Regulation harms and defeats capitalism.

I contend that regulation does not harm, or defeat capitalism, rather regulation helps preserve the integrity of a capitalist society, protect it's citizens and consumers, and ensures fair trade practices. I will address my opponents points. "Regulation limits liberty" -Liberty is not a right of private companies. Liberty is the right of the people to act, believe, or express ones self in a manner of ones own choosing. The "condition of being free from restriction or control" is detrimental to capitalism because rampant abuse of employees and consumers destroys business, and is contrary to the concept of democracy. A- Regulation reduces the success of capitalism. - My opponent contends that since regulation limits flexibility within the markets, it reduces the success of capitalism. He states that regulation reduces the ability of individuals and companies to innovate, and, therefore, the market is worse off than it would have been. I agree that regulation limits flexibility to some degree. I don't agree, however, that this limiting of flexibility reduces the success of capitalism. Indeed a major aspect of capitalism is competition, and without regulation there would be no rules to protect companies from market failures. Market failure regulation protects companies from monopolies, ensures collective action and the public good, protects individuals and companies from inadequate information, and unseen externalities. Regulation protects individuals from bootleggers and copyright infringement. (http://www.copyright.gov...) Regulation protects workers from unsafe work environments. (http://www.osha.gov...) Regulation protects consumers from unsafe products. (http://www.nfpa.org..., http://www.fda.gov..., http://www.ul.com...) Regulation also protects companies from frivolous lawsuits. (http://www.ncsl.org...) B- The purpose of capitalism is for people to own and control their property. -My opponent contends that regulation controls conduct through the government, and therefore defeats the purpose of capitalism. Regulation actually protects individual rights and property rights by regulating conduct. It was a LACK of regulation that led to the collapse of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC), the precursor to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) which currently protects consumers from bank failures. In the 1980's, the S&L crisis led to the loss of $124 Billion in taxpayer money, and it was due to the lack of regulation of insurance premiums charged to Savings and Loan companies, which were charged the same premium regardless of risk. (http://www.econlib.org...) The S&L's were bailed out, as many banks and other companies are being bailed out today, though property owners and individual rights are actually being violated. It was de-regulation that led to the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, Bear Sterns, AIG, and countless other companies that have failed and/or will fail. An article in the Economist makes this statement: "If mortgage brokers had done their job and only made loans to people who could pay them back (i.e. with "reasonable" levels of default), we wouldn't have a financial crisis." It was the lack of regulation that allowed these mortgage brokers to not do their jobs, and it was the lack of regulation that allowed other anomalies in business to occur. (http://economistsview.typepad.com...) I await my opponent's response. Thank you.