Libertarian economic theory and pure capitalism contains major flaws

My apologies, I did not mean to suggest that my opponent was advocating pure socialism, I was merely trying to point out that oligarchy and aristocracy are in fact more of a problem with other economic systems, and therefore even if they were natural outgrowths of libertarian economic theory, those arguments could be dismissed because of the underlying value. But that's getting slightly off topic. While my opponent brings up some interesting arguments, I believe that they are largely based on misunderstandings of key points. Firstly, my opponent claims that an aristocracy might exist through corporate control. However, this assertion is problematic because it seems to be outside of the definition of aristocracy. Aristocracy is defined as a group or "class of persons holding exceptional rank and privileges, especially the hereditary nobility", or government by such a class. (1) Corporations are not humans. While they can spend money and issue statements, they cannot have education or social prestige. These are things that humans have, and humans only. As we have already established, a libertarian society would not have a government run by corporations, because if there were a government apparatus with enough discretionary power to be worth taking over, the society would not be libertarian. So I do not completely understand what my opponent means by "aristocracy existing through corporate control". I'll wait for clarification in the next round. Second, my opponent claims that corporate wealth is not disseminated because corporations do not die and leave their money to their children. However, this idea is simply based on misconception of the nature of corporations. Corporations are not single sentient entities, they are owned by many, often thousands, of stock holders. (I'm sure my opponent knows this, but I've found that most people know this fact academically, but don't think through it's implications) These stock holders own and control the corporation. And these stock holders can do what they will with the income generated by their company, namely, spend it. The stock holders spend their money things they want or need, and leave their money to their children when they die. Thus, the profit of corporations is disseminated, and the corporations are broken up when they are no longer profitable. Admittedly, Adam Smith lived in a time when perfect knowledge concerning a product was more attainable than it is today, however, I believe that Adam Smith actually claimed that perfect knowledge was ideal, not a functional necessity. If I am wrong about this please include a direct quote from Smith saying that perfect knowledge is necessary. On advertising, companies would not be allowed to lie about their products, because to do so would be fraud and punishing fraud is part of protecting property rights. This would NOT be government regulation, because there would be no rules or guidelines imposed on advertisers by government, only punishment for those who committed fraud. There is a difference between government regulation and enforcement of justice. (For example, a society might have no regulation on firearms, but still punish those who used firearms to commit crimes.) Thus, because property rights would be upheld, (government would intervene as soon as a consumer paid for what was advertised and received something else) consumers could not be lied to with impunity. Finally, my opponent claims that standard oil was not a true monopoly, but the De Beers Diamond company was. At its height, De Beers only controlled about 90% of the diamond market. (2) Standard Oil controlled 85%. While there is certainly a difference between a true monopoly, and what is simply a very large company, I maintain that only government intervention can create true monopolies. My opponent mentions both AT&T and De Beers. While it is true that both came to be the biggest fish in their respective pools, neither completely took over their industry, but I think that the issue of the formation of these companies is even more important. AT&T was given its monopoly by the government, (3) and one should proceed cautiously when claiming that a company that formed in a place and time when an imperialist government exerted huge economic control and forcibly exploited native Africans could have been expected to form in a libertarian society. Also, the De Beers company was able to eliminate competition through use of the government and military during the 2nd Boer and 1st World wars, (2) a distinctly non-libertarian development. I think I have shown that a) my opponent's claim of "corporate aristocracy" is not meaningful (or at least unclear) b) that the wealth of corporations is indeed disseminated c) that, in the interest of protecting private property, a libertarian government would punish fraud, but would not need to create regulations, and d) that my opponent's examples of monopolies were actually government endorsed (or government created) and are thus poor examples. I will be interested to read what my opponent has to say on these points. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...