help website. It contains no external links to the points he references. Wikipedia is a superior objective source... maybe we could both just use that. Con does not respond to my overall point that the price of Kerosene was cut in half over 5 years. Seriously, no government has ever become so efficient so quickly. E) International Harvester/American Tobacco/US Steel Completely dropped. Everything below this was dropped. Most debate paradigms count drops as concessions... F) Anti Monopoly Laws Extend harms to Con because he deprives consumers of economy of scale. G) Natural Monopolies are Good Because they incentivize innovation and the creation of new industries. H) Monopolies are Fundamental to Markets Because improvement requires firms to gain unique edges over their competitors. 2) Firms Wont Serve Consumers A) Consumer Health Harms mitigated via contract, intermediaries, and private certification. B) Firm Self Interest Firms serve consumers diligently because they are trying to maintain/capture market share from other firms C) Safety Regulations Firms also compete for employees, so working conditions improve as employers demand a larger portion of their wages go to working conditions. 3) Worker Oppression Competition between firms raises wages to the employee's marginal contribution to the firm. Also extend my observation and source on hours/week worked. Sources [1] I'll do some actual number crunching if challenged on this. Here is an incomplete list http://tinyurl.com... I'm afraid to do lots of research because Con may just sit around disputing my selection choices.