Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

I know and you were wrong, since it hasn't been two decades since Somalia's collapse. Hence, you were wrong.Presumably you cannot read.And this is an example of law naturally emerging. Perhaps you and me wouldn't much like Islamic law, but that's what the Somali's wanted and that's what they did about it.I'm going to try a different approach and treat you with respect from here on out. Please don't make this a vain effort.If Somalis are fighting for Sharia, law that is widely against their interests, then you have your answer for how emergent law and markets need not evolve to be entities conducive to the population.The U.N. tried to establish power just like they did.Yes, they were "good guys."Besides, the end punishment for any crime is death. Think about it, lets say you don't pay your taxes. You have chosen to not use government services, your home is totally self sufficient yadda, yadda, yadda. What happens?If you live within a state, you use its services. You use its military services, police services, its courts and government. You can't get something for nothing.Sure, there's a chance your defense fails and they kidnap you, but then if you try to leave you'll be shot anyway.If you stiff your landlords on the bill, there are consequences. Accept your personal responsibility.but when you take into account that the state armies behave with impunity to a much greater extent Actually not. If you follow politics, states are accountable to each other.I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the blackwater army's internal legal system of blackwater.If the US military commits war crimes, it will be held accountable by an international tribunal. It may even be retaliated against by other states.Blackwater has no state status, so it cannot be tried by state means. We just have to trust it, effectively, until law catches up.The oversight is in both cases, the public (demand). The difference is, with private protection you can switch firms if you don't like the way yours operates.There were more private military corporations than blackwater, and the market didn't cause them to be ethical. They all acted thuggish.If the U.S. army was ordered to invade Washington and assume control, do you think they'd do it? Probably not, but if the did, we'd be fucked.A coup d'etat is a faction-based dispute. This means the counter-force are loyal military parties.Now, look at private armies. Would they do it? Well, since they are persons from the same psycho-class, probably not. And since they aren't nearly as big as the U.S. army and there are other firms around, they have even less incentive to try since they would fail almost immediately.When you say things like this it makes me come a little unhinged at the audacity in the statement. This is why I become disrespectful. However I will try not to be this time.A corporation may answer to the state, but as you observe it may form complex relationships with the state and this impedes law enforcement. This is exacerbated when monopolies form. They rival government in political power. Now, let me ask you point-blank: do you want Oil Companies like BP with their own privately-funded armies? Would you want Microsoft to have its own military wing? Honestly, do you not see the insanity in such a thing?Even if several mini-states occurred, there would be much less violence as seen with Ireland and England. Anarchic Ireland had no notable wars, just some infighting. The death count alone is enough to see which is more violent.I read up on Gaelic Ireland and Somalia. Do you know what happened there? Constant fighting. Inter-faction disputes. You keep ignoring and downplaying this. There is no law and order in a region which has no common laws and heads of state. There is competition between men with guns.Ooop, oh, there's that manipulative streak again. There is no authority here, authority assumes the power to make desisions free of questioning. Chieftains had no such power.Do you ever get tired of ad hoc definitions? Do you realise that you just argued that a head of state is not an authority? Heads of states are questioned in their actions, in a process of checks and balances, and transparency.Authority means the ability to command those below you. If people listen to you, and are kept in line by force or consequences (do I even need to go on here? you know where this is going), then you may corrupt the market by forcing those below you to act in ways that are not competitive.Did you actually make this big of a mistake, or did you think I just don't understand my own arguments and you could trick me into folding?You acknowledged what I had been arguing all along. It's a hallelujah moment.If a person overseas is working for 3 cents an hour, but his labour is worth 10 dollars an hour in North America, then it makes perfect sense for a firm to go over there and pay 6 cents an hour and keep the profit. What's wrong with that? If you can survive on 3 cents an hour, 6 cents is a fucking goldmine.Can you spot the problems here? If someone is making such profits, then they are amassing wealth, and wealth always translates into power. You just acknowledged that capitalism redistributes wealth and thus power in a way that is completely uneven.Second: such uneven distribution of wealth causes social turmoil, due to feelings of outrage and desperation brought on by poverty.I'm trying really hard to remain cordial. Your crass lack of responsibility makes it difficult.If there are no restrictions stopping firms from doing this, then many firms go overseas and create an economy of scale, thus wages increase due to firms competing for workers and since everyone is making more money their children can spend more time in school and less time working.Except it doesn't. Look at how poor the people in the IR were. Unions increase wages, not competition.How do you intellectually or emotionally embarrass or shock someone who is defending "My morals are more important then some slave's living standard"?Correct. You are the one arguing in favour of slave wages because your morality cannot allow the factories and businessmen be held accountable for mistreating their workers.All I've said was compared to what preceded it, the industrial revolution was a step forward. The industrial revolution was in fact better than feudalism and everything that preceded feudalism for that matter, so your argument doesn't make any sense.I'll be more explicit. The Industrial Revolution was by no means a step forward by the standards of welfare for the working class. This is incontrovertible. It is impossible to argue that moving from standard production working guilds and shops, to more cramped facilities with longer hours, and more massive exploitation of dangerous labour, could be better for the workers' welfare.Feudalism ended well before the Industrial Revolution, therefore you must compare it to something else. English society was already moving towards a more fair society when they dropped a land-based economy. IR changed this by requiring people to work in wretched conditions, like slaves all over again.The common man became about twice as wealthy and was able to afford better homes, clothes, water, health-care, etc. End of story. Wages only allowed for the bare minimum. There was rampant malnutrition. Healthcare? Laughable. You have no idea what 18th and 19th century life was like."Water" is particularly laughable since they could only afford to drink polluted river water.It's not as though these "evil" capitalists were dumping sewage into the drinking water, stroking their long wire-y mustaches thinking "Nya, now to murder off both my work supply and customer base! Nya!"Factories dumped toxic waste into the city water supply. This is why the rivers were such poor sources of water, in addition to the sewage. Remember: no regulations on business means no concern for environment. Would you trust a factory to make the extra effort to safely dispose of waste?Did I mention that the upper class had imported spring water?Life expectancy of adults went up too. Though, to be totally fair, since there were so many new diseases, life expectancy was less certain.Life expectancy figures went up because infant mortality dropped, not because working class adults lived longer. They actually died at a young age en mass, it's just that when you compute an average with a lot of small numbers (the age of dead infants) it brings the ALE way down.You're lying right to my (internet) face about my position. Did you think I wouldn't see this?I'll just quote this:Free enterprise means no barriers to entry.andI want an economy without state controls.You don't want a lack of regulations, you just want a lack of regulations.I'm sure you've at least seen this relative to yourself. YOU are more productive when you aren't miserable. It's the same deal with everyone else. So, logically, firm owners have an incentive to make their workers happy,......Even then, since the worker supply is so high, there's just no reason to beat your workers when you can just as easily not beat them. Listen. I am not disputing that a happy worker is productive. Why then, is it a matter of historical record that factory owners beat their workers and kept them in fear?http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRpunishments.htm So you're just going to write off any progress just because it didn't automatically bring them up to our level? =/So in your mind, expecting generosity and good-naturedness in people isn't laudable, instead you see any demands for fair wages as extreme and unfair to the factory owners.Why are you advocating for the wealthy? The wealthy can take care of themselves. They don't need you as a cheerleader.I don't know why you're still trying to argue this, the statistics are against you. Your words are empty. There's a word for people who take information out of context. In your case it is datamining. You take figures that only show some level of goodness and avoid looking at everything else that contradicts you, you further ignore context that applies to the 19th century.Unclaimed land being used up is not analogous to private land being used up. Private land is not a common and you won't find many examples of farmers over-using their own land. Tell that to the people who lived during the dust bowl.Also tell that to the people in South America who are clearing out rainforests for cows.Again, if you can't tell the difference between paying a respected member of society to say good things about your product and a firm lobbying a state to cripple competition, you don't know a damn thing about economics.If you pay a chieftain to require his servants to buy from you, then you are crippling your competitors. Quit whitewashing what I said by claiming "requiring" means "speaking in favour of."You're wrong, and need to downplay verbs in order to maintain your preconceptions.