Libertarian economic theory and pure capitalism contains major flaws

Many thanks to my opponent for bringing these important issues up for debate! I accept my opponent's definitions of Capitalism and Libertarian economic theory. First, to my opponent's point on oligarchy. One of the most common objections to the free market system is that it will lead to the formation of an enormously wealthy upper class which will perpetually leave its money to its children, until this class becomes a kind of aristocracy. My opponent did not bring up this point, but I thought I would address it to avoid confusion later, and because it indirectly ties into the issue of the formation of an oligarchy. The fact is, that while the free market undoubtedly leads to some people becoming far wealthier than others, it does not lead to an aristocracy for the following reasons. First, 86% of American millionaires are self-made, so any hereditary "upper class" would be dwarfed by those with self-made wealth. (1) Second, simple logic tells us that our hypothetical aristocrat could never have more than one child (or, in some cases, two children) without diluting his or her wealth. This clearly shows that the kind of hereditary aristocracy postulated by critics of the Libertarian economic theory is simply not a logical outcome of the free market. So, if there is not a hereditary aristocracy that becomes an oligarchy, how would such an oligarchy form? It is possible, of course, that those with self-made wealth would assume control of the government, but this would mean that governmental positions would be held, not because of hereditary rank, which is the most common problem identified in oligarchy, but by people who had been personally successful. Obviously, even though any form of oligarchy is probably undesirable, it is clearly better to have an oligarchy based on personal success rather than birth. However, and this is the core of my argument here, even an oligarchy based on success will not form in a Libertarian society, because an Oligarchy is, by definition, a system of government ruled by a small select group. But in a Libertarian society, there would be no significant state apparatus for the rich to take control of. If this small group were to oppress people, and take away their rights, then the government would no longer be Libertarian. Thus, in a constitutionally limited government based on Libertarian principles, the rich have very little incentive to take control of the government, and even with control of the government, they would not have the power to oppress the people. It is in fact, socialism, and other command economies that lead to the formation of oligarchy of the rich, because the rich can take control of the government and use it for their own ends. The nomenklatura in the Soviet Union is a perfect example of this. (2) I will address monopolies and anti-trust laws later in this argument. To the second contention, it is undoubtedly desirable that every consumer would have perfect knowledge of the products that he or she bought, but the fact that we can never achieve a utopian state of existence does not mean that Libertarian economic theory contains flaws. As long as consumers have a basic understanding of what they are buying, the free market system works. More complete knowledge can be obtained through sources like Consumer Reports, which are private, non government funded, purely capitalist ways for consumers to become more informed about the products they buy, and it is, in fact, in the self interest of consumers to attempt to gain more complete understanding of what they are buying (especially for significant purchases). And self-interest, as my opponent has stated, is present to some degree in every human being. Monopolies. It is taken for granted, that, given free reign, companies will merge into monopolies, and that these monopolies will then manipulate prices at the expense of the consumer. However, it is nearly impossible to create monopolies without the help of government, and the monopolies that do form entirely in the free market can only survive if they continue to give the consumer a good deal. Even the poster child of monopoly, John D. Rockefeller and his Standard Oil company, was not able to charge exorbitant prices. For two years, Standard Oil owned 85% of the oil market, but it could not raise prices without losing ground to its competitors. (3) Microsoft owns the overwhelming majority of the computer industry, but it must continue to offer good products at low prices or it will lose ground to Apple. It is government intervention, such as the subsidization of Western railroads during the gilded age, that creates coercive monopolies, not the free market. (4) Thus, anti-trust laws are unnecessary in a truly Libertarian economy. If pure capitalism does not lend itself to the creation of oligarchy, or monopoly, and if perfection is not necessary for a robust and well-functioning capitalist society, I think I have refuted my opponent's claims about flaws in Libertarian economic theory. I look forward to my opponent's response. 1. http://www.fidelity.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. https://www.lpmn.org... 4. http://atlasshruggedcelebrationday.com...