Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

1. Anarchism (from same source) is also defined as: 3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority. My opponent rejects the encoded rules and regulations that govern our Capitalist economy under the Uniform Commercial Code, and other written rules and regulations that govern our Capitalist system. Also from the same source: 1. a political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint and the substitution of voluntary cooperation among individuals. Because my opponent proposes voluntary cooperation in commerce over the rule of law, I contend that my claim that he advocates economic anarchy stands. 2. My opponent contends that the Judicial System governs civil cases, and regulation is not needed to create a civil case. My opponent has ignored every definition of regulation. A law tells you what to do, a regulation tells you how to do it. Laws are basically non-functional without regulations, and that is why we have the Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.gpoaccess.gov...) (http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu...). The Judicial System cannot operate without regulations, as everything done through the court system is governed through procedural rules. Indeed many of our rights are protected by laws commanding adherence to procedural rules (http://www.lectlaw.com...). My opponent also doesn't understand copyrights. Copyrights are not "rights" unless they are protected by law. The Copyright Clause of the US Constitution allows for legislation of copyright laws (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Copyright laws are codified under Title 17 of the US Code of Federal Regulations, and are, therefore, regulations as well as laws. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) 3. My opponent's claims that the minimum wage raises prices and leads to company profits is contradictory to his claim that regulations harm Capitalism. Indeed, though I disagree with his assessment of the minimum wage, Capitalism is a profit driven economic system. He presented no rebuttal to my contention that regulation attempts to confine business to the rule of law, and so that argument stands intact. 4. My opponent now attempts to change his premise to state that regulated capitalism does not fail, but is harmed by regulation. His initial premise stated that regulation both harms and defeats Capitalism, and I even pointed out his excessive use of the word defeat in a previous round. Because this is a two part premise- regulation HARMS AND DEFEATS Capitalism, he has conceded this debate with this new premise. In conclusion, throughout this debate my opponent has ignored the fact that Capitalism is an economic system in which land, capital goods, and other resources, are owned, operated and traded chiefly by private individuals or corporations for the purpose of profit. Private control of enterprise in Capitalism is protected by the rule of law. In the US, the laws protecting and governing this system fall under the US Federal Code of Regulations. Without the USFCR, the Judicial System has no cards to play against violators of rights. The Enron failure was precipitated by fraud, money laundering, and conspiracies amongst other crimes. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) The indictment for the CEO alone was for 53 counts. The failure of Enron and the subsequent trials of executives helped preserve Capitalism. Had these regulations not existed these executives would have gotten away with cheating their employees out of millions (which they did regardless) more. Restriction of liberty leads to the protection of liberty. Were everyone at liberty to make their own judgments on every issue this would neither be a Democracy nor a Capitalistic society. Note that my opponent does not claim that regulation DEPRIVES one of liberty- regulation merely governs liberty through procedural rules meant to protect us from one another, thus ensuring that our rights as private citizens, owners, corporations, and partnerships are protected from the abuses that occur even with these regulations in place. My opponent in his last argument attempts to single out specific regulations, but this debate is not about specific regulations- it is about regulations in general. Specific regulations can be changed, but our system of codification of laws, rules, and regulations should not be abolished because my opponent might disagree with some of these laws, rules, or regulations. Capitalism does not exist without regulation. Without regulation Capitalism is anarchy. Without regulation, laws are unenforceable. Remember- this debate is not about the degree of regulation. This isn't about heavily regulated capitalism vs. lightly regulated capitalism, it is about regulated capitalism vs. non-regulated capitalism which would not protect anyone's rights. If no one's rights are protected by laws and procedures, then our rights to private ownership are left to the whims of the most powerful in the economy. This isn't about the bailouts that could have been PREVENTED through tougher regulation- the bailouts amount to Socialism. This also isn't about "badly" regulated Capitalism. My opponent claims that government oversight is unnecessary. This is what has been preached by Republicans for the past 28 years. Where has that gotten us? The current economic crisis screams for oversight and tougher laws, but my opponent would have you believe that less oversight, and even no oversight is the answer. Let the companies govern themselves. Let plastic companies use whatever chemicals they want in their bottles. Let children's toys be colored with lead paint. Let farmers market their mad-cow tainted beef. Let avian-flu ridden chicken be shipped to US supermarkets from Asia. Can you just imagine the world if we had NO government oversight in our markets? I think we all know things wouldn't work out as my opponent suggests...Thank you.