Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a structurally unstable economic system.

Thank you for your response, sir. Now my opponent brings up and issue that I planned to discuss last round, before running out of characters, and that issue is BoP. Pro says "my opponent has TOTALLY FAILED to point out that laissez faire capitalism is stable". This implies Pro thinks half the BoP is on my shoulders. I, however, would disagree, and I will use a contention-list to prove it. 1. All unstable things things have flaws 2. All flaws are expressable 3. Therefore, if someone cannot express any flaws in something, until more evidence comes to light, that thing must be assumed stable. Even if Laissez-Faire Capitalism is unstable, if my opponent fails to point out the flaws, then the debate goes to me. Is monopoly good? Organizing the contentions as much as possible, Pro begins by attacking my choices of monopolies. Pro may have whatever monopolies he wants, the arguments do not change. The only thing worth mentioning on this point is that while Fannie and Freddie were in part responsible for the housing bubble, this is through shady and dirty business, which would have been shut down by the free market, but instead was supported by the Government. (1) On to the actually contention, that monopolies are not bad. The only evidence that Pro uses to back this claim up is saying, "monopolization eliminates competition, and therefore defeats the purpose of capitalism." This is only true to the extent that companies eliminate competition by being the best, and offering the finest service or goods in their industry. Should they falter to these ends, competition will rise up to crush them. Blackberry would be an excellent example of this. (2) While not a full monopoly, Blackberry did dominate the market in sales and popularity. (3) Now they are really a footnote in the mobile phone industry, and just today lost nearly 18% of their market value. (4) My opponent goes on to quote specific passages, to which I will attempt to respond without quoting long passages. "If the populace was uneducated on what the true harms of a product were, or the irresponsible actions (bribery, pollution, etc.) that a corporation was taking, then how would these mystical "free-market forces" stop that company from gaining a competitive edge?" Well you can't, to a certain extent. The free market will not stop this unless it hurts someone. As soon as a business begins to exploit or harm its customers or employees, people will notice, and the free market will destroy that company or force reform, through a rise of competition, lawsuit, or refusal to do business. It seems acceptable to do "shady business" otherwise, if it does not hurt anyone. "My opponent claims these benefits of the almost magical "free-market" but cites only an opinionated source that is only based on speculation not fact." Have it your way. (6) (7) (8) (9). My opponent calls the benefits of free markets "speculation". Pro is not wrong, but capitalism is speculation in the same regard that gravity is speculation--it hasn't been scientifically proven, but there is such an amount of empirical and logistical evidence that it is undeniably so. Conclusion I saw no response to my contention that businesses cannot form an aristocracy because of the wall between market and Government. Of course it is up to the reader, but I have seen nothing that clearly demonstrates that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is unstable. With that said, good luck sir. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) (5) http://www.nytimes.com... (6) http://listverse.com... (7) http://www.econlib.org... (8) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (9) http://bobzermop.hubpages.com...