Worker Cooperatives(pro) versus traditional, capitalist businesses(con)

I agree with my opponent that government bailouts are shameful, and those companies should be allowed to fail. I also agree that we need to get the government out of business. However, there is one thing that has me perplexed about my opponents argument. He claims not to be advocating for government intervention to make coops the only legal business form, yet he argues that it should be required in all economics classes that students be taught about cooperatives. Who do we suppose would implement said requirment? It would have to be the government. He argues that banks shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against coops, another way of saying that is, banks should be FORCED to do business with coops. There is only one player that could implement these requirments, the government! My opponent argues that if the government were to drop all regulations on businesses, that would leave us seeking an alternative, such as cooperatives, but that is simply conjecture, it is only an opinion on what could possibally happen. In my opinion, if all regulations were scrapped, such as minimum wage requirements, then businesses could produce at a lower cost, which would bring down prices. Lower prices means higher buying power for consumers, including lower income consumers, and the cost of living would go down for all. People would have more money to save, or even start a small business themselves. It would be very difficult for coops to be competative in that economic environment and still stay commited to their social and communal standards. Not to say they would disapear all together, but they wouldn't cause all of society to ditch their capitalist system, and emrace a cooperative system as a whole. Another alternative would be small local startups. The biggest threat to coops and conventional corporations alike, is small businesses. They could infuse competative wages into the system which can be troublesome to coops, and they often offer a higher quality product as opposed to corporations. Small businesses were the reason the coop wave of the seventees died out, because they could cater to the specialized needs of costumers of the coops.http://www.foodandnutrition.org...Even the largest corporations started small. Even the evil ones (wal-mart) started as a local department store. When people start a small business, there probably not thinking, someday I want a multi trillion dollar corporation whose employees will treat me thier messiah, and will do my bidding, then they and my army of lawyer will buy, sell and trade the world. Mwa ha ha!! Small businesses start with small ambitions, and much blood sweat and tears. Most will fail, because business is a risk, but some will fall into meager success, and hopefully will be able to grow. When you start a business, is it wrong for you to want it to become successful enough to support your family? Even further, is it wrong if it is successful enough for your family to be well off, or your childrens children to be well off? Perhaps you become so successful that your family may not have to worry about finances for many generations to come. But where do we draw the moral line in the sand? At what point is it that this entrepenuar has turned from being concerned for his/her family, to an evil maniacal, machine bent on global domination? Perhaps the shocking answer is never. We all want it to be that they're evil, and not concerned for anyone but themselves, but sometimes it's just not that easy. We all want societies monsters to be monsters, and that's it. But those monsters have fears, and passions, and love too. Perhaps the monsters aren't real. Who's to say the owners of these large, multi-national conglomerates don't care about their workers, and that the painful decisions they make that effect the lives of so many, aren't painful to them? At one time, Sam Walton was just the owner of a local department store. (not to say I like wal-mart, just trying to make a point).Again, you wont hear me arguing against the social and communial initiatives that coops address, but the higher wages, and social initiatives come at a cost. Lets say for the sake of argument, that somehow coops entirely replaced the capitalist system, and became the only form of business in our economy. Because of the social needs and higher wages that coops aim to accommodate, the cost of thier products are higher. Without competition, prices are set (like, set in stone), and with higher prices comes a higher cost of living. A higher cost of living leaves us further entrenched into our respective earning brackets. The higher the cost, the harder it becomes to rise up the economic ladder, until eventually we are stuck. Totally unable to advance into a higher economic level. That is a caste society. Competition is what keeps costs lower, and it's what drives progress. Without the need to compete with other businesses, we negate the need to find new ways to beat the competition. When someone creates a new technology, they don't do it for "the good of mankind", they do it for self recognistion, they do it for the money. It's all about the benjamins baby! Think about it, if you made an awesome invention that you know will bennefit society, you're probably not gonna run out and tell everyone how to build one for themselves, you're probably gonna wanna visit the nearest patent office, and maybe email your uncle Ed, who's a lawyer. Competition is the fulcrum that moves our economic freedom, and drives our progress. Long live competition!!!!!!