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

Government could care less about market. Strictly speaking the only way they could care is if it gives them a financial incentive.In pure anarchy there is no great authority to buy favors from. In any sort of tribe or proto-government, or council or elders, etc. there comes an authority which may be tainted with favors. All you're arguing for is a lack of authority which can never happen.And why not? The peasants of the middle ages thought there would always be a monarchy. We built our way out of that. Perhaps it will take time, but it's inevitable. Generation after generation, mankind has and is becoming more intelligent. We've working our way out of religion, the same can happen with the state.Correct. Mores is the sociological term.Agreed.Correct, unless you have more firepower than the local residents in which case it is might makes right.Perhaps you can have more firepower compared to your neighbor, but not all your neighbors. The old school fire-fighting method was everyone in town helps put out a fire. If someone didn't, they just didn't get any help if their property caught fire.You can see how this can be applied to local arms disputes.It's still bad however, lots of deaths occur. Warlords, gangs and factions exist. The civilian legal code is insufficient to end this.So when you look at a few numbers while ignoring everything else, yes Somalia improved, but not in the big picture with everything looked at.Show me some statistics backing up your claim.Why is that? I bet on the governments and armies which keep the peace.Third world countries have governments and armies too, so that can't be it. I disagree. Pre-collapse Somalia wasn't divided into zones of factions.Why are you being so obtuse on this point? Post-collapse Somalia was a much more habitable place, so whatever it was that happened post-collapse was better than the government that existed pre-collapse.It makes sense because that small something carries a big stick, and atomic weapons.Atomic weapons are NOT a productive means of solving market problems. =pOr force us into a position where we can only demand from them.Which they can only due by appealing to the state...The thing is, employee labour at this level is expendable so it's always a matter of finding an unemployed person to fit the job.This happened a lot many decades ago.You also forget that workers put up with a lot before quitting.Regardless, there is an expected quality of working conditions demanded by the public. If they are not met (or at least not well) then the employer suffers from not being able to expand quite as well as his more generous counter-part.How is it the state's fault? They followed the rules. It's really the fault of the companies for getting political after making bad promises.An analogy. Would it make much sense to get mad at a dog for chasing a squirrel? It's their nature, it's only to be expected. Now, if that dog asked (lets assume it can talk now) for a human to step on the squirrel's tail so he can catch it, which of these things would you say needs to go in order to give the squirrel a fighting chance? The dog will chase the squirrel with or without the human, but the human needs not play any role and is in fact a hindrance to the squirrel. You are either tethered by their agreements or in an anarcho-capitalist society they hire a private militia to break into your home and beat you for copying their files.I don't know about you, but I don't much like the idea of persons breaking into my home and beating me. If I heard of a company that has done this, you can be sure wouldn't do business with them. Also, I'd hire a local police agency to watch my home in order to prevent this.Before welfare existed this existed but was insufficient.Ha! Because it works sooo much better now! =3Things like public schools, roads and water, and social healthcare seem to disagree with you.The government can organise money better than private business in certain circumstances.No, private schools are much less expensive than their public counterparts. Companies can build roads just as well as governments and government health-care is a joke. The government isn't composed of Gods. They're persons, just like us. If persons can do these things, why can't persons do the same?I do not believe a market as we know it existed eight-thousand years ago.Besides you missed the analogy.No, I got it. It's just, once again it didn't follow. Demand for super veggies and grasses emerged and the supply emerged from that. This isn't an example of Gods improving on evolution, but rather organisms adapting to their environments. In this case, the demand for better food and whatnot. They are typically wealthy businessmen driven by that one juvenile feeling, "no more taxes! stop stealing my money!"Then everything else follows. They aren't interested in a comfortable society for all, but one where their money is theirs in totality.It's juvenile to not want to be robbed? And you say you're an ethical man? =/Is it wrong to want what you earn to actually be yours? This is a particularly weak argument, even for a statist... =/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting Yeah, scroll down the part about "Taxpayer-financed union busting in the United States". =/What's the worst that a company can do to it's striking employees and still survive? Higher strikebreakers. If these strikebreakers have no problem with the working conditions, then the original workers were just being whiny. If the strikebreakers don't approve of the working conditions either, then the company has a problem and must change to meet market demand or they will go bankrupt.A monopoly on telecommunications existed during the government. Also there probably aren't any sweatshops there, because our businesses find it too unstable....okay, so? What you're saying sounds rather Libertarian right now. I think you didn't understand me. Vendor lock-in prevents useful technologies like an all-in-one media player from existing.Society won't collapse without all-in-one media players. If there was a high enough demand for such a thing, it would come into existence because a supplier would see money in it for himself.It's not the best. Quit looking at selected data, look at the whole.Show me data proving 1995 Somalia was better than 2005 Somalia. Because up until now, every single study I've read written on the topic shows just the oppositeAnarchy is the lack of government and ruling authority. It may have ideologies and agenda, look at anarcho-capitalism.There's no "it" in the way you're referring. Without a government there is no unified agenda, just individuals living their lives. I guessed you missed the point. A theory is useful if it can accurately and reliably predict results, not just one time things.Ha! Then you really DO know nothing of the Austrian School of economics. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/20/magazines/fortune/okeefe_schiff.fortune/index.htmhttp://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/ economy/economics-mainmenu-44/3323-austrian-economics-rising The Austrian school of economics may not say much, but they are almost always right. This opposed to mainstream economists whom say a lot but are rarely right. So don't you dare claim the predictions coming from the school or the proponents of the school are a "one time thing" when they are far more accurate than any statist predictions you could ever come up with.I read your weblinks and it is idealism with no useful basis in reality.Then you read them with statist prejudice. There you go. This isn't about government or authority, it's about rich people hating taxes and devising a name for taxless governments called anarchy, and you bought into it.I find this a particularity strange accusation as my main concern has always been on taxing the poor. =/I'm not saying we need no taxes for the rich, I'm saying simply "no taxes". Period. A taxless government is not a government at all.I think you being able to work in a comfortable job is indicative enough.If you have to work 16 hours a day for 50 cents a day, then you can say that.You don't need to be taxed in order to have a comfortable job.Ireland wasn't an anarchy, they had rules, authorities. It lacked a combined state.It lacked any state. There was no taxation. Do you understand? Leaders will naturally emerge regardless of a state, actually finding leaders is better without a state because then to be a leader you must emerge based on your own merits rather than sorta-kinda being voted in. I'm not opposed to rules or leaders. I'm opposed to taxation. There's no need to pool all our money together just so we can fight each other over what it's going to be spent on when we can just directly pay for whatever it is we want ourselves.