Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a structurally unstable economic system.

Thank you for your argument, Sir. To remind readers (and myself) of Pro's contentions, they are: 1. Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization. 2. Laissez-Faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world. 3. Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy. Contention one: Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization. Now, let us begin with the first contention, that of a "corporate aristocracy", and the perils of monopolization. A monopoly is defined as "the exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service." (1) Such examples from modern day would be Microsoft and Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. (2) The way one of these monopolies is formed is the sale of goods or services of superior quality and superior pricing. The free markets funnel bad business and reward good business in this way. Microsoft is a clear example of this; overcoming competitors such as Oracle and Apple, (3) Microsoft reached the top of the corporate hierarchy, while prices dropped and workmanship improved. In a true Capitalism, the watered down "monopoly" is not a bad thing. However, it seems that the present day "evil" monopolies are entirely Government-induced. For the purposes of intellectually honesty, it is best to use Pro's examples of monopolies, namely the companies Standard Oil, AT&T, and De Beers Diamonds. AT&T: The Washington Post reports the incredible Government support for this phone company. "AT&T and Verizon Communications were the biggest recipients of federal support from an $8 billion phone subsidy program, according to data released Thursday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee." (4) Additionally, AT&T receives massive tax breaks, allowing it an edge over competitors.(5) Standard Oil: John D. Rockefeller's mammoth oil corporation had minimal Government support (6), reaching the height of its dominance during America's period of flirtation with laissez-faire capitalism. Refining 90% of America's oil (7), selling at low prices,(8) and employing a massive number of people, Standard Oil is a prime example of untampered capitalism paying off. DeBeers Diamonds: With much of its support severed, DeBeers is on the decline. The support the company received on its ascension, however, was incredible, and much of these bonuses still exist. DeBeers is given extensive assistance from foreign Governments (9), as well as sizable tax breaks. Putting all this aside, the primary concern is the possibility of crony capitalism; namely, that monopolies will infect Government and ruled their countries. Like the existence of monopolies, this infiltration of governing bodies is a direct result of socialism. Returning to the original definition of laissez-faire capitalism, the system is intended as a complete divorce of Government from market. There should be absolutely no gain for any robber baron taking political position, as there should be no way for a government to increase the wealth or standing of business. As open inquiry aptly says, "When socialist elites and insiders profit personally from market institutions, why is this only called, "crony capitalism," and not "crony socialism". (10) Contention 2: laissez-faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world. This interests me, as Capitalism seems to me to be by far the most realistic world view and system of economics. Capitalism accepts that people are selfish and greedy--and uses this fact to make everyone rich. The beauty of Capitalism is that in order for one to become true wealthy, it requires the enrichment of others through investment and job-making. However Pro brings up several points to support his contention, which ought to be responded to. Pro says, "Misleading advertisement and corporate irresponsibility means that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is bound to harm the majority". While not specifying what "corporate irresponsibility" is, it is reasonable to assume that Pro refers to faulty products, "cutting corners", and cheap tactics. This is a classic argument, that since corporations want money, they will attempt to cut costs to the absolute minimum, endangering their employees and customers. In a laissez-faire capitalist system, it is profitable and in a company's best interest to play by the rules and make good products for two reasons: The possibility of lawsuit. If a business were to release a faulty product or conduct other dangers practices that cause death or injury, that company is liable for compensation. For one example, Toyota's cars allegedly had a brake issue which led to several nasty crashes. (11) While Toyota was eventually acquitted of guilt after studies were done, (12) had the claims been accurate, Toyota would have faced a series of multi-million dollar lawsuits, as well as criminal cases. Despite their acquittal, Toyota has improved their design to avoid other similar calamities. Business. In order for a company to attain customers and business, it must provide service or a product that is quality and affordable. If a business releases dangerous or bad merchandise, they will inevitably lose business, and often go out of business. (Unless the Government intervenes, as it so often does). An example of this would be Tielenic Acid, a medicine designed to reduce hypertension. However, it was revealed to cause hepatitis, and was quickly driven out of business by the forces of the free market. (13) Businesses are forced to behave, because they are entirely subject to the will of the populace and of the free market, and lack the Government to stand in the way of natural justice. Contention 3: Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy This argument is very similar to that of the first, and so similarly refuted. The Government should be entirely divorced from the economy, thereby automatically preventing any gains for corporation in politics. The Government in this situation would be relevant, because it exists in an entirely different realm. As for total economic control, the entire idea of a "free market" rules this possibility out. (14) For the two reasons above, and the fact that competition can always ascend, both foreign and domestic, businesses will always compete to make the cheapest, most quality goods and services. I am running short on characters, so I ought to rap up. As a reminder, Pro must demonstrate that laissez-faire Capitalism is unstable and will collapse naturally and almost inevitably. As of far, there seems to be no evidence for this claim, and the beautiful examples of this economic system in history have not yet been presented. With that said, I look forward to Pro's response, and good luck. (1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (2) http://hnn.us... (3) http://www.hoovers.com... (4) http://online.wsj.com... (5) https://www.freepress.net... (6)(7)(8) http://mises.org... (9) http://www.mediacoop.ca... (10) http://www.duoism.org... (11)(12) http://money.cnn.com... (13) http://en.wikipedia.org... (14) http://www.econlib.org...