Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cannonpointer

Resolved: Capitalism is not free enterprise and is at odds with free enterprise*

1AC

Winner: Six Shooter

 

 The win was given to six shooter because the OP did not follow the rules for post headings and while Roadkill had one post that did abide by the rules six shooters argument was much stronger.

Message added by 1AC

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Free enterprise is a naturally occurring and unpreventable exchange between two or more willing participants. It is found wherever people are found - no society ever discovered has been without it. When a state seeks to stamp it out, it goes underground, but does not cease to exist. Such was the case in soviet russia and communist china. Free enterprise became black market enterprise - but continued to exist.

 

CAPITALISM, not so much. There were no trading boards in soviet russia or communist china, because Uncle Sugar was not there to grant imprimatur, to pick winners and losers, to give birth certificates and virtual letters of marque and reprisal to the corsairs of wall street.

 

Free enterprise serves markets to dominate the competition. Capitalism dominates markets to outlaw the competition. It seeks always to corner markets and drive out competition, to use government to stifle competition. It currently seeks to set up a carbon trading board in order to sell us the very air we breathe - which air will be licensed to this carbon trading board for its sale at profit, separating us from our wealth by force of law and making "customers" of us against our will.

 

What happens on wall street is by definition something other than free enterprise. But it IS capitalism - with all of the cronyism and corruption of office which naturally and inevitably attends such.

 

 

 

 

Edited by 1AC
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN OPPOSITION TO:

 

The Resolution makes a false claim, re: "Capitalism is not free enterprise." The appearance is made of a comparison that proves the point, but fails due to erroneously conflating non-conflicting concepts (namely that capitalism and free enterprise are contradictory terms), and due to relying solely on biased opinion as an argument.

 

17 hours ago, Cannonpointer said:

Free enterprise is a naturally occurring and unpreventable exchange between two or more willing participants. It is found wherever people are found - no society ever discovered has been without it. When a state seeks to stamp it out, it goes underground, but does not cease to exist. Such was the case in soviet russia and communist china. Free enterprise became black market enterprise - but continued to exist.

 

Accepted.

 

17 hours ago, Cannonpointer said:

CAPITALISM, not so much. There were no trading boards in soviet russia or communist china, because Uncle Sugar was not there to grant imprimatur, to pick winners and losers, to give birth certificates and virtual letters of marque and reprisal to the corsairs of wall street.

 

Immaterial to the stated core claim, "Capitalism is not free enterprise."

 

Moving on, the following texts are presented as evidence in order to understand the meaning of the word "capitalism" as it relates to "free enterprise" so as to determine the veracity of the core claim, "Capitalism is not free enterprise":

 

============================

capitalism
[ˈkapədlˌizəm]
 
NOUN
  1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
    "an era of free-market capitalism" · 
    [more]
    private enterprise · free enterprise · private ownership · privatized industries · the free market · individualism · laissez-faire

 

Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

 

============================

 

In the first link above, the definition of "capitalism" is important as it can be seen that no mention is made of Wall Street or trading boards. No conflict with free enterprise is described, in fact just the opposite, free enterprise is expressly listed as synonymous with capitalism, the phrase even being used as an example to help understand the meaning of the word.

 

============================

 

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]

 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

============================

 

In the second link above, again we see no conflict between capitalism and free enterprise. In fact, we see capitalism described using many of the same terms and descriptors used in the opening paragraph of the Resolution to describe free enterprise, further concluding that the two are not at odds.

 

These two supporting certitudes defeat the core claim in the title of the Resolution at its outset. But to continue...

 

17 hours ago, Cannonpointer said:

Free enterprise serves markets to dominate the competition. Capitalism dominates markets to outlaw the competition. It seeks always to corner markets and drive out competition, to use government to stifle competition. It currently seeks to set up a carbon trading board in order to sell us the very air we breathe - which air will be licensed to this carbon trading board for its sale at profit, separating us from our wealth by force of law and making "customers" of us against our will.

 

What happens on wall street is by definition something other than free enterprise. But it IS capitalism - with all of the cronyism and corruption of office which naturally and inevitably attends such.

 

The above meandering opinion piece only serves to attack trading markets from the sidelines without ever citing a single piece of supporting documentation or even a logical argument to make its case for the core claim, "Capitalism is not free enterprise." It seeks to affirm the proposed conflict between capitalism and free enterprise but again fails. While many of the opinions presented may have truth in them, they do not directly support the core claim.

 

This Opposition does not seek to address any of the opinions critical to capitalism presented (as this is not the place for opinions), but rather to dispute the core claim at its outset. If the Resolution were a legal argument it would be summarily dismissed due to lack of any supporting evidence or even a good argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SixShooter said:

IN OPPOSITION TO:

 

The Resolution makes a false claim, re: "Capitalism is not free enterprise." The appearance is made of a comparison that proves the point, but fails due to erroneously conflating non-conflicting concepts (namely that capitalism and free enterprise are contradictory terms), and due to relying solely on biased opinion as an argument.

 

 

Accepted.

 

 

Immaterial to the stated core claim, "Capitalism is not free enterprise."

 

Moving on, the following texts are presented as evidence in order to understand the meaning of the word "capitalism" as it relates to "free enterprise" so as to determine the veracity of the core claim, "Capitalism is not free enterprise":

 

============================

capitalism
[ˈkapədlˌizəm]
 
NOUN
  1. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
    "an era of free-market capitalism" · 
    [more]
    private enterprise · free enterprise · private ownership · privatized industries · the free market · individualism · laissez-faire

 

Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

 

============================

 

In the first link above, the definition of "capitalism" is important as it can be seen that no mention is made of Wall Street or trading boards. No conflict with free enterprise is described, in fact just the opposite, free enterprise is expressly listed as synonymous with capitalism, the phrase even being used as an example to help understand the meaning of the word.

 

============================

 

Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.[5][6] In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in financial and capital markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets.[7][8]

 

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

============================

 

In the second link above, again we see no conflict between capitalism and free enterprise. In fact, we see capitalism described using many of the same terms and descriptors used in the opening paragraph of the Resolution to describe free enterprise, further concluding that the two are not at odds.

 

These two supporting certitudes defeat the core claim in the title of the Resolution at its outset. But to continue...

 

 

The above meandering opinion piece only serves to attack trading markets from the sidelines without ever citing a single piece of supporting documentation or even a logical argument to make its case for the core claim, "Capitalism is not free enterprise." It seeks to affirm the proposed conflict between capitalism and free enterprise but again fails. While many of the opinions presented may have truth in them, they do not directly support the core claim.

 

This Opposition does not seek to address any of the opinions critical to capitalism presented (as this is not the place for opinions), but rather to dispute the core claim at its outset. If the Resolution were a legal argument it would be summarily dismissed due to lack of any supporting evidence or even a good argument.

 

In Support:

 

THIS^ does not in any way reflect what happens on wall street. I am not free to trade or refuse to trade with wall street capitalism - and my freedom to decline to do business is the very first measure of FREE enterprise. I can cite any number of instances wherein capitalism forces the market to be customers, at gunpoint. One example is legislators passing laws against going off grid, which is the status quo in Nevada, where I lived and was at effect of this, and elsewhere in the United States. I was required BY LAW to be a customer of a wall street owned electric company, under threat of arrest - and he was licensed BY LAW to steal my excess power, did I choose to go solar. That is government enforcing capitalism and forcing the market to trade with it involuntarily.
 
 
Here is a piece about government taxing solar at impossibly high rates to protect the profits of capitalism:
 
 
When government using the gun to protect wall street's profits is the status quo, th pretense of free enterprise should only be made tongue in cheek.
 
Another example is law makers in all 57 states requiring Underwriters Laboratories (a wall street firm) approval of any product used in construction, and then UL makes the cost of its approval so enormous that only the biggest of companies can afford UL's imprimatur. The little guy might produce a product with higher standards, but its use is outlawed unless he borrows enough money to get to scale and purchase UL's imprimatur.
 
We are ALL halliburton's customers by force of the gun when they have their boy move this country into wars from which they profit, WITHOUT BIDDING for the business. That's government picking winners (wall street) and losers (America).

 

My assailant's argument is so weak that he buttressed it with a fallacy ad dictionarium. The irony that dictionaries are controlled by capitalists appears lost on him - lost, as the term fiat currency was lost for decades when the US moved to a fiat currency and the capitalists saw the term as a threat, removing it from THEIR dictionary for a generation of man.

 

The OP was not opinion, but logic - logic which my opponent has danced around rather than address. Indeed, he acceded to my definition of free enterprise, but never showed how the definition he stipulated to could possibly fit the state sponsored, state supported and state licensed thing which exists on wall street - other than to run a dictionary definition which all sentient creatures know to be false.

 

As I have seen the mere inclusion of a link - without any reference whatsoever to it's relevance or efficacy - used to declare a "winner" on this board, I will (with a large smirk) provide a dictionary definition of free enterprise:

 

Quote

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=free+enterprise+definition&atb=v199-1&ia=definition

 

 

 

free enterprise

 

 

 

  • n.
    The freedom of private businesses to operate competitively for profit with minimal government regulation.
  • n.
    an economic system having predominantly private ownership of the means of production, and relying chiefly on market forces to allocate goods and resources and to determine prices, and having a minimum of governmental interference in economic decisions; also, the political doctrine advocating such a system as the economic system of a country.
  • n.
    The conduct of business according to the principles of the free enterprise doctrine; the conduct of economic activity without governmental interference.
Because wall street regularly and routinely uses the government gun to force regular people to do business with them - as in the quick three examples of my being forced to be a customer of warren buffet, of all of us being forced to be customers of Underwriters Laboratories, and of the nation being at the effect of halliburton's corruption of our highest offices, - it cannot be pretended among adults that what happens on wall street has fuck-all to do with free enterprise. It is a state sponsored, state enforced economic model, as is easily seen by the naked eye.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Cannonpointer said:

 

In Support:

 

THIS^ does not in any way reflect what happens on wall street. I am not free to trade or refuse to trade with wall street capitalism - and my freedom to decline to do business is the very first measure of FREE enterprise. I can cite any number of instances wherein capitalism forces the market to be customers, at gunpoint. One example is legislators passing laws against going off grid, which is the status quo in Nevada, where I lived and was at effect of this, and elsewhere in the United States. I was required BY LAW to be a customer of a wall street owned electric company, under threat of arrest - and he was licensed BY LAW to steal my excess power, did I choose to go solar. That is government enforcing capitalism and forcing the market to trade with it involuntarily.
 
 
Here is a piece about government taxing solar at impossibly high rates to protect the profits of capitalism:
 
 
When government using the gun to protect wall street's profits is the status quo, th pretense of free enterprise should only be made tongue in cheek.
 
Another example is law makers in all 57 states requiring Underwriters Laboratories (a wall street firm) approval of any product used in construction, and then UL makes the cost of its approval so enormous that only the biggest of companies can afford UL's imprimatur. The little guy might produce a product with higher standards, but its use is outlawed unless he borrows enough money to get to scale and purchase UL's imprimatur.
 
We are ALL halliburton's customers by force of the gun when they have their boy move this country into wars from which they profit, WITHOUT BIDDING for the business. That's government picking winners (wall street) and losers (America).

 

My assailant's argument is so weak that he buttressed it with a fallacy ad dictionarium. The irony that dictionaries are controlled by capitalists appears lost on him - lost, as the term fiat currency was lost for decades when the US moved to a fiat currency and the capitalists saw the term as a threat, removing it from THEIR dictionary for a generation of man.

 

The OP was not opinion, but logic - logic which my opponent has danced around rather than address. Indeed, he acceded to my definition of free enterprise, but never showed how the definition he stipulated to could possibly fit the state sponsored, state supported and state licensed thing which exists on wall street - other than to run a dictionary definition which all sentient creatures know to be false.

 

As I have seen the mere inclusion of a link - without any reference whatsoever to it's relevance or efficacy - used to declare a "winner" on this board, I will (with a large smirk) provide a dictionary definition of free enterprise:

 

In Opposition to:

 

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

 

Definitions are often subjective text in cases of politics and academia...the state has more legal power than the private sector...even as they collude with some members of the private sector.

 

The public sector is nothing without the private sector...all real production comes from the private sector while the political public sector campaigns for their share of the credit.

 

"As noted, a common approach to engaging with the formal private sector is through PPPs. They can be defined as contracts between a private enterprise and government, providing a public asset or service in which the private enterprise bears the risk and management responsibility and remuneration is linked to performance (Muwonge & Ebel, 2014: 18). Involving the private sector in the design, construction and maintenance of infrastructure and the provision of services has been highlighted as an area where PPPs can be particularly influential. The rationale for PPPs is that they provide a mechanism for governments to procure and implement public infrastructure including services, using the resources and expertise of the private sector (World Bank, ADB & IDB, 2014)."

 

https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/urban-governance/elements-of-effective-urban-governance/the-role-of-the-private-sector/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, roadkill said:

In Opposition to:

 

"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."

 

Definitions are often subjective text in cases of politics and academia...the state has more legal power than the private sector...even as they collude with some members of the private sector.

 

The public sector is nothing without the private sector...all real production comes from the private sector while the political public sector campaigns for their share of the credit.

 

"As noted, a common approach to engaging with the formal private sector is through PPPs. They can be defined as contracts between a private enterprise and government, providing a public asset or service in which the private enterprise bears the risk and management responsibility and remuneration is linked to performance (Muwonge & Ebel, 2014: 18). Involving the private sector in the design, construction and maintenance of infrastructure and the provision of services has been highlighted as an area where PPPs can be particularly influential. The rationale for PPPs is that they provide a mechanism for governments to procure and implement public infrastructure including services, using the resources and expertise of the private sector (World Bank, ADB & IDB, 2014)."

 

https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/urban-governance/elements-of-effective-urban-governance/the-role-of-the-private-sector/

 

 

reBUTTal:

 

Ironically, you quote the world bank - an enforcement arm of the federal reserve, which is a PRIVATE bank that produces our currency. The one thing that virtually all can agree on is that the issuance of our currency is a PUBLIC function - uet it has been privatized. The private bankers who issue our currency control our government. Calling THAT "free" enterprise is ass work. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cannonpointer said:

reBUTTal:

 

Ironically, you quote the world bank - an enforcement arm of the federal reserve, which is a PRIVATE bank that produces our currency. The one thing that virtually all can agree on is that the issuance of our currency is a PUBLIC function - uet it has been privatized. The private bankers who issue our currency control our government. Calling THAT "free" enterprise is ass work. :)

Follow Up:

 

That's a reasonable point...you win that one...but the private sector, mainly the middle class, pays most of the bills. And there's a difference between capitalism and corruption.

 

Good argument CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, roadkill said:

Follow Up:

 

That's a reasonable point...you win that one...but the private sector, mainly the middle class, pays most of the bills. And there's a difference between capitalism and corruption.

 

Good argument CP.

The issue is that capitalism is NOT free enterprise.

 

I would no more argue it is corrupt than I would argue the sky is blue - who would disagree, for the love of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cannonpointer said:

The issue is that capitalism is NOT free enterprise.

 

I would no more argue it is corrupt than I would argue the sky is blue - who would disagree, for the love of God?

OK...we disagree.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, roadkill said:

OK...we disagree.   

For the love of God...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...