Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a structurally unstable economic system.

Although I appreciate my opponents definitions, I would remind him that he was to use round one for acceptance only. I would also put forth a definition of my own. Laissez-Faire Capitalism-an economic environment in which transactions between private parties are free from government restrictions, tariffs, and subsidies, with only enough regulations to protect property rights. My definition is superior to the one given by my opponent because mine sets the stipulation that the government may only protect property rights, where my opponents lacks stipulation to define the minimum of necessity. I will construct my argument by presenting my contentions and then elaborating them. They are as follows: 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. "The belief that uniform benefit could be had by pure unregulated capitalistic economies died more than a century ago when people realized that pure market economies failed to produce a benefit to society as a whole." (2) Contention 1:Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization. Without regulation, corporations and other companies would be able to dominate their areas of industry at point that other companies would not pose any kind of significant competition, thus defeating the purpose of capitalism. "Corporate Aristocracy" would form when a select few massive corporation conglomerates have majority or total control over a specific area of industry. Historical examples include standard oil, AT&T, and the De Beers monopoly over diamonds. Standard oil and AT&T were thankfully broken up by anti-trust laws, but the De Beers diamond company still controls a vast majority of the diamond market. Left unchecked, corporations would have the potential to create a lasting collective of companies that act in a fashion similar to that of a feudal aristocracy. The difference being that instead of the individuals being the ones in power, the company would be the "individual" in power. Contention 2:Laissez-Faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world. For Laissez-Faire Capitalism to function, customers would ideally have near perfect knowledge of the products and services they were buying; corporations would also never employ any form of false or misleading advertising. Even with regulation businessmen are commonly "breaking the rules" or finding a way to work around them. Misleading advertisement and corporate irresponsibility means that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is bound to harm the majority. Without regulation, employment of shady business tactics could lead to the aforementioned Corporate Aristocracy/Oligarchy and monopolization. Contention 3:Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy. With the formation of a few ruling corporations through monopolization, conglomeration, and "Snowballing" business power, the government would be converted into an oligarchy. With the economy controlled by only a few large businesses, an oligarchy (rule by few) would form with the corporations at the head. The government in question would be irrelevant due to the massive economic control of the corporate aristocracy. I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge and await his response eagerly. 1. Gaspard, Toufick. A Political Economy of Lebanon 1948"2002: The Limits of Laissez-faire. Boston: Brill, 2004. Print 2. http://mydd.com...