The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Can a free market society exist in the long term?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Moosehax has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/4/2019 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 407 times Debate No: 122084
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I believe that the primary issue with free market capitalism, Defined as no government regulation that could affect a businesses profits, Isn't a viable economic system because of the inevitable advent of monopolies. In an economic system where no one can tell businesses who they can and can't buy, You will see massive monopolization at a much faster scale than what we currently see with companies like Amazon. This will eventually lead to the company being either so powerful that their demise will ruin the world economy and the consumer's ability to get products that they need, Or the company will be able to buy out/undercut all of their competition and end up being able to charge whatever they want for their products, Completely negating the entire point of the free market. I have other concerns about consumer privacy and worker rights and stuff that prevent me from supporting the free market, But monopolies and the advent of a "private government" where a single business sells everything with no competition is why I believe that a free market capitalist society cannot exist in the long run. This debate is not arguing for any other system, Be it mixed market, Socialist, Democratic socialist, Or otherwise, It's just arguing against unregulated capitalism.


A free market society cannot exist in the long term. The main reason for this: no free market societies exist. The utopian ideology that a market can exist without the hand of the government is just that: utopian, And by definition, It cannot exist. Without government intervention, Companies are left without restraints and are allowed to completely monopolize the market. A free market capitalist society already exists, And therefore will exist longer than the non-existent utopia that is a socialist or a mix of socialist and other similar ideologies.
Debate Round No. 1


Ok so I might have erred slightly as I am new to this, But my position that I selected is pro but I don't believe that a free market society can exist in the long term. F


Oh oof man, Guess this one's a team win?
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
More a clarifying comment than a 'gotcha I'd say. Though I do view them as tools that society maybe ought use without siccing big government on people. While government (Democratic) may be owned by the people, Doesn't always feel that way. And becomes easy maybe for Government to become monopoly itself.

I read a book recently The Bully Pulpit Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, And the Golden Age of Journalism
Book by Doris Kearns Goodwin

Enjoyed it. It's a difficult question I think. But it sometimes seems to me it'd be better if people relied more on themselves to solve problems in society than government. Or at least smaller government that does a better job of representing them (I think).
Posted by Moosehax 2 years ago
In re Leaning:

No, As those are clearly not run by the government. I'm not sure if that was a clarifying question or a gotcha, But if it was a gotcha I'm going to respond to it here.

Have fun boycotting or unionizing against a company that literally owns everything. Have fun getting your groceries when you're boycotting the literal only source. Have fun staying alive after the literal only employer in your country fires you for unionizing.

Even if newspapers are able to remain independent of the inevitable supermonopoly, What good will informing the public be if they have literally no way to act on what they learn?

In conclusion, You can't unionize against your country's only employer. Their profits will be so huge that your refusal to work in one city won't affect their bottom line at all. And even if you are able to organize a country wide strike, One of two things will happen. Maybe you will all be fired and replaced by desperate parents and homeless people who don't care about collective bargaining and just want to put food on the table. And god forbid you succeed, Because destroying the profits of the company equates to destroying the government.
You can't boycott a monopoly that is the only supplier of everything. You just can't.
Newspapers will be bought by the supermonopoly and censored, Or if they aren't they will have no influence because the populace can't boycott or unionize for the reasons listed above.
Posted by Leaning 2 years ago
Do you count Unions, Boycotting, Or newspapers as government interference?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.