Libertarian economic theory and pure capitalism contains major flaws

This has been my first real debate and I've enjoyed it immensely. Thank you for taking the time to have such a thoughtful discussion! Corporations may have some legal status as persons, (I don't agree with this classification, but that's beside the point) but this does not mean that they are analogous to persons in the ways that would be necessary to form a "corporate aristocracy". The problem with common assertions that corporations are nefarious or deceitful, or, in the case of my opponent's claim, that they would form an aristocracy, is that corporations are not single minded conscious entities. By their very definition, they are owned by many people, and therefore, large numbers of people make the decisions for the company. Most cases in which corporations are said to be acting nefariously are actually just unintended consequences that naturally result from having decisions made by such a large group of people, rather than actual calculating and nefarious intent. An aristocracy cannot be made up of corporations because THERE WOULD BE NO INDIVIDUALS TO BECOME ARISTOCRATS. Corporations, contrary to the popular misconception, are not individuals, they are large groups, sometimes, enormous groups. Therefore, the idea of "corporate aristocracy" does not make sense within the definition of aristocracy. The East India Trading Company was given enormous power by the government, and many of its shareholders were members of parliament. Remember, when a corporation makes a profit, either that money is paid to the investors in dividends OR it is put toward the growth of the company. Or some combination of the two of course. However, it is important to remember that there is a point when it is more profitable for the investors to break up, or stop growing the company. This is the reason that monopolies are incredibly rare in the free market; government regulations certainly create some monopolies, and it is not at all clear that they prevent others. Thus, I think that the claim that in a pure capitalist system, a few banks and corporations would dominate the economy is simply untrue, and unsubstantiated by historical evidence. I would also like to point out that in the current system, the economy is dominated by one bank; the Federal Reserve. If a company controlled 90% of a certain product, it would indeed have considerable control over that product, but the point is that it could not abuse that power without almost immediately losing ground to its competitors, and there are few situations in which abuse of power would have any benefit to the investors in the first place. Also, in a libertarian society, there would be little to be accomplished by holding a sword of Damocles over the government because the government would have very little power. I think that my opponent draws an inaccurate conclusion from the passage he cites from the Wealth of Nations. To me, this passage very clearly explains how the idea of trade for mutual benefit is what drives a capitalist economy. I do not see how my opponent derives his claim about perfect knowledge of products from this passage. A libertarian government would protect property rights. This would naturally include punishing fraud as it is a violation of contract. Remember, a libertarian government would only interfere in economic affairs at the minimum required for peace and property rights. Clearly, this includes punishing fraud. There is also an important distinction between a regulation and a law. A libertarian government would not set rules for advertisers, and then send out inspectors to catch those who did not follow those rules. That would not be libertarian. The crime would be the actual fraud, not the failure to comply with certain arbitrary rules. Thus, in the same way that imprisoning murderers is not gun regulation, punishing fraud is not regulation of advertising. If the fish starts biting the hand that feeds them (the consumers) that hand will start feeding the other fish (the competitors) and they will grow. Corporations, unlike fish, cannot physically attack each other. A large corporation must continue to give the consumer a good deal, or the consumers will turn to competing companies. If there were a regional monopoly, and the monopolistic company exploited that power, competing companies would have an incentive to develop into that region. I believe that I have satisfactorily disproved all of my opponents contentions, and thus established that the Con position is more valid. It will be up to the voters to decide!