Deregulated Capitalism is Superior to Alternatives

1. You can give examples of your objection all you want it still doesn't hold any truth. Yes, this WOULD be true if I didn't provide any evidence for my thesis but I did. I show historical instances in which the free market does cause problems and and the instances where government has has solved those problems effectively. Now, this is not a concession, pro likes to think that a concession means that his opponent agrees with him although that is not the definition of a concession, again he leaves out part of his definition to help his case. 2. How is this cherry picking? The system of government does not fall under the same definition of the system of government that my opponent proposed. If anything, my opponent is guilty of a faulty generalization. Just because States have one thing in common (that they are both governments) does not mean they are the same. I didn't use symbolic logic since my opponent is confused by this. You have different types of states you have democracies, monarchies, oligarchies, theocracies, etc. Objection #1. I don't really know what this objection really has to do with... well anything since we are arguing which system of government is better and I am arguing for democratic socialism. Again just because democratic socialism has something in common (state intervention) with another form government it doesn't make them equal. Objections #2. My starting point is a consequence of the short comings of the non-aggression principle. Since this principle does not benefit most people it is rational for them to make laws that limit abuses of the free market hence we create institutions that effectively stop this. Iceland, Norway, Canada, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, France, those are socialist democracies that are effective and who have a better standard of living than the United States. How many countries can anyone name with a government who's economic policy is purely based on the non-aggression principle (they don't even have to have a better standard of living than the US)? NONE. So if my opponent wants to use this argument he destroys the premise of his argument since it has never been tested. B.) My opponent is trying to belittle my argument by saying that things that are commonly seen as bad should not be outlawed. His argument comes down to "we can't stop people from doing bad things, so lets only do something in the most extreme of cases." My opponent is being ambiguous, how does the state allow people to attack each other when the law would prevent it? For his second rebuttal I like to remind my opponent that he used the examples of the state having guns. I just used his logic to show him that people can revolt if they see their government is becoming dictatorial or too coercive. 3.) This is a straw man I never conceded since I never disagreed in the first place. Furthermore if my opponent's logic that people's votes don't count is true than a state can become aggressively coercive in any form of government including my opponent's. Thus his objection from round 3 breaks down. 4.) Actually, we can point to our own government to see that the majority is not the final say. We have a two bi-cameral congress. One represents the majority (the house) and the other represents the minority (the senate). These two houses balance each out thus you have a check. My opponent should read up on history so he doesn't make absolute statements. 1.) This is not a random outcome, my opponent is creating a red herring by simply calling it one. You said new firms are allowed to enter if a firm has a monopoly over the market. I gave you a real life situation where this isn't the case. You're not allowed to physically attack people under capitalism but a monopoly is allowed to lower prices so that weaker firms are not competitive. Again, for the third time, I go to the definition of a monopoly. My opponent's objection of buildings being freed up is analogous to if a farmer works a plot of land the whole season and his crops burn down before he can yield anything it is not all bad since he has more room to work with. Again, I never said this but my opponent likes use straw men to further his case. It's actually sort of funny that my opponent is using a term from 1984 as an ad hominem since the writer Eric Blair (George Orwell) actually identifies himself as a democratic socialist. Fail. B. Ok I won't use symbolic logic as it confuses you. Using money to by things you like does not make money lose its value. You could like things that involve lots and lots of money so therefore you want to make as much of it as possible. Again, I did not concede to you because i never said greed wasn't a part of the human condition, you're putting words in my mouth again. Again not only did I say it "could use regulations to mitigate the effects of greed," I gave you real life examples where it was effective. Again, I ask you how does regulation of the free market give people the right to attack each other? Again, you have an unsubstantiated claim. Why is there any reason to believe that artificial shortages are temporary? Again, this a faulty generalization socialist democracies do not operate the same way as the nations in opec. My opponent wants to say that because they have one thing in common they are all equally tyrannical. According to my opponents definition of cherry picking we can include his form of government since telling people not to murder or commit fraud is a form of coercion. My opponent's economic system on the other hand has a lot of things in common with the United States in the pre-progressive era both were virtually unregulated and they were under a democratic system. My standard oil objection points out the shortcomings of an economic system that strictly employed a non-aggression principle stance. A. It made the market smaller B. it did illegal (non-capitalist) things and continued to until government intervened My opponents objections actually supports my case. One example of a commodity that governments are better at providing is healthcare. The United States which has a private healthcare system pays more per capita than any country in the world. In the best case European countries spend 3 times less on healthcare than The US does. Let's see here... I think paying 3 times less is better than paying 2 times less. Oh yeah and the consumer pays nothing. Not only do they offer it for free but France, Canada and many others allow private companies to compete. Britain has sustained this for over 45 years. E) International Harvester and American Tobacco intentionally deceived consumers by saying their product would cure anything from menstrual cramps to asthma. Again this deception went on till government intervened. G) My opponent is guilty of ambiguity. How exactly is breaking monopolies up not letting an economy get to a full scale? If anything it's harmful to a consumer because there are less choices. 2) A. My opponent is basically saying... we'll trust the market so long as they promise they won't hurt us, this doesn't sound to reassuring. B. ) Yes, this is true so long as there is competition C.) This sounds good ideally but this is not the case since companies have used Coercive means to dismantle unions so the worker would not have a voice. Even in my opponents stance this could be perfectly legal since it is not aggressive to fire an employee if they so choose to join a union. http://www.kff.org... http://www.investopedia.com... http://www.businessweek.com... http://www.mapsofworld.com... I hope those are trustworthy enough for my opponent even though he uses a cite that freshmen english classes don't let you use as a source.