laissez-faire should exist but does not

hey azjar, don't worry about being late or whatever. i'm just glad you aren't like the other people that accept a debate then never present an argument. so thanks for responding. -welfare first of all let me remind the readers of this debate that welfare is the extortion of wealth from those who produce by the "humanitarians" in government which is then distributed to those who consume yet do not produce in return. under this system of capitalism, it says that the producers are slaves while the "humanitarians" are thieves. the thieves are initiators of force which is one founding principle laissez-faire opposes. by initiation of force i mean that people will use force of any sort to achieve their ends. much like a bank robber. but i ask you, how is a bank robber different from someone on welfare? the difference is that the government actually condones a poor person to take the money away from us where as a robber usually conceals his/her identity and sometimes kills for the money he/she is about to steal. obviously i am opposed welfare and do not think it is necessary in any way. "That a man does not have riches and another does, is no excuse for the first to rob the latter -- neither is it a moral justification for the state to rob the first for the benefit of the latter. " despite the direct opposition to welfare, capitalism DOES allow for the poor to create a fortune but it all goes back to government interference. when you look at early 20th century america, we can agree that hundreds of poor immigrants who couldn't speak english flooded our country. yet within just a generation, they became our elite. all of this was accomplished without government regulation and welfare. even today, immigrants and/or those that were simply born into poverty are here starting with nothing yet ending with a great fortune or a fortune that would not require them to ask for money. you just don't hear about this happening too much and it is a lot more rare to see this because of the immoral and irrational REGULATIONS that don't allow the people that urgently need to accumulate capital to do so. laissez-faire did not create poverty, it inherited it. -the great depression let us also realize that again, government regulation created the depression. there was a nationwide decrease in production and bad investments were made into unprofitable industries. these bad investments can only exist when the government overrides the system of checks and balances provided by the free market. basically making money cheap. this cheap money results in irrational investments into industries that would appear unprofitable if the government did not intervene into the money supply. the result of these bad investments initially made is a depression and then the market tries to recover from basically throwing money away. in this case we call it, the great depression. laissez-faire should have existed in the first place to prevent this from ever happening. you go on to say that the government basically saved our nation during the depression. let me tell you what the government DID. the fed was created by a government supported agency that was supposed to be in charge of our monetary policy. the federal reserve is no more federal then federal express. it is a privately owned bank set up by big business and big corporations that contribute to why we are in debt. the government borrows money from the fed so they can overspend like they currently do. the fed charges interest that way they can remain in business. the interest they charge is where our taxes come in. taxes are charged by the government to keep repaying the fed the billions of dollars they owe them. so you mean to tell me the government saved us by taxing us? who would've thought that years later it would bite us in the butt. and by the way, there is no law requiring us to pay taxes, so why do we? if the federal reserve was actually federal, then don't you think the government would have made a law requiring the payment of taxes? but they can't make a law for us to pay into something they thought would be the solution to the great depression which ended up contributing to our debt. -patriot act thank you for helping me prove why laissez-faire should exist. in the first round i briefly discussed why the patriot act violates our freedoms and in the end results in at least some sort of profiling. this was the basis of my argument, that we are called a capitalistic society yet we have people in washington wanting to pass an act violating our freedoms. how interesting. -tariffs a tariff is a tax on goods upon being imported. how would this tax benefit us? better yet, how do tariffs help the american worker? tariffs do nothing but create firms that distort markets through government-imposed monopoly or oligopoly power. also, look into the principle of comparative advantage. what matters during trade is the opportunity cost of production, NOT the absolute cost. -anti-trust regulations i'm afraid you are mistaken my friend. the anti-trust laws we have today are designed to prohibit monopolies and unfair business practices which is one thing laissez-faire is in accordance with. what anti-trust regulations are you talking about that laissez-faire would do away with? -social programs aiding the poor if social programs that aided poor actually existed, we wouldn't need welfare would we? i have already discussed how laissez-faire would not "make the poor poorer". -minimum wage it shouldn't exist so thank you again for helping me prove laissez-faire should exist. why should EVERY worker getting payed at minimum wage receive the same pay when you and i both know not every worker is as good as the other? they should get paid based on their productivity and quality of the product. you cannot place an equal monetary value on inconsistent production. minimum wage just gives more people the incentive to not try as much as they could and not produce the best possible product they can make so long as they get their paycheck. everything i've said about laissez-faire boils down to elimination of big business and government regulation that would regulate EVERYTHING. i don't see where you're getting the idea that laissez-faire is the culprit to "massive foreign conglomerates and huge US businesses". laissez-faire stands for the complete opposite as i have proved in my previous arguments. anti-trust is a good thing but don't blame laissez-faire for the lack of it. blame the government. certain regulation is good for our country like anti-trust, but at the same time the government needs to understand its role: protection of its citizens not unecessary interference.