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

Irish chieftains had no economic influence and couldn't enact edicts. But, you already knew that because I've said it a dozen times now...Anyone with authority may issue edicts or orders or change rules. There is nothing stopping them from breaking precedent either, just look at Somalia for a billion examples.Economics 101: the larger you get, the more efficient you become at making a product, which means you can further increase your profit by selling the same product at a cheaper price. As soon as you try to enact monopoly rates, you're no longer supplying at the market value which gives room for smaller firms to expand. Did you miss the part where you grow larger and absorb smaller competitors, until you are a monopoly, and then you enact monopoly rates because no one can compete against your inherent advantage.It's not a matter of being quick-thinking, you're just in the habit of making bad arguments and not providing any context for them.I regularly debate and talk with intelligent people well beyond normal, and I am used to my dialog being followed without each and every point being connected. I assume that you can follow me. However if you are of average intelligence then this is unforgivable of me, it is necessary for me out of social etiquette to explain more thoroughly. Therefore I request that you tell me if you have trouble following my arguments because they are too quick for you.Not in so many words, but it doesn't deviate any more than yours did from mine. Seriously, I never said anything that could be construed as those comments. You on the other hand said clearly that anarchy plagued Somalia is better now for it, and other lines more or less like what I condensed.If states are so stable, then why haven't any of them outlasted anarchic Ireland? Logically, if they are so stable there should either be countless examples of 1000+ year long states or no examples of statelessness lasting over a decade. There should be Jeopardy music playing in the background as you are forced to answer your own question.A stateless region appears stable to you because there is no state which can collapse, instead there are factions which rise and fall in power. A state is a delicate balance of power and citizens' wants being fulfilled. It can easily topple, over which a new state takes power.No, it doesn't make it good, it just proves that it's better and when you look at why it is better you'll see that the very reasons making anarchic Ireland superior to England can be applied to nearly all states. So in your mind a thousand factions fighting each other daily is better than a single faction taking power and once every few decades or centuries being replaced. Makes sense...A semantics difference perhaps. Violent persons live violent lifestyles. Please learn to read English.Which happened in Iraq and held off the U.S. government war machine about 100x as long as the state army did so far and with virtually zero budget. Virtually zero? The insurgents are being funded by other States covertly, Iran and (I think it was also) Afghanistan, plus all sorts of drug trading.Despite all that we have claimed the area as our own. If we had better strategists and commanders (I blame the Bush Administration for jumping into this unprepared) we may have made it less of a sectarian quagmire with Human Rights Violations.Wrong. States only come to power through war, especially during the middle ages when war didn't stop just because you attained power. Also, experimental science exploded after the middle ages, when state power took a nose dive. States go through periods of war, as opposed to constant skirmishing which is the nature of anarchy. I think you mean Religious power took a nose dive.You know, given the picture you paint of Somalia I would expect that Somalia's population would of significantly thinned out by now. Since it hasn't, this leads me to believe firms were able to conduct trade just fine. Since there was civil war and violence before the collapse, your argument is moot. Especially since the only monopolies in Somalia were state monopolies that never showed up after the collapse.If it isn't Al-Shabaab, it's the ICU and subsidiaries. Somalia is plagued by inter-faction fighting, terrorism, and sectarian violence.I really don't know what to say to a person who thinks this is perfectly acceptable, as long as it has a free market.