Libertarian economic theory and pure capitalism contains major flaws

Although I did not think that clarification was necessary, I will humor my opponent and attempt to describe to him my point regarding Corporate aristocracy in a way that he will hopefully find easier to understand. I'll begin by talking about corporate person-hood. A corporate aristocracy can form through the concept of corporate person-hood. Although the traditional definition of aristocracy referred to human individuals, individual corporations would have the ability the form an aristocracy through economic power and control. The fourteenth amendment of the united states of America has been used to establish corporate person-hood. This is what allows corporations to be protected by law, granting them freedom of speech. This was a major reason for the decision of the Citizens United Vs. The Federal Elections Commission in 2010. Corporations are defined as people by the 14th amendment and therefore had the right to free speech, but I digress. The lack of regulations pressed upon it by the government is what allowed the East India Trading Company to form the pseudo-oligarchy that it did. Corporations do not disseminate wealth over time. Investors make dividends but the company grows, increases its GDP, and therefore increases its influence in the economy. The company loses some investors, gains new ones, makes profits, expands, and then increases its power as a company. Governmental regulations prevent monopolies from forming this way, especially in necessity areas such as Power, Civil Services, and Food. Without regulations, the economy could be totally controlled by just a few banks and corporations. The US government has used governmental regulations in order to combat the problems that Laissez-Faire Economics spawns. My opponent claims that because a Company controlled only 85% or 90% of a market, that they weren't really in control (or monopolizing) it. I would like to make the point that if you control 85-90% of any kind of supply that was in demand, you would have a fairly considerable control over the product. If a company was allowed to have this power with oil or food, they would hold a Sword of Damocles over the government. My opponent's beliefs regarding Adam Smith's economic ideals, though convenient, are not true. "The real price of every thing," says Adam Smith, "What every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it, or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. That this is really the foundation of the exchangeable value of all things, excepting those which cannot be increased by human industry, is a doctrine of the utmost importance in political economy. "(1) It is implied by Smith that in order for Laissez-Faire economic trade to be fair, proper, balanced, and avoid Corporate Oligarchy, perfect knowledge of the products value is of "Utmost importance" Furthermore my opponent contradicts himself. He creates a government regulation that would not be included in Laissez-Faire economics regarding advertisement fraud. He furthermore claims that his regulation his in fact not a regulation, but instead a punishment for those who do not follow regulation. Regulation being legally defined as "A rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those under the authority's control. " I would say my opponents proposed plan regarding the prevention of fraud would fit this definition perfectly. My opponents "Biggest fish in the pool" metaphor, though eloquent and entertaining, is inaccurate in use. If, as the metaphor suggest, there was a fish in a pool that ate and controlled 90% of the food (the food in the metaphor being GDP in industry) then would there be any chance that the other 10% of fish by mass and food would have any chance of toppling the fish that is nine times larger than all of them combined? Would this not mean that the big fish was the dominant ruling fish? Furthermore my opponent fails to address regional monopolization. Although one company may not control 100% of an industry world-wide, they can still have 100% control in a region, and therefore hold sway over that region. AT&T did not have 100% control of the Telephone/Telegraph industry worldwide, or even in North America, but they did have enough control in the United States for the government to take action against them. I believe that I have won this argument because I have sufficiently disproved all of my opponents contentions, and counterpoints. Furthermore, I have created overwhelming support and evidence for my own contentions, and proved to fullest extent of my abilities that the affirmative of the resolution is the more convincing argument. 1. Smith, A. , 1976, The Wealth of Nations edited by R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, Vol. 2b, pp. 47. 2. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... I would like to close by lending massive thanks to my opponent! This was a really great debate to be introduced with! Thank you for your time and effort! I look forward to further debates with you.