Instigator / Pro
15
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4053
On balance, the U.S. should choose a Free Market Economy over a Government Regulated one
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
2
2
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
12
1709
rating
565
debates
68.23%
won
Description
Other countries might currently benefit from government regulation, but it would create a more functional and fairer economic system for the US specifically to decide on the Free Market.
Definitions:
Free Market- An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.
Government Intervention- Regulatory action taken by government that seek to change the decisions made by individuals, groups and organizations about social and economic matters.: Taxes, subsidies, price controls, regulations, minimum wage legislation, and government bailouts.
Government Regulation- A law that controls the way that a business can operate, or all of these laws considered together.
Economy- The wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.
Capitalism- An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
Socialism- A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Collectivism- The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
Individualism- A social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.
Public Economy vs Private- The public sector is the part of the economy owned, managed and controlled by government or government bodies, while the private sector is owned, managed and controlled by individuals or private companies.
Monopoly- The exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.
Government- The governing body of a nation, state, or community.
The U.S.- The United States of America, its territories and possessions, any State of the United States, and the District of Columbia.
Rules:
1. One forfeit is the loss of a point. Two forfeits are an auto-loss. (2 days' time to make a response.)
2. On balance, so BOP is shared.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Preamble:
I’m going to present my argument which shall be divided into two contentions. All of my points will be supporting one of those categories. The main conclusion is that the Free Market is better overall at producing a fairer and more functional economy than one with Government Intervention.
BOP:
An on-balance debate, so the burden of proof is shared. I win if I should be able to prove the Free Market is better for the economy and my opponent wins if he proves that a system with more government regulations is better.
Alright. Here we go.
l. Capitalism Inspires Innovation
Capitalism is what pioneered this great nation as well as the modern century. With innovation comes revolutionary technology that separates the modern world from the ancient. Were it not for vaccines and medicine, we would still be dealing with diseases like the Black Plague and Measles.
Currently, the education system is failing in the US which is shaking parents’ faith in this country’s ability to raise the youth. The public schools have grown complacent, and this is why many parents have turned to privatized schools as a resort.
The one thing we need to fix this very problem is clear.: Ambition. If we can tap into our creative potential, there are no limits to what we as a nation can achieve. In order to accomplish this, we need to bring back The American Dream.
ll. Government Intervention is an inconvenience
Government interference causes more problems than it solves. This isn’t new behavior, however. Americans are more than capable of operating efficiently under an Individualist system, we don’t need to give more of our power away to an authority that tends to get in the way rather than provide assistance.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Placing too much faith in the government yields unpleasant results. As a country, the priority should be to avoid unintended consequences.
Here's some food for thought, how do we fight the spread of Covid infection in the United States?
The Free Market.
Plain and simple.
Con
#2
There is a significant disagreement between Pro and Con on what the debate is about.
According to my side, agreeing completely with the description's definitions, a free market economy is one without any government restrictions at all.
I first need Pro to realise what the debate is to have any honest dialogue.
I am not a socialist here, I am supporting progressive social democracy. The regulations I support include making sure products lack toxic ingredients, have safety standards etc. They also include making sure executives pay fair tax and do not launder or pocket any money via regular audits. It also includes worker unions and ensuring fair employment policies to all ethnicities, LGBTQ etc (while banning child labour).
It seems Pro is confused what the debate is.
If Pro is still confused in Round 2 and thinks this is Capitalism vs Socialism instead of unregulated vs regulated Capitalism, I will then ignore Pro and talk solely to voters.
Round 2
Pro
#3
It seems Pro is confused what the debate is.If Pro is still confused in Round 2 and thinks this is Capitalism vs Socialism instead of unregulated vs regulated Capitalism, I will then ignore Pro and talk solely to voters.
There is confusion about which one of us is confused.
Pro isn't confused.
Con might be, however.
Maybe this confusion is warranted. Perhaps Pro didn't clarify his position very well before the start of the debate.
So as it currently stands, the U.S. economy is suffering under unnecessary government legislature. Our country would thrive better if we cut back on these harmful restrictions and opted for a Free Market economy. This does not, however, mean that this change should happen overnight. It can be gradual.
This does not mean I think this is a debate about Capitalism vs Socialism. Socialism is only listed in the description; in case the term comes up at any point as it usually does in political-economic discussions. But “Regulated Capitalism” is an oxymoron. A system which neither exists and is a fundamentally meaningless term. It would be absurd to do away with all regulations as few may be necessary, but all government intervention should be minimal.
“The regulations I support include making sure products lack toxic ingredients, have safety standards etc. They also include making sure executives pay fair tax and do not launder or pocket any money via regular audits. It also includes worker unions and ensuring fair employment policies to all ethnicities, LGBTQ etc (while banning child labour).”
While a lot of these regulations were created with good intentions in mind, they have only made things like inequality and safety worse. Keeping child labor laws intact are necessary, as exceptions do exist.
But it wasn’t the government that stopped child labor, American society and Markets were getting rid of child labor before such laws were ever passed because people recognized that it was cruel and inhumane and because businesses no longer required children to work.:
“Historical studies suggest that child work was widespread in Europe and North America in the 19th century, but declined very rapidly at the turn of the 20th century. The available historical evidence seems consistent with the fact that industrialisation in Western countries initially increased the demand for child labour, but then eventually contributed towards its elimination.”
“All that being said, the legislature of anti-child labor laws may mostly have been due to circumstance. There was a huge popular movement to get children out of factories and into schools and to protect workers from dangerous conditions, but child labor in the U.S. was only at its peak when the Industrial Revolution was in its earliest phases and the American economy was very strong.”
“Though it is inaccurate to judge capitalism guilty of the sins of parish apprenticeship, it would also be inaccurate to assume that free labor children worked under ideal conditions in the early days of the Industrial Revolution. By today's standards, their situation was clearly bad. Such capitalist achievements as air conditioning and high levels of productivity would, in time, substantially ameliorate it, however. The evidence in favor of capitalism is thus compellingly suggestive: From 1750 to 1850, when the population of Great Britain nearly tripled, the virtually exclusive choice of those flocking to the country for jobs was to work for private capitalists.”
During the year 1938 when the FLSA was passed, the government looked as if it were cracking down on immoral business practices on surface level, but this was them mainly taking credit for something they weren't responsible for.
The government doesn't care and never did care.
Con
#4
Government Regulation- A law that controls the way that a business can operate, or all of these laws considered together.
This is the argeed definition in the description.
I will elaborate as my opponent is confused.
Inside that extremely reliable source we learn that in the US alone, without government regulation, we'd be absent of the following worker's rights:
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting most full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in federal, state, and local governments.Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) eligible employees of covered employers have the right to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons.Federal child labor laws ensure that when young people work, the work is safe and does not jeopardize their health, well-being or educational opportunities.The Wage and Hour Division helps all workers in the United States. We enforce the law without regard to a worker’s immigration status.The H-2B provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provide for the admission of nonimmigrants to the U.S. to perform temporary non-agricultural labor or services.The restaurant/fast food industry includes establishments which are primarily engaged in selling and serving to purchasers prepared food and beverages for consumption on or off the premises.
To keep my life ease I will quote this extremely reliable domain some more to go into exactly all workers rights under those acts.
There is no single definition or definitive list of workers' rights. The International Labor Organization (ILO) identifies what it calls "fundamental principles and rights at work" that all ILO Members have an obligation to respect and promote, which are:
- freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
- elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labor;
- effective abolition of child labor;
- elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and
That same page lets us know that child labour would also freely occur if not for government regulation.
==
Let's now look into the ways cartels and monopolies would form in absense of government regulation.
Unfair competitionPrimary tabsOverviewThe law of unfair competition is primarily comprised of torts that cause economic injury to a business through a deceptive or wrongful business practice. Unfair competition can be broken down into two broad categories:
- sometimes used to refer only to those torts that are meant to confuse consumers as to the source of the product (also known as deceptive trade practices)
- comprises all other forms of unfair competition.
Unfair competition does not refer to the economic harms involving monopolies and antitrust legislation. What constitutes an "unfair" act varies with the context of the business, the action being examined, and the facts of the individual case.Two common examples of unfair competition are trademark infringement and misappropriation. The Right of Publicity is often invoked in misappropriation issues. Other practices that fall into the area of unfair competition include:
- false advertising
- "bait and switch" selling tactics
- unauthorized substitution of one brand of goods for another
- use of confidential information by former employee to solicit customers
- theft of trade secrets
- breach of a restrictive covenant
- trade libel
- false representation of products or services.
The law of unfair competition is mainly governed by state common law. Federal law may apply in the areas of trademarks, copyrights, and false advertising. See Trademark, Copyright, and § 1125 of the Lanham Act.Congress established The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in part to protect consumers from deceptive trade practices. The FTC indirectly protects competitors because some deceptive trade practices (e.g. "bait and switch tactics") that injure consumers also injure competing businesses. The FTC regulations concerning unfair competition are found in various parts of Title 16 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If there is a conflict between federal and state law, the federal law will often triumph because of the doctrine of preemption.A few states have enacted legislation dealing with specific types of unfair competition. See, e.g., Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The reason you can open a can of tuna and know it isn't poisoned is government regulation on businesses trickling down from government regulation on unfair competition. The code on which capitalism is based; that you sell what you say you are selling and that you price it according to its reasonable current market value and not in a way to drive your competition to the ground by mixing extreme low prices to run them out of business and then high again. That same ethos includes the laws you can see in there such as 'deceptive trade practises act'.
What is the The Federal Trade Commission (FTC)?
The FTC has broad authority to regulate consumer products that are not otherwise regulated by a separate agency. Most notably, the FTC places consumer goods into product categories and prescribes specific labeling requirements pursuant applicable statutes, regulations, or industry standards.
What is the Food and Drug Administration?
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act is the primary federal law administered by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA classifies goods falling under its regulatory authority into product groups, such as cosmetic and food labeling. The FDA requires extensive testing and labeling to disclose and avoid potential hazards to consumers. In general, the FDA prescribes the content for labels that must be affixed on the inside and outside of product containers, wrappers, or packaging.
What is the Consumer Product Safety Commission?
As discussed above, The CPSC is primarily charged with ensuring consumer product safety. As part of this mission, the agency enforces packaging, labeling and other consumer disclosure provisions. Notably, the CPSA enforces labeling provisions under the Consumer Product Safety Act, Federal Hazardous Substance Act, and Poison Prevention Packaging Act.
What is the US Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP)?
The CBP regulates and polices the flow of goods into and out of the United States. It is tasked with enforcing US labeling laws for imported goods. Goods incorrectly labeled may be refused entry into the United States, subject to fines, and destroyed.
extension of government legislation and its enforcement are why you can put on makeup, shampoo and drink water out of a purchased bottle and feel safe and secure you bought it at a fair enough price and that it isn't going to chemically harm you long-term to the knowledge of scientists of this era.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Government Regulation- A law that controls the way that a business can operate, or all of these laws considered together.This is the argeed definition in the description.I will elaborate as my opponent is confused.
Just a reminder. Nowhere in the description does it state we must abolish all government regulations, nor is this implied in the definitions. It’s also important to realize the definitions are there for clarity, not to limit the discussion to arguing only absolutes.
I am arguing in favor of an economy that emphasizes the Free Market.
A free market economy means that people (and companies) buy and sell with a minimum of government regulation.
The definition above is just as equally as valid as the one in the description.
That same page lets us know that child labour would also freely occur if not for government regulation.”
Laws that ban child labor should exist everywhere regardless. And the rates of child labor would increase in other countries if not for the government, but there’s no evidence that this would happen in the US.
As stated previously, child labor in America was already becoming extinct and had absolutely nothing to do with government intervention. By the time the regulations were passed in 1938, it was already too late. Extend.
“The reason you can open a can of tuna and know it isn't poisoned is government regulation on businesses trickling down from government regulation on unfair competition. The code on which capitalism is based; that you sell what you say you are selling and that you price it according to its reasonable current market value and not in a way to drive your competition to the ground by mixing extreme low prices to run them out of business and then high again. That same ethos includes the laws you can see in there such as 'deceptive trade practises act'.extension of government legislation and its enforcement are why you can put on makeup, shampoo and drink water out of a purchased bottle and feel safe and secure you bought it at a fair enough price and that it isn't going to chemically harm you long-term to the knowledge of scientists of this era.”
- If a food or beverage product were poisoned, word would get around and the boycott would shut the business down.
- Businesses like The Food Industry have to spend a lot of time and energy keeping up with these safety regulations.
- Such regulations make it harder to keep the business successful.
- This forces companies to raise the price on their products.
Seeing as these regulations cause inflation, low-income consumers are the most affected by this. Their limited budget cannot accommodate the expenses caused by the increased costs and taxes they will now have to pay. I'm sure Con can imagine the heavy toll this would take on poorer communities.
Earlier, I pointed out I would be defending two major contentions. If you want to see how government regulations are an inconvenience, just see for yourself.:
- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is projecting that the food service industry will have to spend an additional 14 million hours every single year just to comply with new federal regulations that mandate that all vending machine operators and chain restaurants must label all products that they sell with a calorie count in a location visible to the consumer.
- In the state of Texas, it doesn't matter how much formal interior design education you have - only individuals with government licenses may refer to themselves as "interior designers" or use the term "interior design" to describe their work.
- Federal agents recently raided an Amish farm at 5 A.M. in the morning because they were selling "unauthorized" raw milk.
So not only do we have to pay more, but these rules are also inhibiting the productivity of industries.
And to correct you about your statement on “correct market value,” why should the government be able to decide what a reasonable price is? Entrepreneurs should have the right to adjust their prices based on what they think works best. If the competition is unable to keep up, why should consumers be forced to buy an inferior product just so they can stay in business?
Also, consumer sovereignty gives customers a lot of control over price, so business owners will cheapen costs if they find that their sales are unsuccessful.
Automobile Costs & Risks
Currently, the government has made it their responsibility to advance automobiles, thereby increasing the taxes. The vehicles are now more technologically advanced, but they are sold at prices that are too high, literally making it impossible for low-income workers to purchase one.
This forces people to buy old, used cars with less than 100,000 miles on it. This alone constitutes a huge risk because these vehicles are more prone to breaking down during travel and causing more road-related accidents. Another brilliant example of harmful government intervention.
Sources: https://www.businessinsider.com
Con
#6
The topic is:
On balance, the U.S. should choose a Free Market Economy over a Government Regulated one
The definitions relevant are:
Free Market- An economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.Government Regulation- A law that controls the way that a business can operate, or all of these laws considered together.
This is an 'on balance debate' and Pro is supposed to be defending unrestricted competition as contrasted to one restricted by rules given as government regulations.
The restrictions are the only thing ensuring, let me reiterate:
- All workers' rights
- All regulations that ensure what's written on a label and commercial is what's really inside the product being used or service being provided.
- All regulations banning children being exploited by corporations in a professional and/or direct labour sense.
- All regulations preventing monopolies and cartels forming (not meaning illicit drug cartels).
Pro can keep cherrypicking saying 'omg but this one regulation has this one setback in this extreme scenario' as much as he wants. What I am saying is okay, at worst tweak the regulations. We do need to restrict the regulations to have those four bullet points whatsoever ensured.
If you look outside the US for a moment, it's blatant that less developed nations with very mistreated workers (sometimes on behalf of corporations operating inside of the US) have less government regulation within them.
- A "sweatshop" is defined by the US Department of Labor as a factory that violates 2 or more labor laws.[1]
- Sweatshops often have poor working conditions, unfair wages, unreasonable hours, child labor, and a lack of benefits for workers. Take a stand and protest: Ask your school to make its apparel under fair conditions. Sign up for Tighty Whitey Rally.[2]
- In developing countries, an estimated 168 million children ages 5 to 14 are forced to work.[3]
- America has stronger labor laws than most undeveloped countries, but it is not free of sweatshop conditions. Many labor violations slip under the radar of the US Department of Labor.[4]
- Products that commonly come from sweatshops are garments, cotton, bricks, cocoa, and coffee.[5]
- A study showed that doubling the salary of sweatshop workers would only increase the consumer cost of an item by 1.8%, while consumers would be willing to pay 15% more to know a product did not come from a sweatshop.[6]
- Sweatshops do not alleviate poverty. The people who are forced to work must spend the majority of their paycheck on food for their families to survive.[7]
- Child labor is especially common in agriculture (98 million, or 59% of child laborers work in agriculture), followed by services (54 million) and industry (12 million).[8]
- The majority of child laborers are found in Asia and the Pacific. Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest prevalence, with one in five children in child labor.[9]
- According to one survey, more than 2/3 of US workers experienced at least one pay-related violation in the previous work week. Assuming a full-time, full-year work schedule, workers lose an average of $2,634 annually due to violations.[10]
- Because women make up 85 to 90% of sweatshop workers, some employers force them to take birth control and routine pregnancy tests to avoid supporting maternity leave or providing appropriate health benefits.[11]
The Middle East and North Africa are worstOnce again, the Middle East and North Africa was the worst region for treatment of workers, with the Kafala system in the Gulf still enslaving millions of people:
- The absolute denial of basic workers’ rights remained in place in Saudi Arabia.
- In countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, conflict and breakdown of the rule of law means workers have no guarantee of labour rights.
- In conflict-torn Yemen, 650,000 public sector workers have not been paid for more than 8 months, while some 4 million private sector jobs have been destroyed, including in the operations of multinationals Total, G4S and DNO, leaving their families destitute.
- The continued occupation of Palestine also means that workers there are denied their rights and the chance to find decent jobs.
Conditions in Africa have deteriorated, with Benin, Nigeria and Zimbabwe being the worst performing countries - including many cases of workers suspended or dismissed for taking legitimate strike action.The report ranks the ten worst countries for workers’ rights in 2017 as Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Qatar, South Korea, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates.The Philippines, South Korea and Kazakhstan have joined the ten-worst ranking for the first time this year.Sombre readingThe 2016 annual ranking makes for sombre reading. Violence and repression of workers are on the increase. In just one year, the number of countries experiencing physical violence has risen by 10 percent. Attacks on trade union members have been documented in fifty-nine countries, fuelling growing anxiety about jobs and wages.Corporate interests are being put ahead of the interests of working people in the global economy, with 60% of countries excluding whole categories of workers from labour law, undermining fundamental democratic rights.Denying workers protection under labour laws creates a hidden workforce, where governments and companies refuse to take responsibility, especially for migrant workers, domestic workers and those on short-term contracts.Key findingsThis year’s key findings include:
- 84 countries exclude groups of workers from labour law.
- Over three-quarters of countries deny some or all workers their right to strike.
- Over three-quarters of countries deny some or all workers collective bargaining.
- Out of 139 countries surveyed, 50 deny or constrain free speech and freedom of assembly.
The number of countries in which workers are exposed to physical violence and threats increased by 10 per cent (from 52 to 59) and include Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia and Ukraine.Unionists were murdered in 11 countries, including Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Mauritania, Mexico, Peru, The Philippines and Venezuela.In South Korea, Han Sang-gyun, President of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, has been imprisoned since 2015 for organising public demonstrations during the candlelight revolution, to prevent the now deposed Park government from passing anti-worker labour laws.Trade union leaders in Kazakhstan were arrested merely because they called for strike action. In the Philippines, the climate of violence and impunity, which has proliferated under President Duterte, had a profound impact on workers’ rights.Working conditions also worsened in other countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Myanmar.Argentina has seen a spike in violence and repression by the state and private security forces – in one case, 80 workers were injured during a stoppage for better pay and conditions.The build-up of the 2016 Olympic games in Brazil saw a significant increase in labour exploitation, and the dismantling of labour legislation by the new Brazilian government last year caused a sharp decline of labour standards.In Ecuador, union leaders were forbidden from speaking out and their offices were ransacked and occupied by the government.Problems in the garment sector in Myanmar persist, with long working hours, low pay and poor working conditions being exacerbated by serious flaws in the labour legislation that make it extremely difficult for unions to register.
While none of this means that the US necessarilly with 100% certainty would end up the same way, in the past before workers' rights, the US regularly abused firstly an entire race of people as slaves and then all the poor.
The history of labor disputes in America substantially precedes the Revolutionary period. In 1636, for instance, there was a fishermen's strike on an island off the coast of Maine and in 1677 twelve carmen were fined for going on strike in New York City.[1] However, most instances of labor unrest during the colonial period were temporary and isolated, and rarely resulted in the formation of permanent groups of laborers for negotiation purposes.[1] Little legal recourse was available to those injured by the unrest, because strikes were not typically considered illegal.[1] The only known case of criminal prosecution of workers in the colonial era occurred as a result of a carpenters' strike in Savannah, Georgia in 1746.[1]By the beginning of 19th-century, after the revolution, little had changed. The career path for most artisans still involved apprenticeship under a master, followed by moving into independent production.[2] However, over the course of the Industrial Revolution, this model rapidly changed, particularly in the major metropolitan areas. For instance, in Boston in 1790, the vast majority of the 1,300 artisans in the city described themselves as "master workman". By 1815, journeymen workers without independent means of production had displaced these "masters" as the majority.[3] By that time journeymen also outnumbered masters in New York City and Philadelphia.[3] This shift occurred as a result of large-scale transatlantic and rural-urban migration. Migration into the coastal cities created a larger population of potential laborers, which in turn allowed controllers of capital to invest in labor-intensive enterprises on a larger scale.[2] Craft workers found that these changes launched them into competition with each other to a degree that they had not experienced previously, which limited their opportunities and created substantial risks of downward mobility that had not existed prior to that time.[2]
Round 4
Pro
#7
Okay so, let’s address precisely how and why Con is dead wrong.
- Workers’ Rights.
The Right to Work only amplifies economic inequality. This regulation gives companies more power to abuse employees and minimizes the victims’ ability to speak out. The ability to bargain for more benefits, higher wages, and a safer environment no longer exists. Also, this directly hurts income. The employer is actually making more, while the employee’s paycheck is growing to be significantly less. Given RTW’s racist origins, Shane Lawrson suspects that this law was created by white supremacists looking to maintain their power over slaves.
- Food Labels.
It’s a mistake to believe that regulations covering food labels are effective. This regulation had inadvertently decreased the quality of organic food. There is also data proving that such regulations have failed at reducing the amount of bacteria or spread or food poisoning in restaurants.
- Child Labor Laws.
These regulations should be kept as a precaution for the safety of children. Since my point about child labor being abolished before such laws were passed remains uncontested, I’ll extend it to my argument that these laws can co-exist with a Free Market Economy, since they do not restrict businesses in any way.
- Cartel Laws
The claim of the Cartels taking over in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s is refuted by the rates of Inflation becoming easier until 2021. US Inflation Rate by Year: 1929-2023 (thebalancemoney.com)
In conclusion, the Burden of Regulations is higher than the damage caused by a Free Market Economy in the US. While these regulations are designed to protect the consumer, they do the most harm. The total count of more regulations is making it difficult to abide by the others and the American taxpayers are having to pay $55 million just to support the regulatory staff.
As Gene Epstein says,
“The pages of the Federal Register, 58,000 pages to 180,000 pages are more than tripling since 1969.”
“If you look outside the US for a moment, it's blatant that less developed nations with very mistreated workers (sometimes on behalf of corporations operating inside of the US) have less government regulation within them.”
For Con to heavily insist on abiding by things not mentioned in the description, he seems to be content with ignoring the part where I state.: “Other countries might currently benefit from government regulation, but it would create a more functional and fairer economic system for the US specifically to decide on the Free Market.”
I am glad Con admits this next point,
“While none of this means that the US necessarilly with 100% certainty would end up the same way, in the past before workers' rights, the US regularly abused firstly an entire race of people as slaves and then all the poor.”
The implication that the US would resort back to slavery is an unsubstantiated claim.
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Slavery no longer exists in the United States. Switching from a government regulated economy to a Free Market isn’t going to bring it back because we are in a completely different century where Americans know slavery is immoral.
Using data and statistics from Developing Nations in separate continents cannot be used when talking about the US because the circumstances and factors differ significantly, to the point that it’s inapplicable.
However, we have observed how regulations like the Right to Work are enabling employers to exploit and abuse workers.
I’ll touch on two more ways regulations are hurting the poor and low-income civilians.:
- Mobility.
“Restrictive licensing requirements make it timely and costly for workers to switch to higher paying jobs. Accelerated rise since the 1960s in government imposed rules, regs, and restrictions that make it increasingly expensive to build housing in high-wage areas like New York and San Francisco. The resulting scarcity of supply has driven up the costs of housing in these areas making it increasingly costly for low-wage workers to move to these areas and take advantage of the higher wages. The regulatory tax on housing wipes out any wage premium as a result.” - Gene Epstein
The research seems to verify that these regulations are hurting the poor. They are unable to progress in their careers because it is both timely and costly.
2. Healthcare.
Since healthcare is not a Free Market industry, terminally ill patients who are in need of an organ transplant will have to wait a while until they are approved. And organ donors have little to no control of who receives these organs.
The power utilized by this organization even gives them the privilege to deny patients an organ which is basically sentencing them to death. This then begs the question,
- Why should the government have the power to decide if we live or die?
But patients in need of medical treatment never know the price when they receive an operation and have no control over which hospital they go to.
A Free-Market healthcare system could solve a lot of these issues.
- By inspiring competition, hospitals would be more motivated to adjust their prices and product and the quality would go up.
- Prices and treatment would be disclosed, giving the patient the ability to make an informed decision.
- DPC allows patients to pay a monthly or yearly subscription fee to have access to their doctor practically 24/7. In most cases, the subscription fee even provides labs and other tests at the heavily discounted level available to the doctors.
Conclusion:
Many of the arguments calling upon tighter regulations mask their ulterior motives under the guise of “equality, consumer safety, and public service.”
This is a power tactic known as ‘rent-seeking.’
- Rent-Seeking - The fact or practice of manipulating public policy or economic conditions as a strategy for increasing profits.
Typically, it revolves around government-funded social services and social service programs.
Con
#8
I will consider all my points dropped/conceded by Pro.
Now for the 2 points Pro brings up: Mobility and Healthcare.
If you look outside US, the countries that most lack government regulations on their economies have the worst poverty and divides where the poor could be dying of extremely treatable things or have broken bones even and can't afford treatment. If you look inside the US, there's a slight disparity only because nowhere in the US has public healthcare and often by default the poorer areas vote Democrat but that means very little because the society in US is all right-wing on balance due to lacking public-anything. Even their subway is barely public transport as the prices are far from cheap and affordable for someone on low income.
As for 'mobility', you will find that due to all the problems I mentioned that Pro has essentially zero rebuttal to, someone cannot easily climb the ladder, only fall down it faster. Every single item sold will either be super cheap in a short while to drown out lesser businesses for the monopoly to stay supreme (they will literally sell below profit, at a loss, to drown out competition) and then be ramped up the moment the monopoly or cartel are in total control. This means an individual has to pay more in the end for every good and service they want in a society based on ripping people off. However, since 'more' is relative to income and so many more will be in poverty it can look like reasonable prices.
I see zero comeback to my point of products lying about what they offer or have inside them. In a truly private society, even to sue a corporation for destroying someone's life or killing them by a faulty product is very costly and sometimes not deemed worth it.
I am not sure how exactly Pro wants me to 'prove' things when Pro himself has just stated things as somehow self-evidently true. What I think is self-evidently true is that public healthcare and high government regulations on providing healthcare to the poor are irrefutably the most ironclad way to ensure the poor are not financially strained when they need healthcare, assuming the tax towards such things is progressively done meaning higher incomes pay proportionally more.
The Healthcare point is simply a lie,
At least half of the world’s population cannot obtain essential health services, according to a new report from the World Bank and WHO. And each year, large numbers of households are being pushed into poverty because they must pay for health care out of their own pockets.Currently, 800 million people spend at least 10 percent of their household budgets on health expenses for themselves, a sick child or other family member. For almost 100 million people these expenses are high enough to push them into extreme poverty, forcing them to survive on just $1.90 or less a day. The findings, released today in Tracking Universal Health Coverage: 2017 Global Monitoring Report, have been simultaneously published in Lancet Global Health.
I guarantee you that the countries where the impoverished can't get healthcare are all countries with a lack of government regulation on healthcare provision to the poor and who don't ensure insurance is affordable if they do lack public healthcare on top.
Mobility is an illusion if everything costs more for the poor. Pro didn't really prove anything there at all.
Round 5
Pro
#9
I will relay to voters what we already know so far.
Overview
- Con doesn’t offer a complete rebuttal to my points so far about Workers’ Rights, Food Labels, Child Labor Laws, and Cartel Laws. Extend.
- Proven that Government Regulations are an inconvenience to the US because current policies amplify economic inequality.
- Demonstrated that safety policies are ineffective at preventing hazards and tend to cause them more.
- Showed the dangers caused by Government Intervention/Regulation by showing the Automobile Issue.
- Gave examples of how regulations on businesses are hardest on the poor because of Inflation and Mobility.
- Provided an explanation for how Public Healthcare takes advantage of consumers and how many of these issues could be solved with Privatization.
- Also showed how Child Labor Laws can coexist with a Free-Market economy because they don’t restrict businesses in any way.
In conclusion, Con has failed to address any of these arguments and disprove my points about the risks that regulations do to the economy. So far, there are two inconsistencies that proved to be Con’s Achilles Heel.:
- His assertion of arguing absolute definitions not mentioned in the description.
- His decision to deviate from the resolution of the debate.
Ultimately, Con keeps citing links and using statistics of countries from other continents to strengthen his position. This is a fatal problem because the resolution specifies “The US.” And as previously mentioned, the description says, “Other countries might currently benefit from government regulation, but it would create a more functional and fairer economic system for the US specifically to decide on the Free Market.”
Meaning if Con wished to contest the subject, he should have done so before the debate. But now that he accepted it, then it is simply too late. He would have done much better if he used more examples from the US.
I wrap up my Final and Closing Argument and my last several rebuttals will be focused on repeating or clarifying anything mentioned before.
Rebuttals:
“If you look outside US, the countries that most lack government regulations on their economies have the worst poverty and divides where the poor could be dying of extremely treatable things or have broken bones even and can't afford treatment. If you look inside the US, there's a slight disparity only because nowhere in the US has public healthcare and often by default the poorer areas vote Democrat but that means very little because the society in US is all right-wing on balance due to lacking public-anything. Even their subway is barely public transport as the prices are far from cheap and affordable for someone on low income.”
Circumstances in different countries do not apply to the US. Our culture and current politics is vastly different, and so are our problems. This situation is unique only to the American system. Con’s source doesn’t say anything about the US, so I’ll treat this as an unsubstantiated claim.
“As for 'mobility', you will find that due to all the problems I mentioned that Pro has essentially zero rebuttal to, someone cannot easily climb the ladder, only fall down it faster. Every single item sold will either be super cheap in a short while to drown out lesser businesses for the monopoly to stay supreme (they will literally sell below profit, at a loss, to drown out competition) and then be ramped up the moment the monopoly or cartel are in total control. This means an individual has to pay more in the end for every good and service they want in a society based on ripping people off. However, since 'more' is relative to income and so many more will be in poverty it can look like reasonable prices.”
Extend my rebuttal to the Cartel from the last round, my statement about Consumer Sovereignty, and how this excuse is a form of Rent-Seeking.
“I see zero comeback to my point of products lying about what they offer or have inside them. In a truly private society, even to sue a corporation for destroying someone's life or killing them by a faulty product is very costly and sometimes not deemed worth it.”
I did actually answer this in depth the last round. This is covered under ‘Food Labels,’ extend.
“I am not sure how exactly Pro wants me to 'prove' things when Pro himself has just stated things as somehow self-evidently true. What I think is self-evidently true is that public healthcare and high government regulations on providing healthcare to the poor are irrefutably the most ironclad way to ensure the poor are not financially strained when they need healthcare, assuming the tax towards such things is progressively done meaning higher incomes pay proportionally more.”
Demands of Public Healthcare
- Poorer patients have to wait just to get treatment, thereby increasing the chances that they die.
- Healthcare centers will hide the prices of treatment and then be taken off-guard by the expenses.
- Patients can rarely choose which hospital they go to when there is Public Healthcare, and some hospitals charge more than others.
Contrast that to the benefits of privatized healthcare.
Benefits of Privatized Healthcare
- Businesses would disclose prices of treatment, giving consumers the ability to make informed decisions.
- Individuals would have more control over which hospitals they go to.
- The high supply of low-income communities would encourage businesses to lower their prices to accommodate their customers. Extend statement about consumer sovereignty.
- The competition of Free Market Healthcare would encourage the businesses to study and advance their product so you get the best possible version. Consider this an extension of my first contention, Capitalism Inspires Innovation.
“I guarantee you that the countries where the impoverished can't get healthcare are all countries with a lack of government regulation on healthcare provision to the poor and who don't ensure insurance is affordable if they do lack public healthcare on top.”
Con
#10
Right that last round blitzkrieg is just spamming sources and 'quoting' what I say while ignoring the actual meaning.
This debate is about a totally free market economy vs one with government regulations. I have said my pieces completely already.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Really good topic, I vote Pro, here's why:
1. I buy RM's analysis of the resolution, Pro must defend no economic regulations, Con must defend some.
2. I buy that a FM econ (Free market) creates innovation and solves diseases from vaccines and that government ownership failed education.
3. I buy that a GR econ (government regulated) economy forces executives to pay their taxes, however, it is immoral to make people pay taxes for things they don't agree with.
4. I buy that a GR econ forces toxicity labels. I also buy these labels lowers the quality of the food.
5. I buy that a FM econ would have boycotts that stop toxic foods. I also buy that the labels are expensive leading to hunger in impoverished communities.
6. I buy that a GR econ forces safety standards.
7. I buy that a GR econ gives union rights AND right to work regulations.
8. I buy that a GR econ gives minority protections.
9. I buy that a FM econ abolished child labor through the market before there was an actual regulation.
10. I buy that a GR econ gives fair pay, unpaid leave, agricultural visas, and restaurant woerker's rights.
11. I buy that this debate is only about the US and any comparison to a nation in the Global South is not a useful comparison because of different morals and cultural values and wealth.
12. I buy that Slavery wouldn't come back if we had a FM econ.
13. In regards to cartels, I buy that consumer sovereignty solves any price issues.
14. I buy that autobiles proves government innovation makes it unaffordably expensive and causes more old vehicles
15. I buy that healthcare becomes more inaccessible from the exorbitant costs.
In conclusion, I buy that a free market economy stops hunger in the poor and stops a lot of car accidents by making new cars more affordable. These are the only terminalized impacts. Con lists a bunch of laws like pay, child labor, abolishing slavery, etc., but they don't impact this out, and Pro is leveraging arguments like morality prevents these, customer boycotts prevent these, and that customer sovereignty controls prices. These are never contended with, giving them a lot of defense to weak arguments to begin with. For example, RationalMadman talks about restaurant worker's rights, but that's the entire conversation that happened on that point. I buy that boycotts can probably solve AND a free market economy can solve for hunger in the poor.
Notes for Pro:
1. You start answering Con's individual points late in the round. You should answer it the round after they say it, not wait a round.
2. You had a good out on the definition debate. You define "government intervention" with a list of what that entails at the end. You should say that Con has to defend those and that anything else is "social regulation", like child labor.
3. You seem well understood on the anarcho-capitalist argument of consumer boycotts and things of similar nature. The only thing I would add is looking out how government regulations stop worker representation, for example, Biden just stopping the railroad strikers. That, and union strikes happened pre-National Labor Relations Act. This means arguments about "pay" and "worker's rights" are solved under anarcho-capitalism.
4. Finally, not a note, but a funny idea, post the same argument but read leftist accelerationism in the first round. Unregulated economy collapses capitalism leading to socialism which is good.
Notes for Con
1. Don't just post walls of text and lists of laws. A source should supplement your argument, not be your argument. That, and a list of laws doesn't mean anything if you don't defend each law as having a reason we need it.
2. You have to answer claims of customer boycotts and customer sovereignty for price controls. These are easily disproved, but you need to do that work. That, and answer the "US is better than other nations and would never turn into those savages". I phrase it like that to show how goofy it is and how easy the answer is.
3. A formal "I don't have to win all four of these regulations, just one, to prove Con" would go a long way. I don't know if it mattered in this round as I think you fail to deal with the big pieces of defense Pro has.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Counter vote bomb
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
the bop is to prove/disprove that the us should have a free market vs a government regulated market.
i would have loved to see if there were examples of free markets just as a comparison.
ll= lancelot rm=rationalmadman
in round 2 rm tries to trick up ll and claims to speak directly to voters. This is certainly bad conduct on rm's part, it shows disregard and attempt at confusion. conduct given to ll.
in rounds 3-4 rm gives good links with an abundance of information... about government regulation (or lack thereof) in OTHER countries. i have to weigh this source against ll's sources in rounds 3 and 4 and unfortunately remove the point because of its relevance to topic and meeting bop of US economy. It was a hard call...
Finally, who has met bop and convinced me that us market should be free or regulated? rm. he has listed out in round 2 the staggering influence of government intervention and regulation in an otherwise would be dystopian US market.
that being said, this is about the market, not slavery, civil or criminal law. none of that should be weighed against the bop because i believe there is a distinct difference and seperation between them.
both parties did fine on grammar.
That’s fixable. I challenged you to a 1 round debate.
Accept and they’re back, I promise.
Apparently I lost my privileges to vote.
How am I affecting ratings unnecessarily?
please dont counter vote bomb. my vote was already reported. you are affecting ratings unnecessarly.
Dang, bro.
Savage reply.
What good points? Genuinely, I like to be better. Please explain to me.
The sad part is that's true, the average voter here is garbage.
AleutianTexan is literally one of the most objective voters.
This is just you being a bad sport.
I guess the update did help me, this is simply bullshit lol, you ignored all my good points.
Not interested in you entertaining his last round blitzkrieg either or not realising that the laws brought later perfectly complimented my Round 1.
Thank you!
I finally voted on this! I forgot to mention this, but if yall have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask.
Fair enough.
if this was still rated as it was pre-update, it would mean I lose rating and Lancelot gains it whereas a no-vote tie wouldn't.
The thing is because your vote is effectively for 0 points, it amounts to no more than a comment giving feedback.
alrighty. thanks.
and thank you wylted.
and thank you whiteflame and barney.
and thank you rm for trying my reasoning, you have made me greater and more right by opposing it.
Wylted is the Site President.
I asked him to reject RM’s report/appeal and he did so, out of generosity. He thinks it’s scummy to report your vote for silly reasons.
So he overruled any attempts at having your vote deleted.
i dont mind doing a jury trial if rm or ll want it.
thank you all for validating my vote and source allotment. i hate that it caused contention, but i brought it up so that i know if its right or not.
I am the highest authority. The decision is final unless a jury trial is requested.
After reviewing the decision, I find it to be in line with the voting standards of the site. The decision is upheld.
I am also evaluating the vote to see if a veto of their decisions is in order. I will be back with you soon
After reviewing the decision, I find it to be in line with the voting standards of the site. The decision is upheld.
Does spamming tie votes on my debates make you feel better, RM?
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4151-capital-surveillance-inhibits-the-progress-of-society
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4111-the-dangers-of-global-warming-are-overestimated
https://www.debateart.com/debates/4174-the-u-s-should-intervene-in-the-israeli-palestinian-conflict
This was not a troll debate, the tied vote needs to be fully justified in its sources allocation.
Whiteflame or supadudz please moderate it. I appeal this decision
I was right!
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Melcharaz // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: tied
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
i know, but any attempt to destroy logic is intresting to me. so i dont deny the request.
But also there is literally no reason to report votes that declare debates a tie.
Doing so benefits neither debater and would only restrict your voting privileges in the future, which I have zero intention of doing.
alrighty then
I don’t want to be the better man, so no.
if you want to be a better man. report my vote for rm.
if it falls through or doesnt. yall are still tied either way.
It also cannot be physically reported by me, these fools removed my ability to report.
Could be wrong, but I doubt your vote will be deleted since it doesn’t seem to break any of the voting rules.
i report that vote for sources
ill leave this here from voting policy on sources.
https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
np. the hardest thing for me to weigh was the sources. rm's convinced me, but the majority were off topic.
someone could report my vote, arguing better sources means they convinced me, not that it was better for the debate.
ah well.
Thanks for the vote.
edit: round 1* not 2 is where confusion is.
Very interesting. Capitalist in-fighting is fascinating to me, so I will definitely take a look. I've been busy as of late, but this is my second priority after I vote on a debate I've already started reading through.
If this one is interesting enough to you, then you’re welcome to vote on it.
Were you still planning to vote on this one?
Subscribed to vote on it
Bump
You got it
Make it week-long Rounds and I will accept.