Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: Government society

And when their quality suffers (rating does not reflect reality), they invite competition, same as any other market good.Yeah, I think this comes back to the fundamental problem that the market is not as efficient as the free market proponent thinks it is. People are only partially informed, make mediocre decisions, most markets are small (don't support dozens of competitors), labor is not mobile (can't move around the country to the "best employer), etc.You may be able to fix these specific problems if:- We crowd everyone and every business in to cities (consumers and labor have real efficient choice)- Some unbiased and truthful organization forms that fully knows and discloses all aspects of every business (who the owner is, how many other business they own, their environmental record/practices, labor practices, what their profit margin is etc).- The above information is available to every person during every market decision.As to environmental protection, enforcing property rights, gives the incentive for the owner of the property to maintain the value of that property, including the natural resources associated with land.I have had so many debates with different people on this topic and it's always boiling down to the same thing. There is a belief that government is inherently bad (the officials are all corrupt) and that a free market is some how perfect despite human nature and the "power" of profits to corrupt. The free market proponent will cite dozens of "opinion" pieces from mises.org as to why the free market is so great when most modern economist in the world think we need a mixed market. mises.org and it's paying supporters (mostly big business donations) would love nothing more than for a free market to form but most people would be hurt very badly in a totally free market. When it comes to economies and social engineering, there are too many unknowns. As long as both sides are informed, there is really nothing left to debate because it all comes down to opinion about human nature and the way economies and men behave in the real world.As far as socialism, I don't know anyone that thinks we should have Communism style socialism though I'm sure those people exist. Like most things in the world, the answers to problems are not as easy as you think. You cant have pure socialism, you can't have a pure free market, etc. To me society must have the following things:- The goal of the society is to create a cohesive community that minimizes suffering including poverty, discrimination, wild fluctuations in markets, etc. The society should respect individual rights when ever possible but not when it will hurt the society as a whole.- A governing body to define and manage the basics things the society needs (laws, protection from foreign invaders, a mechanism to counteract the total concentration of wealth and resources, etc)- A good democratic process to elect the governing body- A partially free market (keeping in mind the things above). We need the "free" market piece to put a value on resources and also to incentivise men to work and better their condition. However we don't "need" this market to be "unlimited". The resources on the earth are finite. Wealth is finite. Just because we "can" consume all the resources and one man "can" collect all the wealth does not mean we/he should.