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

Kinda like how the growth of a paraplegic child is comparable to that of an able-bodied one.... oh wait, no it isn't. =/Science works by taking observations of natural behaviours as they appear in conditions mimicking the desired scenario.In other words, if you want to know how a business will behave under unregulated conditions you observe it unregulated. We have had this in our society when a new market emerges, like internet access, and laws haven't caught up.Quit running from the truth.Companies behave differently depending on their situation. Free-markets must be judged on their own merits, not the merits of their highly-statist counterparts. Free markets have no merits, as was plainly obvious during the industrial revolution.You say "unethically", but I know you understand that ethics and morals are subjective. Saying "unethically" means nothing to me. All I care about is if the business is supplying the demand or not. If it is, it does well. If it doesn't, it fails. A business requires ethics, quit being stupid.This is a cop-out. You've provided no argument but merely denied my own, so I'll repeat...Examples of you being wrong are everywhere. Fast food, for example, selling well despite being lower quality; Comcast ISP still existing despite poisoning its customers' packets for bittorrent, homeopathy selling despite being distilled water with no chemical, Record and Motion Pictures industries suing their customers left and right but still surviving.So long as persons behavior reflects their own rational self interest, which can be shortened to... - so long as there are persons; free-market enterprise will be a booming success. Success is subjective, so while you ignore ethics I will ignore success.Again, "unethically" means nothing to me. If you fins a particular companies methods to be repulsive, then just don't do business with them.Industrial revolution. Quit being a dumbass.Monopolies are NOT naturally occurring. Anyone can start up a business and under-sell a company that charges monopoly rates. In order to keep a monopoly you must make it exponentially more difficult to get ahead for new businesses and the only way to do that is to appeal to the government and create barriers to entry.Lookup economy of scale. While you're at it, look up FUD, proprietary technology and vendor lock-in. You may also want to look into Intellectual Property.I see no problem here. If one company is sooo amazing at doing their job that it actually makes the need for competition obsolete, then it means everybody is happy with their service.Not amazing, shrewd and efficient at killing competition. See above.If they start abusing their position by charging monopoly rates or militarizing etc. etc. then another person will simply open up a like business and under-sell the first one. Problem solved. =3Economy of scale, dummy.This is factually not true. Show me one insurance agency that started pre-United States and still exists today. Better yet, show me an insurance agency started pre-United States (or,any company that began in free-enterprise) that still exists today AND became less corrupt post-U.S (or any government for that matter).It doesn't work that way. Insurance companies acquire each other, change names, etc.You can't, because they don't exist. Governments cannot halt corruption because governments are corruption. The only time government steps in is to expand their own influence over the market. Dumbass talk ignored. Look into the RIAA and MPAA's influence on government law and regulation. This is an example of you being wrong.Oh, also ACTA.Again that wasn't under a free-market. You're comparing the behavior of a paraplegic to an able-body. Who knows what could of happened had the market not been so heavily influenced by the state.Let's compare this to a creationist:Again that wasn't an example of evolution. A bacteria is STILL a bacteria, it didn't evolve into a person. When a bacteria evolves into a cat, I'll listen.In other words moving the goalpost instead of accepting that you are wrong.But, whatever. Lets say a natural monopoly did occur even under a free market. Lets say it tried to pull off something akin to your example. Lets even go so far as to say that absolutely no-one else had any interest in opening up their own business and providing a better service. All these things are astronomically improbable, but lets say it happened. All this happened under the industrial revolution, in a completely unregulated market. The monopolies were kept because ECONOMY OF SCALE prevented competitors from damaging them, a small business cannot harm a small business, especially when it depends on goods sold to it by another monopoly.Price fixing occurred too.If it was such a big deal that their customers would rather go without their service than have their money go towards a business they don't want to support, then that's what would happen. And when this company faces bankruptcy, it will have to change its ways to meet market demand. If that doesn't happen, then it wasn't such a big deal in the first place. See: industrial revolution. The customers were kept poor be monopolies and couldn't choose anything else because not buying oil or coal meant freezing, and it doesn't work like that anyway because the point of a monopoly is to acquire the market for an important good.With a free-market, you have natural fallback measures after fallback measures that you just can't have under state rule. You can die, true. That is your only fallback measure since you can't prosecute your employer or seller under a free market.Maybe in the industrial revolution customers should have died more, then the monopolies would have lost their market. It's so obvious.yes, yes it did. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia http://mises.org/daily/2701You'll also do well to read up on stateless Iceland and Ireland, which held together for over one-thousand (1000!) YEARS!http://fringeelements.ning.com/forum/topics/anarchic-ireland-rough-draft http://fringeelements.ning.com/forum/topics/first-draft-of-anarchic  More dumbass talk. When you decide to actually study your claims with depth instead of only looking superficially into what anarchy is and how Somalia is at present, get back to me.A state ruled by warlords and religious factions is not healthy.The chest-beating alpha-male bouts of lesser primates is hardly comparable to the warring nature of monolithic governments. XDAgain, check the links on anarchic Ireland and Iceland.There are guerilla armies, I'll give you that, but YOU must also understand that these armies come into existence in response to state armies and tend to disband when they're no longer needed. More obliviousness.War is human nature. Primates make war. Forming rival factions is part of human nature, we are hierarchical animals, and government is the product of this.The only reason you support anarchy is because you're naive and think that it would be oh-so-cool to have no accountability. You seem oblivious to the fact that without a state, one eventually forms but not until many small factions emerge, killing each other.There's no need to get so upset, avesk. If children want to work, then the market will resemble this demand.A sweat shop is (and I quote) "a working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous", but what constitutes as "difficult" and "dangerous" is subjective. If the persons working in the sweat shop don't find their working conditions poor than there is no problem. More retarded talk. I'm not even going to bother addressing this. It defeats itself because you made yourself look supremely dysfunctional calling sweatshops subjective.If you personally don't like their conditions, then express your demand and only buy non-sweatshop clothing. Can't really, sweatshop goods occupy most of the market.Industrial revolution MkIIGovernments don't stop sweatshops, the market does.Industrial revolution: free market, all sweatshops and child labour.Government intervention: these were abolished on US soil.Name one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_nations