Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

"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. " One's purpose and one's result are two different things. In a similar fashion, anarchists and communists both believe that their system is perfect. However, this does not mean that it is. I am arguing that most of the problems that my opponent sees solve themselves. "My opponent fails to mention the fact that throughout the history of Capitalism corporate greed, excess, abuse of workers, etc. has resulted in regulation. " This is true, but what happens and what should happen are two different things as well. One cannot assume that if protests against unsafe conditions had continued, it would have had no effect. Government just decided to regulate. That doesn't mean that regulation is best for the economy. And companies must appeal to the consumers in a capitalist system; otherwise, yes, they will fail. "Exceptional customer service results in greater customer retention, which in turn results in higher profitability. " . http://www.1000ventures.com... My opponent contends that regulation protects liberty by. .. Well, he didn't give a reason. So, nullify this claim. He then sourced something that said that regulation can be effective and that it got us out of the Great Depression. However, it is commen knowlege that World War II got us out of the global depression, and that regulation might have prolonged it. "The end to the Great Depression came about in 1941 with America's entry into World War II. " . http://www.americaslibrary.gov... This probably occurred in England as well. "New Deal securities laws made it harder for employers to raise capital. " . http://www.cato.org... "J. M. Keynes -- a liberal icon -- criticized some of FDR's policies as hindering recovery from the depression. " . http://www.cato.org... (same source) A) Regulation reduces the success of capitalism. ". .. the success of regulated Capitalism throughout the world. " Yes, regulated capitalism has been successful. I am not arguing that. I am arguing that unregulated capitalism would be more successful. As conceded by my opponent, capitalism's flexibility is greatly weakened by safety regulations, etc. , which I have already argued are unnecessary and collectively weaken capitalism. Therefore, they reduce the success of capitalism. Monopolies- "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. " On the contrary, it is impractical that a monopoly controls all access to the materials. For example, a monopoly (besides perhaps the government) could not practically own every silver mine in the world. Therefore, it is possible for another company to mine silver and sell it cheaper or in a better way. This company would be independent of the monopoly, and could easily compete with an oppressive monopoly in price; therefore, competition would be quite possible. Such competition ends the monopoly and forces the company to compete. Besides, plenty of local grocery stores compete with WalMart. For example, Kroger offers fuel discounts and has a "Kroger Plus" program that all attract business. . http://www.kroger.com... Collective Action- My "limited example" was my best guess at what my opponent meant by that (he was very broad). Collective Action defeats the companies involved because it is easier for a non-participating company to compete with companies that have all joined together and risen prices. Further, OPEC does not help my opponent because no regulation could effect any Collective Action that OPEC took (it is international). . http://www.opec.org... Inadequate Information- It is not necessary for something to be illegal in order for it to have negative effects. 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. This would drastically harm the company and probably kill it. Further, competition could use this information to smear such companies much like politicians do after the debates. Customers are obviously less likely to buy from corrupt companies. As a result, companies would volunteer to put out adequate information. Externalities- Banruptcy is not a regulation, but a business right. Bankruptcy does not prevent externalities. This is what I thought my opponent was arguing. Further, the government handing out money to those who lose money when a bank fails does not accomplish much, for society pays this money right back to government through taxes. . http://www.treasury.gov... Copyrights- I was not claiming that they were unnecessary, only that they often fail through evasion or falsification. Copyright laws are necessary to protect and encourage innovation. They are a right of the individual or of the company, and are not regulations. Regulation is indeed unnecessary. As I have proven through my various arguments, all intents of regulation can be accomplished without such regulations through the capitalist system. B) Government regulation defeats the purpose of capitalism. Capitalism cherishes liberty. Regulations restrict liberty. This contradiction shows that regulations on business are contrary to the nature of capitalism. This point stands. It has not been argued against for two rounds in a row. I request that my opponent not post until Wednesday afternoon so that I may post a thorough argument next time.