Laissez-Faire Capitalism is a structurally unstable economic system.

is a weak mitigation against my refutation. He makes weak mitigation against my attack on his poor, contradictory, and/or irrelevant choices of monopolies, and then goes on to make a claim based on a wiki source. He continues to claim that monopolization is a good thing, and that one can only achieve monopolization through being the best. I assume by this he meant having the best product or service, but this is not true. Corporations are capable of employing deceitful tactics in order to increase their sales or competitiveness. Furthermore he points to blackberry as an example, but Blackberry only controlled 43% of its industry at its high point. (1) "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. " This is only the words of my opponents opinion. This statement is not backed up by any source or fact, and is purely speculation. The underlined portion is again a reference to the miraculous "Free market" that opponent refers to. He seems to believe that corporations will not try to cover up their mistakes and misinform the public. This is not logical. It is logical to assume based on the fact that crimes are almost committed everyday, that businessmen who are trying to make profit would be sometimes willing to break laws, and lie in order to make profit. (2) The SAC insider trading scandal as of late is a perfect example of corporate greed leading to fraudulent business tactics. (3) My opponents says that the stability of Laissez-Faire Capitalism has "such an amount of empirical and logistical evidence that it is undeniably so. " and cites only a forum, the definition of free-market capitalism, and two clearly biased sources, one being titled "Top 10 Greatest Benefits of Capitalism. This source shows obvious bias, isn't talking of Laissez-Faire Capitalism, and is an opinionated entertainment article from an entertainment website. "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. " If my opponent cannot see this then he has not read my argument. In previous rounds I clearly stated how and why corporate aristocracy would form, and why my opponents "wall" is easily traversed. SUMMARY I have won this debate because my opponent has failed to prove the stability of Laissez-Faire Capitalism or disprove sufficiently my own contentions regarding the flaws and instability of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. This is evident in the contradictory and/or irrelevant and/or biased/inaccurate nature of my opponents sources. My attacks on my opponents argument have been thorough and effective. My own points stand strong. Vote Pro 1. . http://www.entrepreneur.com... 2. . http://www.fbi.gov... 3. . http://dealbook.nytimes.com... This all said I would like to lend a HUGE thanks to my opponent for a wildly entertaining debate.