Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

"Note to the reader: my opponent's sources that weren't just linking to government agencies were biased." -This is ad hominem. Pointing out bias is not pointing out inaccuracy, and/or relevance to the information I provided. "Liberty is a right of private companies because private companies are created by individuals, ran by individuals, and powered by individuals." -The liberty of one should not infringe upon the liberty of many. Regulation, though not perfect and ever changing, attempts to protect the liberties of the consumer, the worker, and the competition, thus ensuring the survival of Capitalism and Democracy. "Rampant abuse of employess can be solved through striking, a liberty of the individuals, and rampant abuse of the consumers results in business suicide." -Simply saying so does not make it so. My opponent fails to mention the fact that throughout the history of Capitalism corporate greed, excess, abuse of workers, etc. has resulted in regulation. Yes, many workers united and protested, went on strike, etc., but these actions alone did not change the way companies operate. The book, Government and the Economy: A Global Perspective, Continuum International Publishing Group, states: "In a capitalist system, private control of these productive enterprises is protected by the rule of law and a regulatory framework." "Therefore, such problems do not need to be solved by government regulations, which in fact restrict their liberty." -Restriction of liberty does not destroy liberty, it protects it. In 1937, the British economist John Maynard Keynes, showed in "The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money" that regulation can be effective, and that economic stabilizers can reign in aggressive expansions and recessions. In 1969, Paul Mattick credited Keynes' economic policies as the primary reason why Capitalism was able to recover from the Great Depression (The Limits of the Mixed Economy, Paul Mattick, 1969). A) Regulation reduces the success of Capitalism -My opponent claims that my affirmation, that there are benefits to regulation, is an incorrect assumption. It is not an assumption, it is a fact. It is also a fact that there are negatives to regulation, but to say the benefits are an assumption is to ignore completely the success of regulated Capitalism throughout the world. Regarding monopolies my opponent states: "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." My opponent ignores history. According to economist Milton Friedman, a monopoly exists when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. Though another company could hypothetically try to compete against a monopoly, it is the monopoly that controls access to the materials, product pricing, and market control. It is the smaller company that would have to raise their prices in order to survive. Take the example of a small company trying to compete with Wal-Mart. (http://www.nytimes.com...) On Collective Action: Though my opponent fails to understand the logic of collective action in it's entirety, he does give a limited example- companies joining together and agreeing to raise prices for their own profit. He claims this defeats the companies involved, yet provides no examples of how this defeats the companies involved. I would like to point out the example of OPEC- The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. This year, while everyone else in the world was suffering a recession, OPEC countries were experiencing record profits- as well as the companies served by OPEC. (http://www.planetark.org...) A quick example in the US is the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), and how it affects independent record labels and artists. (http://www.riaa.com...) With regard to Inadequate Information- again, my opponent comments on the subject without doing research. This is not limited to false advertisement, which is actually now largely suppressed by regulation. My opponent claims that regulation is unnecessary. If regulation were unnecessary, then so would investigations by a free press. This is akin to saying laws against crime are unnecessary because vigilante justice will take care of criminals. Without regulation, there would be no protection against false information being presented by the free press themselves. The individuals and private companies my opponent would seek to protect by de-regulation would then become the victims. With no checks and balances, where does the buck stop? My opponent claims that if an externality is unseen, no regulation can defeat it. I am amused by my opponent's continuous use of the word defeat. Economy is not a battle in which everything is black or white, success or defeat. Regulation protects consumers and business from unseen externalities. For example, regulations governing the FDIC protect consumers from losing up to $100,000 should a bank fail. Regulations provide for companies to file for bankruptcy, and corporate regulations protect individuals from losing their personal assets should their company fail. My opponent claims that copyright laws are unnecessary, on the one hand, and on the other hand they are necessary to protect companies from idea stealing. That is a contradiction. Regulations are laws of conduct, and general and permanent rules of a governing body. http://www.gpoaccess.gov... I have run out of room. Thank you.