Laissez Faire Capitalism is Disgusting and Immoral

Before I begin, I want to present a definition of Laissez Faire Capitalism, because it appears that a lot of pro's argument isn't relevant to what it really is. Here is the definition: ". .. [It] describes an environment in which transactions between private parties are free from state intervention, including restrictive regulations, taxes, tariffs and enforced monopolies. "[1]Now to begin my argument, it's necessary to end the myth that Capitalism is a Darwinistic system of sorts, meaning that it is the survival of the fittest. "The wealth and technology that capitalism creates — e. g. , the medical miracles that now routinely save previously "unfit" people — demonstrate that capitalism's benefits are not restricted to the fittest. .. That means that virtually all survive better, making capitalism dramatically anti-Darwinian. " How exactly could a system that benefits everyone be a dog-eat-dog system? [2]In truth, because Capitalism champions the principle of private property, "jungle law" is averted in exchange for a more individual rights approach that benefits all in the system. "The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle's destructive competition for meager subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one's self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market — the contractual society — that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the "weak" to live productively … in a regal style compared to the life of the "strong" in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes. "[3]Is is simply a coincidence that income levels have spiked over the past 300 years? The spike corresponds to the arrival of Capitalism as an economic institution. It's no coincidence. [4]Next, my opponent cites two people who are supposedly arguments against Capitalism because of the horrors they created by instituting it. But, if we look back at the definition I proposed at the beginning of my argument, we see that both of these cases can be thrown out because the government was involved. As an article from the Mises Institute, the leading authority on Austrian Economics puts it on Pinochet: "Despite the fact that General Pinochet was able to use his powers as dictator to enact major pro-free-market reforms, dictatorship should never be seen as justified merely as a means of instituting such reforms, however necessary and desirable they may be. Dictatorship is the most dangerous of political institutions and easily produces catastrophic results. This is because a dictator is not restrained by any need for public discussion and debate and thus can easily leap headlong into disasters that would have been avoided had there been the freedom to criticize his proposed actions and to oppose them. And even when his policies may be right, the fact that they are imposed in defiance of public opinion operates greatly to add to their unpopularity and thus to make permanent change all the more difficult. "[5]This leads to two holes in my opponent's argument. One, any economic plan, including Capitalism, forced onto people will never succeed. Further, this is not how Capitalism should work - Capitalism should be instituted by the desire of the people to have private property and free enterprise. Two, there is an adjustment period - blindly switching fom Communism to Capitalism is never good; this is why Eastern Europe's economies are doing so poorly, even after trying Capitalism. Even worse for my opponent is the number of blatant lies he has in his arguments, like, "The Labour Party is now pro-austerity, pro-privatisation and anti-immigration. " This is blatantly wrong: . http://news.bbc.co.uk.... There are many more that I wish to not waste the time going into. Overall, most of my opponent's argument is misguided, irrelevant, or just plain wrong. To conclude my argument, Capitalism allows for the efficent exchange of goods and resources. In socialism, the Government decides what and how much of a product is produced, and who should get that product. This is obviously inefficent because the Government can not satisify the needs and wants of all of it's population (which is why Socialism works better in small countries). In Capitalism, the consumer gets to decide these things, so the consumer gets what he wants. This efficient system eliminates long-term shortages and surpluses. "The single greatest benefit that capitalism provides is that it enables human choice. "[6]Further, Capitalism allows for competition, which lowers prices for consumers and virtually eliminates the threat of shortages. "Competition in the marketplace is good for consumers"and good for business, too. It benefits consumers by keeping prices low and the quality and choice of products and services high. "[7]"In enriching most those who are most productive, capitalism allows the survival of billions of people who would not otherwise have survived. In fact, capitalism gives everyone — particularly the weakest, whom it is accused of harming — the best chance not just to survive but to thrive. One of many ways this is revealed is the vast increases in leisure that markets have made possible, while real incomes dramatically increased at the same time. This could not result from "dog eat dog" competition. "[2]Sources [1]: . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: . http://mises.org...[3]: Rothbard, Murray. Man, Economy, and State. [4]: . http://capitalism.aynrand.org...[5]: . http://archive.mises.org...[6]: . http://www.hillsdale.edu...[7]: . http://www.ftc.gov...