Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

"I am arguing that most of the problems..." -My opponent has only presented hypothetical situations that the logic proves contrary. If given the opportunity to operate outside the rule of law, companies will do what they can to make a profit. My opponent claims to be defending Capitalism, but is, in fact, defending anarchism. "This is true..." -The same argument can be used against my opponent, however I have not acknowledged any of his hypothesis. He admits that it is true that corporate greed, excess, abuse of workers, etc. has resulted in regulation. This regulation attempts to confine business to the rule of law. Anarchism and Capitalism are incompatible. "One cannot assume..." -One can definitely assume this. When the rule of law is not on the side of the workers it is the controllers of commodities, services, products, etc. that have the upper hand. Protesting workers can be replaced by unemployed workers who are willing to work for less. Without regulation, any unhappy worker can be replaced with undocumented workers. "Government just decided to regulate." -Government doesn't just "decide" to regulate. Capitalism was designed to operate under the rule of law. Capitalism is the preferred economic system of Democracy, and has been the most successful BECAUSE of the laws that govern it. "That doesn't mean that regulation..." -Again, my opponent makes claims but does not substantiate them. Where are his examples of a successful, functioning anarchist economic system? "And companies must appeal to the consumers..." -What subjugates companies to consumers is the rule of law. Consumer protection laws are what protect consumers, not consumers themselves. "Exceptional customer service results in greater customer retention..." -That is true, but customer service does not protect the consumer. Customer retention does not mean the customer is not being ripped off, exposed to dangerous substances, or participating in horrible acts and employee abuse like sweat shops and child labor. "My opponent contends that regulation protects liberty by... Well, he didn't give a reason. So, nullify this claim." -My right to liberty will not be infringed upon by coercion, lack of competition, dangerous chemicals in my food, etc. etc. etc. Regulation definitely protects my liberty. If my employer is racist, regulation protects my right to a non-hostile workplace through equal employment opportunity laws. If an employer is sexist, those same laws protect women. "However, it is commen knowlege that World War II got us out of the global depression..." -I cited two renowned economists in making this statement. My opponent relies on a faulty assumption of coincidence. He shows no correlation other than the end of the Great Depression coincided with America's entry into WWII. That is akin to saying 9/11 occurred because Bill Clinton was no longer in office. "I am arguing that unregulated capitalism would be more successful." -Yet you have not shown how. Capitalism without the rule of law is not Capitalism, but anarchism. "As conceded by my opponent, capitalism's flexibility is greatly weakened by safety regulations, etc..." -I made no such concession. "On the contrary, it is impractical that a monopoly controls all access to the materials." -My opponent is attempting to refute an established fact of economy with his own opinion. I would suggest he study the issue before attempting to fool the readers with sheer verbosity. My opponent's silver example has already been proven untrue with my example of oil cartels like OPEC, and with the Democratic Republic of Congo's grip on the diamond trade. "Besides, plenty of local grocery stores compete with WalMart. For example, Kroger" -This does not refute my example. Kroger is not a small LOCAL business. "My "limited example" was my best guess" -Rather than guessing I suggest my opponent study the issue. I am sure he will realize on his own that he is wrong. "Further, OPEC does not help my opponent because no regulation could effect any Collective Action that OPEC took (it is international)." -I used the example to educate you so that you wouldn't have to guess. It is also a solid example of how the lack of regulation does not enhance Capitalism, rather it works against it. "If the public found out through a private investigation (either from the press or from competition) that a company was lying to them, then they would distrust the company, and never believe its advertisements again." -The tobacco industry got away with it for years. It was regulation that finally reigned them in. (http://www.druglibrary.org...) "Banruptcy is not a regulation, but a business right." -Actually, it's a process governed by regulation. Without regulation (rules and laws) there are no rights. (http://www.ncwb.uscourts.gov...) "Bankruptcy does not prevent externalities." -No, but it protects individuals and businesses from not only bad decisions, but unforeseen circumstances. "Copyrights- I was not claiming that they were unnecessary, only that they often fail through evasion or falsification." -So because laws sometimes fail we should remove them? The laws protect the copyright holder through remedy. "Copyright laws are necessary to protect and encourage innovation. They are a right of the individual or of the company, and are not regulations." (http://www.copyright.gov...) The government begs to differ... There are various proofs that capitalism needs regulation. Enron, Tyco- just to name a couple. Regulation dictates a minimum hourly wage, which protects workers. It ensures that employees are hired for their qualifications, not race, gender, religion, etc. Anti-trust regulation undid the Bell monopoly that prevented consumers from enjoying the prices of competition. I could go on and on, but the debate format does not allow enough characters. Regulat