Instigator / Pro

Free markets


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

No information

Round 1
I believe that Free markets have the power to lift people out of poverty and give them more freedom, with very limited or no government intervention, like in Keynesian and Austrian economics. In a free market, consumers are the be all end all. we do not need government intervention to regulate the market, because we already have millions of regulators: the people.

The free market economy argument for climate change (and most problems) goes like this: if the people truly care about climate change enough that it's one of the main political talking points for a politician, I'm sure they care enough to pay 0.05c more for a box of strawberries if it means reducing CO2 emissions, right? This logic can be applied to nearly every problem except prices, which I'll get to in a minute. We can actually see this in practice with Bud light, where conservatives boycotted it in late April of this year for partnering with transgender  influencer Dylan Mulvaney. As you can see, in early march, bud light's parent compony's stock fell dramatically, and it has not recovered since then. This shows the power the consumer has over the corporation, and not the other way around.

As for prices, competition lowers them. If there's only one producer, and 200 consumers, the producer can increase prices to however much he wants, so long as the consumer is still interested. This becomes a problem with essential products like food or housing. Thankfully, this issue resolves itself. let's say there's a a company called GoodFoodCo, who has a monopoly over potatoes. The people are upset because of the high prices, but potatoes are an essential part of their diet. A potato eater notices everyones dissatisfaction, and starts to produce potatoes under the name of FreshFarmsInc. he sells potatoes at a slightly lower price than GoodFoodCo. everyone comes flocking to him, and as a result, GoodFoodCo lowers their prices, and so on and so on. this drives food prices down. We can compare US average rent vs Canada's average rent to prove this. According to spring financial, canada is 100$ a month more expensive in canada in rent! the US has much more competition in the rental market with 59.9 out of 130 in national competivity score, according to RentCafe .

Another reason I believe in a free market is that it prevents Government officials to dictate what goes on in the economy. In a Mixed market system, nothing is stoping MP's or even the Prime Minister from voting for policies that better themselves and the stocks they buy instead of what's good for the people. If Bob was a senator and had a share in GoodFoodCo, he could hurt the rival compony, FreshFarmsInc, by introducing a new  "safety" requirement in his state that targets FreshFarmsInc and the materials they use.

The free market also reduces taxes. private companies don't need Taxpayer dollars to function, whereas public companies do. the one major argument against this I see is questioning if taxation is bad at all, and the awnser: yes. thinking that you are entitled to someone else's labour for free where the labourer has no say in the exchange doesn't sound very moral, does it? It does not become justified if the slavery is used for cheeper hospital prices.

in conclusion, I believe the free market is the best type of economy because it gives the consumer total power, produces competition, prevents government officials from cheating the system, and reduces taxes on the average person.

My opponent didnt define free market in the debate.

His ranting in comments should just be ignored, as it is not part of debate.

Free usually means that it costs 0 $.

Thats what free means when we talk about things and market is a thing.

I dont see how a market can cost 0 $.

Well, even if some do, on most markets you have to pay and that is correct because sellers wont sell unless you pay.

My opponent has this silly idea that things in store can be free.

I guess he went full communism. You never go full communism.

It is true that all countries currently in the world are Communist countries and that Communism is the only system that works.

But still, my opponent proposed full Communism where everything is free. 

That is absurd, so voters should just vote for me without further reading the debate.

My opponent gave no definitions, so the only thing we can conclude from topic is what we find in most dictionaries.

Since all dictionaries support the definition I gave, definitions go to me so we are forced to use my definitions. Plus, my opponent didnt present any definitions, so there is no need to give importance to any of his ranting in round 1.
Round 2
contrary to my opponents belief, A free market is not free. I did not propose that. in fact, I proposed a system similar to Austrian economics, which is totally different from communism, in the line "with very limited or no government intervention, like in Keynesian and Austrian economics."

also, my opponents claim that more dictionaries are on his side, aside from being a appeal to authority argument, it is also wrong.

by Cambridgean economic system with only a small amount of government control, in which prices and earnings are decided by the level of demand for, and production of goodsand services

by an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.

Medium Webster: an economy operating by free competition

I conclude my rebuild with very little arguments because I find it hard to respond when my opponent has only provided one argument in their favour.

My opponent still hasnt provided definition of a free markets in a clear way. 

I am not even sure what he wants to debate at this point.

"an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition"

So my opponent wants to abolish taxes, because they restrict competition. I think we will find how such idea is absurd, but the absurdity doesnt stop there.

an economic system with only a small amount of government control, in which prices and earnings are decided by the level of demand for, and production of goodsand services"

Prices decided by demand? The only way to enforce that is to abolish taxes, because they affect prices.

I think my opponent needs to sit down and think what he actually wants to debate, because so far this has just been some rambling with two contradicting definitions being given.

He went from "unrestricted competition" to "small amount of government control (restriction)".

Well, anyway, since he didnt present an actual definition but gave two contradicting definitions in round 2, and since round 1 only had my definition, and since my definition is simple and non-contradictive and is same in every dictionary, the definitions go to me and with that, the debate too since my opponent conceded that markets should not be free.
Round 3
"only a small amount of government control"
By adding in that one word in the beginning, only, the context completely changes. It means the government does the bare minimum to make sure everything functions (like law enforcement).

As for taxes, it may not be such an extreme idea to reduce taxes significantly. When everything is privatized, the prices will sort themselves out due to competition (see argument 1) and we won't need as much taxes, only for law enforcement and military. In fact, in the libertarian (free Marketeer) world view, taxation is considered theft, a sentiment that I do agree with. it is an involuntary exchange of goods or money. if I want to donate to healthcare, I'll donate to healthcare by myself, thank you!

As for social programs, they can be abolished in favour of fraternal societies. you can look at this video if you want a more in depth overview, but basically, they are societies in which you join to receive benefits, but also takes a fee in order to be able to pay for other's benefits. they are a good alternative to taxation, and have been tried before and succeeded. They are completely voluntary and (mostly) have freedom of association.

anyways, I believe that's it. I hope I have persuaded you to vote for me, and my opponent that free markets are what I define them as and that they work (although the second one is highly unlikely)!
taxation is considered theft
Okay, I think I win because of these absurd points.

Country cannot exist without taxes, that much is clear.

Extend all arguments.