Can capitalizm lead to a monarchy?
Debate Rounds (3)
1st round acceptance only
2nd round present argument.
3rd round refute
Capitalism is the economic system that allows personal ownership of goods, or services provided. Combined with a completely free market, I argue that it can lead to an eventual monarchy. Capitalism encourages competition. But history has proven that in any competition there is always a winner, and a loser. In most cases the spoils of war go to the victor, thus increasing the strength of the victor.
As a private business would grow, so would it's influence, capital, and revenue. As it grows, it's ability to crush smaller businesses increases in probability. For example, a Wal-Mart opens it's doors in a small town. Because Wal-Mart has the ability to offer cheap affordable goods in a variety of departments, the ability for mom and pop shops to compete becomes nearly impossible. The smaller businesses choked out as the larger corporations expand. Eventually, the owners of those very businesses become employees for the larger corporations. The goods they buy from Wal-Mart with the paycheck they earned from the same company.
As these very corporations grow, they will of course meet stronger advisories. Instead of competing, I argue that it will be probable that they will merge as an industry and corner the markets they compete in, together. This is a common place already with the airline industry and even cell phone carriers. Once merged, the leaders of the companies would hold high positions/titles (lords, dukes, ect.) within the expanding corporation.
My final point being, left unchecked, it is possible for one corporation in a free market of capitalism to grow without restriction. Eventually buying up, or merging, with all companies within the nation. And then onto buying all land and assets. The company would then rent the land out, and provide the only jobs available to pay for the rent. This is much like a Monarch, owning all the land, and forcing it's "subjects" to work the land in order to earn favor.
Once a business grows to the power of owning all of a nations wealth and assets. It is a probable conclusion t believe it would have the power to declare it's CEO a king.
I am not arguing the realism of this possibility. Only that it is possible.
"The first assumption is that corporate size always goes up. In reality, corporations rise and fall". In this, I share my opponents opinion. And I will continue to share this opinion for as long as my opponent would agree with my statement that history has proven: just as corporations have risen up and fallen, so have monarchies, republics, and empires across the globe. History has proven that monarchs have existed. History can prove that kings have been conquered. Empires have been formed, empires have fallen. This argument holds no weight on the theory that corporations cannot achieve monarch status.
"You can't say that regulation stops this corporate growth"
I can't? I refer to the very example you provided to prove this point. Rockefeller owned the monopoly that was the Northern securities Co. This company did own a monopoly in the U.S. and because of this made Rockefeller to be known as the richest man in the world. Left unchecked, my theory could very well have taken hold. However, the Sherman antitrust act of 1890 ultimately broke his company up and forced him to sell many of his shares. The decision continued to increase Mr. Rockefeller's over all wealth. But by breaking up the company allowed for further competition were there was none prior. So in fact, regulation did indeed stop corporate growth, and continues to do so.
"Can my opponent find ONE example of a company with unrestricted growth that kills all competition in recent times?"There are no companies with unrestricted growth in a capitalistic environment provided with a truly free market. But I would like to state that there are several monarchies currently in the middle east region of Asia that retain much of their power, influence, and money from the ownership of the oil monopoly within their own lands. I offer you two business in U.S. history that could have been on track with my theory. One was already provided earlier in my argument, the Northern securities Co., and the American tobacco Co. Both companies had a strangle hold on the market and were set up to corner the market with the ability to practice unfair business practices. Both were restricted by the U.S. government to prevent such monopolies, and therefore decreasing their influence and power.
Now, on to my final argument.
As it has been established, monarchies do exist. Many have formed in human history. And most have been formed from a variety of ways. Some by a social agreement of having one King to be just and rule the land entirely. An agreement so that a group could be organized to defend it's lands from larger forces outside a realm. Many monarchs have been established from important battles and at the tip of a sword. Barbaric governments formed from barbaric times. Is it ridiculous to believe that in modern times, a monarch could not be formed from the tip of a pen?
Many in business refer to a free market as a civilized battlefield. Successful business men will often be heard quoting Sun Tzu's art of war. If monarchies of our past history have been formed from conquering smaller kingdoms (small business), or unifying to increase influence and power (forming of cartels). It is not a ridiculous theory to believe in the possibility of a free market and a capitalistic government to create the same.
As this debate comes to an end, I would ask my voters to only consider with an objective mind the possibility of my theory. There are many laws and regulations that a multitude of governments have set in place for many years that have prevented one company from having to much influence or power. But remove those laws, remove those regulations, and provide only a free market, and capitalism, and what you will have is the exact breeding ground for one of the most simple forms of government in human history. I believe I have proven with out question that indeed capitalism, left completely unchecked could form a monarchy.
As a final argument, I would like to state that I am only arguing the possibility of my theory. Not the probability. Not even the longevity of a monarchy formed from economic policies. Even as I debate this, I support the movement of capitalism as on a personal level I believe it is the greatest economic policy to increase prosperity within a society. I am merely pointing out it's unintended possibilities.
I would further like to thank my opponent for his time and the voters for their consideration. Good luck and may the one with the greatest argument win. My sources for this argument are as follows:
JackFritschy forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Con forfeited last round, even though there was much for him to refute. 2. Pro made more arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.