Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a structurally unstable economic system.

Thanks to Pro for an excellent debate, and may the best man win. Now, the matter of BoP must once again be addressed, as PRo again claimed my failure to show Laisezz-Faire Capitalism as stable. In round three, in the very first section and very clearly, I stated why my opponent holds the BoP. Given no response, the BoP must be assumed Pro"s. To reiterate, this is why my adversary holds the BoP: 1.All unstable 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. Now, my argument that monopoly is good is rather irreverent, given the BoP is on pro, so it would be best to return to Pro"s original three contentions. Contention one: Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows the formation of a "Corporate Aristocracy" and monopolization. My original response to this fallacy was that Laissez-Faire Capitalism marks an absolute separation of market and Government, similar to that of religion. Pro"s sole response to this in round two was: "This entire point is almost laughable. My opponent seems to imply that men looking make profit will always "play by the rules." This simply is not true. There are indeed men who make great business through honest tactics and hard work, but there are countless men who lie, cheat, steal, and swindle to make profit. Crony capitalism forms because humans are, by nature, greedy and self serving. Good intentions, terrible results." Pro is correct, many executives and businesses do not play by the rules, which is why Capitalism and its Governments should be parted. The very reason crony capitalism occurs is because Government can give businesses advantages, including tax-breaks and subsidies. In a Laissez-Faire system, this is simply not permitted, rendering the entire concept of crony capitalism void. As stated in round 1, crony capitalism would be more aptly named "crony socialism". A great example of this would be Monsanto, a GMO company, who through donations and support for political candidates have avoided and averted all attempts at restriction and obstructive legislation. (1) Contention 2: Laissez-Faire Capitalism is only functional in an ideal world. Pro states, "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." I had stated so previously, but there are two primary reasons why this is the case. 1.Lawsuits. There is an innumerable list of things for which a company can face lawsuit. Injury, faulty product or service, institutional racism, just to name a few. Companies are forced to stay in line, and it is in their best interest to at least release safe products, and at least build stable places for their workers, because of the incredible amount of money at stake in lawsuits. 2.Business. The only way a corporation can turn profit is when people or institutions utilize their products or services, and if they do a bad job, consumers will not do so. If lawsuits keep businesses from doing anything dangerous, the possibility of losing business makes sure companies produce quality ware. Do a bad job, and you won"t get customers. Rip off consumers, and you won"t get customers. It"s that simple. Contention 3: Laissez-Faire Capitalism allows for the formation of an oligarchy. The arguments for contention one can more or less be extended here. Government and market should exist in entirely different realms, and manage entirely different functions. Additionally, without Government backing of a monopoly, competition can always ascend and dethrone its former better. Without Government, corporation cannot take hold of an economy. Final conclusion: Let us define stable. "Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation." (2) So to win this debate, Pro must have proved that Laissez-Faire Capitalism is not self-standing, and cannot survive any lengthy period of time. With the BoP on him, it seems to me Pro has failed in the absolute to do so. Pro settled on a tough contention for himself, and while being a worthy debater, failed to complete his objective. Once again, well done Pro, and may the better debatee win. (1) http://benswann.com... (2) http://dictionary.search.yahoo.com...