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

There's no objective moral code, so it's foolish to try and get everyone to conform to the same lifestyle. Exactly why anarchy will never work. I think since you understand this there is no need to go further, since it's only a matter of you wishing for humanity and morality to be otherwise, and needing to reconcile your hopes with this simple fact that you know.You mean the the link to that freedom-by-colour map? Is that supposed to mean anything? It says nothing about pre-collapse Somalia having more doctors, or wealth or anything of that sort because that sort of progress didn't occur until POST collapse Somalia. Go to that link and select Somalia from the drop-down list and then read the synopsis.My point about Somalia is that it became better without a state. Not that it because the greatest place in the world to live, but that anarchism was an improvement. It saw several hundreds of percent worth of improvement in nearly every field regardless of the fact that every major political power wanted to establish governance, despite the fact that it is a powerhouse of fundamentalist Islam AND despite the fact that none of the Somalians where anarchists.It isn't an anarchy, it is a stateless population. Anarchy means that there are no rules, no authorities. Somalis went back to Xeer and Sharia. Despite this there are still rampant power struggles, wars occur. Islam is trying to take down the transitional government. You're wrong, and couldn't be more wrong.How are you going to go about establishing a state? Religion? Persons aren't so stupid anymore. Convince them you can do more for them with their money than they can? Good luck. Even the current government has trouble with that, and they have the advantage of forcing children into twelve years of compulsory "education" camps to indoctrinate them in the values of the state. =/Conquest. Submission. Occupancy.All nations are developing. Perhaps you find "third world" harsh, but I just don't care.It's a matter of accuracy. Third world is a cold-war term that fell out of use.Third-world: soviet-aligned states, or ones with communism.Second-world: states that overthrew soviet communism and recently employed capitalism.First-world: capitalist states.Yeah.... except that's not true at all. Somalia was never better off than when the government collapsed. This is an unavoidable fact. I mean, there's just no way to twist this. Anarchic Somalia out preformed pre-collapse Somalia in just about every way imaginable. I wonder if this is a sacred cow. Your kind just can't seem to drop an erroneous argument.The thing is, Somalia was NEVER better off than it was when it was state free. Since the antiquity of Somalia every government to rule over it couldn't hold a candle to quality of life provided in anarchic Somalia.Sigh. Read the facts. Quit being so asinine. I linked you to at least two histories and summaries of Somalia. Both are credible, one is authoritative, and they both call it a hellhole is very kind words.They both describe continual power struggles and wars. I don't know how someone can be in such denial. You make sweeping statements about Somalia by just looking at some numbers with no context of what life is actually like over there, how it transformed after the state vanished.You're datamining. And your desperate need to support your viewpoint won't let you look at the context.Alright, first of all state intervention didn't make monopolies illegal, it just made them illegal for everyone but the government.Okay, you agree with me then. State intervention made monopolies illegal.... I'm not quite sure what to say to this. You've already admitted these companies lined the pockets of the government for special advantages on the market. This should be the end of the debate right here. Without a state the same thing would happen. Wealth buys favours, no matter the authority in charge.You still haven't clarified at what level your talking about. Are you talking about retail? Don't retail workers have standards? Are you talking about miners? What is this "level" of worker you're referring to?Unskilled labour. I've seen it before numerous times where a job provides bad hours and pay, but the workers stay because they need the income.Workers put up with a lot before quitting, perhaps. It depends on the worker. But, workers don't have an infinite threshold for abuse. A manager can only screw his employees so much before they quit.Which history shows will be a lot (look at sweatshops).And from where are is this wealth coming from? Did you forget about that part? If a company goes against market demand, they pay for it via a loss in revenue.Their income comes from their near-monopoly status as providers of TV shows, music, movies, etc. It's like selling cocaine and the demand won't decrease for a long time, definitely not until decentralised indy media becomes ubiquitous and the same quality.If persons fear a company is getting too big, they opt out and pay for another service. If a company starts provided a lesser service, they opt out and pay for another service. If a company begins to militarize, they opt out and pay for another service. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.Look at our current situation. This hasn't happened enough.This is how the government operates. It takes over things persons already want done in order to make us dependent on them. There's no need to give the government our charity money when we can just give it to the poor ourselves.Whatever you want to caricature it as, it works better than private charities because the government is big enough to to handle the logistics of supplying monies to people across the territory, and in a way that is accountable.Illiteracy rates would have dropped with or without government intervention because of this and private school students have and still do out-preform their public school counterparts in the academics. Private education existed for millenia and never brought illiteracy down as much as public education did.Company roads are bound by the same standards as public roads, perhaps even more so. They are bound by market demand and when you have many companies competing for customers you must offer a higher quality product than your competition or face bankruptcy.Market: whatever is most profitable sells. Competition means different standards.Government: accountable institutions that provide the necessity.So because we have foresight we need government? Are persons unable to plan ahead for themselves? It doesn't matter because the government is also composed of persons. The only difference is the governments first interest is in itself, not us.I made the argument that the planters and breeders had no idea that harvesting and planting seeds would one day give us corn, or breeding would give us cows.I said robbery but whatever, taxation IS theft by definition as well.theft [θɛft]n1. (Law) The taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possessionTaxation is an example of this. Unless you have some weird definition of theft, you are wrong.Which isn't taxation because the good doesn't belong to the person. It is a transaction for services (property, military, roads, schools, etc.).In other words, in exchange for living here you forfeit ownership of a sum of money for the state.This is a lot like saying "sure, the Austrian school is more accurate than any other school of economics, but they're still wrong because I say so".They are wrong because history says a free market is bad for society.When did I say anything about redistributing wealth? If anything, without a state everyone's incomes will cluster closer together as there won't be taxes, which means there won't be different taxes for different persons. There will be no way for companies to enact barriers to entry so they won't be able to cripple the efforts of smaller businesses. If there were no taxes then the wealthy would continue to amass a fortune, and the poor would maintain what they have. There would be no redistribution so unemployment and welfare wouldn't exist, meanwhile the wealthy would have all that money just sitting there.When you manually redistribute wealth you aren't making things more fair for everyone. You're doing just the opposite as now persons deserving of a high income are being dragged down and persons deserving of a low income are being propped up. There is no "deserving" here. A wealthy person can give away 90% of his wealth and still live more comfortably than most people. This kind of difference in incomes and assets causes social turmoil, it is hoarding a resource that others need which supports criminal behaviour, as desperate people feel the need to steal and cheat the system.And in what reality do you live in where fighting each other over how we get to spend our own money is more productive then simply spending the money on whatever it is we already want?It's called Earth, species H. sapiens sapiens.