Unregulated Capitalism is a moral system, and is perfect as it is

My opponent states that capitalism, if unregulated, allows small businesses to fail, big businesses such as WallMart to prosper, and also states that this is unethical. However, the only measure of ethics of a political system is whether it preserves inalienable rights of each separate individual. The inalienable rights of individual are the right to his own life, to his property, and to products or results of his actions (which become his private property). Furthermore, within the sphere of his rights, his freedom is absolute. To provide a concrete example, consider Robinson Crusoe, who is stranded on an island. Since there are no other men on the island, he requires no political system. If he fails to reap a harvest, then he would die from hunger, a situation for which he can blame only himself. (The analogy to draw at this point is that a small business may fail because it is not doing a good enough job). Now another man arrives on the island. Lets call him "Friday". At this point, a political system is required, because the two men have to co-exist. If a political system of capitalism is accepted by the two, then both Robinson and Friday would have the same rights. Friday would be able to decide how he wants to live his life. His one option is to build his own house and a crop field. Another option is to work for Robinson in exchange for food and shelter, which happen to be the terms that Robinson offered. He (voluntarily) chooses to work for Robinson. When the agreement expires (or if it has an exit clause), Robinson may choose to fire Friday leaving him stranded without food. In this case Friday still has his dignity, because he has his inalienable rights to act. He can proceed to build his own house and a field of crops. Most likely Friday already began slowly to build-out his private home, and create savings of food, all while working for Robinson, so that when he is fired he is all set to continue his life in a different way. In the future, the two men can again reach new voluntary agreements. For instance, they may choose to exchange among themselves different types of crops. This concludes the example, which served to illustrate that under unregulated capitalism individuals are free, and all their dealings are voluntary. I will now switch to other points my opponent made. I will address my opponent's example that Rockefeller strangled small businesses. Rockefeller was able to produce a superior product for a smaller price, and individuals chose voluntarily to buy the product from him, rather than to buy more expensive and inferior product from small businesses. As a result, those businesses failed. That this happens is the outcome of free-will choices, and in no measure an evaluation of capitalism. Forcing people to buy a product they don't want, and to pay for it more than they want, would be going against their individual rights to decide and act according to those decisions. My opponent also states that capitalism leads to monopolies. Monopolies, in every case, were created by the government giving favours to one business instead of another. This happened not in unregulated capitalism, but in the mixed economy, which is not the kind of political system that I defend in this debate. In unregulated market a small company can create an innovative niche product, and overtake a big company in that aspect. As a result, no company could dominate the market for too long. Many small companies choose (voluntarily) to be bought by the bigger company, but no one can force the owners to sell. It is true that even without government regulation some businesses may cooperate to join to become a big business. If this business produces a good product and a price that individuals are willing to pay, it is ethical because it does not impede on anyone's inalienable rights. Please note that there is no such moral imperative that any small business should be competitive enough with any other (big or small) business. Competition on the free market depends on the product and price, and nothing else. But because all engagements are voluntary, no one is hurt by this. If a business lost its market share, because another business does it better, then the individuals in the former business can start another business or work for another business. Either way, they will continue to voluntarily engage with other people. My opponent makes more special case points which I will address below. First, my opponent says that greed is immoral. Greed is the desire to have more than one already has. This is not immoral, and the right of every individual to desire so. Such desire does not impede on anyone's individual rights, because the desire is in one's mind. People may act on whatever desires and ideas they have, rational or irrational. This is fine as long as they do so within the sphere of their rights. In case of business, an owner of the business may desire for his business to make as much money as possible, and this is perfectly moral. Second, my opponent talks about lobbyists. In the political system I am defending there are no lobbyists, because the government simply has no policy makers who could be influenced one way or another. If two companies (or individuals) have a disagreement, they would resolve would it in court. Note that a lobbyist can not influence a judge -- that would be a bribery, and would be persecuted by police. Third, my opponent states that the person that has the most money has the most rights. This assertion is invalid in the proposed political system of unregulated capitalism, because inalienable rights have nothing to do with the amount of money one has. Fourth, he states that the measure of success or failure of a political system is what happens to masses of people (classes), rather than individuals. This is a wrong way to judge a political system, because fundamentally individual people deal with each other. Every group is composed of individuals that associate with the group voluntarily, and allow the group leaders to be their spokesmen, within the domain of interest that unites the group. Overall, my opponent argues about capitalism as en economic system. Even if capitalism was less efficient economically than some other political system, it would still be the only ethical system, and the only one to accept. For instance, if slavery was shown to produce a bigger GDP for a country, it would not be a moral political system, and should not be accepted. Only a political system that respects basic rights of individuals is ethical. There is only one such system possible: unregulated capitalism.