Considering your entire argument on Free Markets revolved around, basically just saying Free Markets are amazing, everything good on this God-forsaken planet comes from Free Markets, the Sun orbits around Free Markets and so forth, I felt the main argument I needed to make was that Free Markets aren't real. They don't exist, not how you envision them, I think. This doesn't make it a semantic argument, this makes it an argument of fact.
Now, we can move the goal post using your new framework of “the foundation of something” and “point from which something can develop”, but that still doesn’t help your case.
Our current economic system can find it’s roots in European Mercantilism. Mercantilism and Merchant Capitalism emerged in the 16th and 17th century, and was characterized by countries (most, if not all, were still monarchies) contracting or giving out charters for groups to do trade with other countries, as well as the dreaded colonialization.
When people talk about how our economies/governments are founded on colonialization, what they're talking about is Merchant Capitalism, and how countries would take over other countries, force them to trade with them, force them to become a part of their routes, convert parts of their militaries into theirs, stuff like that. Forcible takeover by monarch-run trading companies in the name of selling stuff to other countries.
To put a finer point on this, mercantilism is not Free Market economics. Trading companies would chartered by royal families, then go trade with other countries, while the militaries of these countries were setting up colonies there by which they could exert control over the people's of that country.
Then, along came the Industrial Revolution. We still had slaves at this time, that was still a major facet of many economies, but, in particular, of the United States economy. However, from the Industrial Revolution, we got Capitalism. And there might have been a point at which this form of Capitalism could have been called, "Free Market", but then we started developing worker's rights and unions, and we abolished slavery, and the markets became more and more regulated. However, even this brief period of Free Markets was probably not a "Pure" Free Market, even if it was close.
This is what our economies have their foundation in. This is what our current economy is based on. Centralized authorities making economic decisions for their countries, chartering trade companies to go around the world to buy and sell goods, all the while relying on slave labor, forced coercion of non-native countries by military colonization, and a labor pool that had little to no labor rights.
That is what our current economic systems are based in.
So, my argument was not a semantic argument.
It was an argument of fact. Free Market economies have never existed. What has existed have been Regulated Capitalist Markets, which evolved from something like Monarchical Command Economies mixed with Oligarchies.
Our economies cannot be based off of or emergent from something that hasn’t existed.
You would have to say, “Regulated Mercantilism-Based Capitalist Economies” are the best economies for the world. Originating from a mix of centralized government-controlled economics and largely nepotistic oligarchies, Regulated Mercantilism-Based Capitalist Economies have brought wealth and prosperity to the world through their combined use of planned economies, monopolized industry, colonization and use of violence to maintain social order.
Have you ever heard of the term Double Speak?
The term “Free Market”, if that’s what you would call the origins of our modern economies, would be an example of Double Speak. And to continue to call what we have as “Free Market” would be Double Speak.
However, if you just acknowledge the fact that what we have now and the economies that gave rise to what we have now are different from Free Market economies, then maybe we can have a different discussion.
So, now. My question becomes: "Would you like to continue arguing that Free Market systems have accounted for our current economic prosperity, or would you like to argue why a Free Market system would be better than a Regulated Market system."
Considering your argument so far has been that Free Market systems have been responsible for the increase of wealth and and well-being across the world, and I just demonstrated that this hasn't been the case, I might turn a blind eye to a pivot in conversation (just this once though).
Now, to briefly run through a number of other things you've argued or mentioned.
"
I think the economic source Investopedia best illustrates this in a way that is relevant to the resolution. According to them:
- The term “free market” is sometimes used as a synonym for laissez-faire capitalism. When most people discuss the “free market,” they mean an economy with unobstructed competition and only private transactions between buyers and sellers. However, a more inclusive definition should include any voluntary economic activity so long as it is not controlled by coercive central authorities. Using this description, laissez-faire capitalism and voluntary socialism are each examples of a free market, even though the latter includes common ownership of the means of production. The critical feature is the absence of coercive impositions or restrictions regarding economic activity.1 Coercion may only take place in a free market by prior mutual agreement in a voluntary contract, such as contractual remedies enforced by tort law [1].
"
Can you tell me when we didn't have coercive forces or impositions, or when we didn't have restrictions on economic activity?
Was it before or after slavery? And did we have economic freedom during the Great Depression, WWII or the Cold War and Red Scare? When we started invading countries for their oil, would you call that a Free Market economy?
"CON says "Free Market systems don't exist. Regulated Market systems do"
"But what CON means is that pure free markets don't exist."
I do sometimes have difficulty articulating myself in conversation, so I will clarify what I meant to say:
Free Market systems don't exist. Regulated Market systems do.
"
- Moving on to CON's arguments
While this is true broadly, this is not true relative to countries with the highest economies. Another way to put this: increasing levels of economic freedom have diminishing returns, so, once a nation’s economy reaches a certain size, it benefits from having more regulation.
- Any country has diminishing marginal returns as it develops. This is just a law of economics. Obviously, as you develop from a lower stage, you will less overall development progressively because you keep improving to a higher stage of development. You don't show how this is a bad thing, and it really is not.
"
I never said it was a bad thing. The point here is that economic freedom and higher economy prosperity don't always correlate, especially at the higher ends of economies.
"
- As I pointed out in round one; free market-based systems and economic freedom are the best ways to develop and reach these stages
"
I've shown this isn't the case. We got here because of Merchant Capitalism, Centralized Government Economics, Colonialization, a Lack of Worker's Rights and Slavery. And then the Industrial Revolution and Capitalism (but we still had a lot of the other things for a while, too).
"
- Lastly, my opponent mentions GDP as an argument for why freer countries aren't better but larger countries almost always have more GDP. The way we can compare is by looking at GDP per capita which Singapore's is over 50,00 and Mexico is around 8000
- https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
"
I'm sure we could discuss the specifics of GDP Per Capita, and I'm sure we would find there is still a lack of a strong correlation between GDP Per Capita and Economic freedom in the upper quartile or so of the global economies.
However, there's a lot more that needs to be discussed here, and I think we need to pick which hill one of us is going to die on in Round Three.
Do Free Market Economies actually exist?
or
Would a Free Market Economy be better than our current Regulated Mercantile-Based Capitalist Economy?
Thank you Barney for notifying me.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Conservallectual // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 3 to pro
>Reason for Decision: "I am pro free market."
>Reason for Mod Action:
Before voting again, please review the voting policy. In essence, votes here are judgements for performance in the debate, rather than preference for one side. Without that, the vote is insufficient.
To cast a sufficient vote, for each category awarded, a voter must explicitly perform the following tasks:
(1) Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
(2) Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
(3) Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#casting-votes
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
I see what you were going for there, but when Kritiking, you have a fairly small window of opportunity to be taken seriously.
Something you may find helpful:
https://info.debateart.com/kritik-guide
What may have worked was if you argued that Merchant Capitalism is on balance better, leading to more economic growth such as the discovery of the Americas... Obviously worse off for countries like those in North America, but worse off for not practicing it (maybe find a source to show that they were a free market... I'm spit-balling here on how this could have been successfully trolled and kritiked).
Please vote
Hey man, could clarify what you were saying here: "This does not preclude that free market-based economies that feature the principles of a free market system are a mixed capitalist economy don't exist and this is exactly what we are debating. Whether these economic systems are better off for countries on balance."
I'm not trying to do some debate tactic thing here, I'm just kinda confused lol sorry. Like, you don't have to re-explain it in some technical debate way, I just wanna know what you're trying to say here.
"by looking at GDP per capita which Singapore's is over 50,00 and Mexico is around 8000"
Just so you know this is meant to be "50,000" it was a slight error.