Hands Off Economics Does Not Work

My argument is a very simple, competition drives the free market. Here is the problem in order for something to be a competition you must be competing to win. What happens when there is a winner in the free market, there is a monopoly which kills the free market system, there is no longer any choice in what you buy. If you take away the competition that drives the market there is no longer any reason to produce and again the free market fails. So if you choose to leave the market alone it is bound to fail.

I agree that people do infact compete to win, however, it is impossible for a single winner to come out unless that person provides the absolute best service. Furthermore, this is usually only possible in a limited sense, EG: It's far easier to attract a small scet of your people than it is a large one (Luxury autos vs regular ones).

Most monopolies today are government owned, or endorsed- the only way for them to exist is government regulation which requires them to exist, an example of this would be the school system.

If a company were to gain a monopoly, competition would still exist and still be legal, anybody could come in so long as the monopoly slipped up and started producing products in way that was unfavorable to the consumer, it would fall.

I will elaborate much farther on these arguments depending on how pro elaborates on his in round 2.

"If a company were to gain a monopoly, competition would still exist and still be legal, anybody could come in so long as the monopoly slipped up"

If this quote were true you would be correct in assuming hands off economics does work, however, I believe this is quite untrue. While competition may still remain legal within the economy there is no incentive for other companies to enter the market. For example you have a monopolistic company and a company that is about to enter the market. The new company considers entering the market, however, they know that the monopoly will lower its prices to below what the new company can produce for because the monopoly is so much more efficient and has already made such a large amount of money they can take a small loss to beat out a competitor. Realizing this the company does not enter the market because they would surely lose a large sum of money. So in fact there is no incentive to enter the market and at this point your argument fails.

"Most monopolies today are government owned, or endorsed- the only way for them to exist is government regulation which requires them to exist, an example of this would be the school system."

This is interesting point because the government also has regulations in place to prevent monopolies, it is no wonder monopolies do not exist anymore when the government is actively preventing it.

I will look forward to your next arguments.

Since I have gotten no response from my opponent I believe it is unfair to make any new arguments since he has not had the chance to respond to my previous argument. I will say only one thing vote on who made the better argument and not who you agree with (Ragnar Rahl).