Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

My opponent has ignored my request to wait a day before responding. In fact, he went out of his way to post on Tuesday night. This forced me to write an argument in minimal time. I apologize for my briefness. "My opponent claims to be defending Capitalism, but is, in fact, defending anarchism." Anarchism- The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... McCarthyism- The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Disagreeing with a certain action of government does not make one an anarchist. Claiming that I am an Anarchist in order to win a debate is McCarthyism. "It ensures that employees are hired for their qualifications, not race, gender, religion, etc" No, that would be the Judicial System in civil cases. A regulation is not needed to create a civil case. http://www.rbs2.com... "So because laws sometimes fail we should remove them? The laws protect the copyright holder through remedy." I am not calling for the end of copyrights. I was just quickly pointing out that they are insufficient. They are rights and not regulations. Again, this is because they protect traditional company rights. This right dates back to the time of the printing press. Therefore, it is traditionally unjust and not a regulation. "The Venetian Moment; New Technologies, Legal Innovation and the Institutional Origins of Intellectual Property" by Christopehr May, (2002). ("This does not mean a regulation that limits traditionally immoral behavior") "Regulation dictates a minimum hourly wage, which protects workers." The hourly wage also boosts unemployment. Instead of making two dollars an hour, a minimum wage is created and the factory worker makes nothing and the factory is built oversees to create a profit. Further, the minimum wage indirectly results in the increase in the cost of all things that wage can buy. The factories must pay more, the grocery stores must pay more, etc. The result is an increase in expenditures which results in an increase in the cost of goods. This can result in inflation despite of its intents. Overall, the worker may seem to make more, but what he is making is worth less. http://www.heritage.org... "This regulation attempts to confine business to the rule of law." This is indeed what is being debated. I have argued that capitalism is harmed by such regulations because they harm innovative potential. I have also proven through explanation that all regulations named in this debate are unnecessary. Therefore, they do not help the economy. My opponent has conceded that regulation is anti-capitalistic. -Regulation controls businesses. -Regulation does not help individuals. -Regulation creates a larger government than is necessary. Removing people from the workforce and placing them in government positions lowers production because government contributes no products for a functioning society. -Regulation harms the potential for innovation by limiting what a company can and cannot do. Safety and other issues are eventually eliminated due to civil cases. Regulations are unnecessary to ensure this. -All incidences of corporate greed are resolved naturally in a capitalist system. Government regulation is unnecessary. My case is not that regualted capitalism fails, but that capitalism is harmed by regulation. Out simply, it would be better without. I have proved this at every obsticle. Wrapping this up: My opponent has called me an anachist. However, note that he has tried to expand the definition of regulation so that it encompasses all that government does. Rights are protected by the government through the Judicial system. Regulation is unnecessary to protect these rights. It again becomes necessary to restate the definition of regulation: "This certianly means such regulations like safety concerns and minimum wage. A maximum wage is also inluded in this definition, as well as many other things." Further, when companies like Enron fail due to corporate greed, it is not government's job to step in. All the legal matters are settled (corrupt actions and money laundering are resolved) and then after the whole mess, people learn that they can't get away with it. Regulation wasn't necessary here. Regulation harms businesses. Regulation restricts liberty. Regualtion limits the potential of a captitalist system. Regulation defeats the purpose of capitalism. Therefore, capitalism is better without regulations. I urge voters to vote accordingly. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. I request that the voters leave a reason for decision after voting.