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

A new market, like ISP, started without regulations and immediately followed with unethical practices like filtering what content customers could see.Somalia has a government, the Transitional Government, and it has the ICU who are fighting it. It is a state of warring factions. Before them, there were Islamists and Christians fighting each other.OMG! ISP's filtered information during the antiquity of the internet? Well, you've convinced me. Society would collapse if not for the small group of people monopolizing all the most vital social services...If the internet was filtered, then not filtered, it was because there was demand for it to be unfiltered. Somalia has a government NOW but it didn't from 1991-2006. It lasted that long without the persons of Somalia being ancaps AND with every major political power looking to establish a government during that time. The only warring factions were from other governments trying to establish power. It's insanely hard to establish a government. Anarchic Ireland had no government for one-thousand years (!) despite England's best efforts and they (the Irish) weren't anarchists either. Imagine how hard it would be to establish a state amongst ancaps without a tax base.Random comment inapplicable to what I said.You've said an unregulated market has no merits, therefore you are only comparing the regulations of one market to the regulations of another, since an unregulated market has no merits it cannot be compared. Or, do you admit free-markets have merit?Somalia is a hellhole now. Over twenty years it has seen the rise and fall of numerous factions grasping for power. Islamists, terrorists, Christians, gangs, and so-on. Welcome to anarchy.Of course, there was no crime, because there were no police and no laws.Why do you insist on telling me to look things up when you clearly haven't read the links I've sent you?Let's assume crime didn't go down (it DID, but lets just say it didn't) anarchic Somalia CRUSHED statist Somalia in all other feilds, such as (but not limited to) - Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse? - Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent. - Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4. - Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none. - Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9. - Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100. - Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26. - Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8. - Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2. - Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5. - Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9. - TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7. - Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600.Now tell me, would you rather live in anarchic Somalia, or what Somalia was before the fall of the state? =3Of course, idiots who advocate anarchy just look at a distorted image of Somalia and say "omg freedom!"Distorted? Are you calling every world historian whom has studied Somalia distorted? Are you calling the Mises institute distorted? Are you calling the Austrian school of economics distorted? You've denied the reason and logic, you've denied the studies and you've denied the history all while instructing me to look into things (without providing so much as a relative link) in lieu of an actual counter argument. If anyone is looking at the world through distortion, it's you.A business without ethics devolves quickly into worker exploitation, consumer exploitation and management power struggles.This ethics appeal you're making makes less and less sense every time you propose it. =/Are you saying that the government is the most ethical entity in the market? Really?I'll explain again. If workers want good working conditions, then companies offering good working conditions will naturally have an easier time finding and keeping competent employees. A manager doesn't have to believe in the "ethics" of good working conditions and benefits to be convinced into offering them.These are facts. They are not assertions. What you did was deny the evidence like a good little crackpot.What evidence? You haven't provided a link... you didn't provide little if any reasoning behind your examples AND you've re-stated several ones you've brought up before that I've debunked already. Fast food sells well because persons buy it for the taste, not the nutrients.If Com cast provided a poor service on a free market, person would take their business elsewhere. If they don't it's because it's not that big of a deal.I'll take your word about the water, but if it's still selling then either barriers to entry are in place (which I already know there are) or there is a demand for the water despite the low quality.Motion picture industries are able to do these things because of the laws that are in place now... thanks to the government. =3We can play the ad-hoc explanation game for the next several months if that's what you really want to do...There is one thing. I don't understand how people could support such an obviously corrupt system. Just like fascism and dictatorships, there are people who support these too strangely.I have two hypotheses for how they gain support:Opportunists who want power support them because they think they could be a ruler in such a system.Really, really dumb people who get wrapped up in the propaganda from the former support the system, and are masochists for it.So, which are you? The dumb guy or the opportunist? Or the troll.As opposed to the government, which isn't corrupt at all... =/How exactly is there more corruption without a small-group-with-a-fiat-land-claim-and-a-coercive-monopoly-on-all-the-most-vital-services? Competition sees to it that only the best make it to the top. the worst runner cannot win the race unless there is some entity he can appeal to in order to get some advantage. Without that entity, only the best can emerge.Then a regulated market is successful by your definition and it has ethics, too.A regulated market is successful to the extent that it is allowed to behave free of regulation. All that's needed for a market to survive is supply and demand. Any perversion on this will hinder it. No god could manage evolution better than it has managed itself.I have an aversion to stupidity.You see? Just like this. There's no reason for you to talk to me if you can't stand it so much. Relax, there's nothing important at stake here.Monopoly on an important good or service. Vendor lock-in. Having a wage that gives you no choice.You've got it all wrong:http://www.fff.org/freedom/0993e.asphttp://mises.org/daily/4604Economy of scale means that the bigger the company gets, the cheaper it is for it to produce its goods.A smaller company becomes more and more disadvantaged towards it and obviously cannot undersell it since it needs that profit for growth.As I've said time and time again, there's more to the market than affordability. If Company-A does a better job than company-B, then comp-a will grow, thus be able to provide an even better, more affordable service. Great, nothing wrong with that.If Comp-A suddenly decides to over-charge on it's product, then it will be easy for other companies that haven't yet changed their prices to undersell Comp-A. Problem solved. Perhaps instead of higher prices, Comp-A removes it's employee's benefits. Since it's a large company, it's going to piss off a lot of people. If the cut-backs are bad enough, the company runs the risk of it's employees striking. During this strike period persons will have to take their business to comp-B, or -C, or -D etc.Again, problem solved.Industrial revolution. People were forced to pay.Check the links above.Also FUD, vendor lock-in.FUD happens with a state, so that is in no way an argument FOR government.There are hundreds of third party reviews one can go to so they can find out more about a particular product now, would they all stop existing just because the government does?Also, vendor lock-ins also still exist even though there is a state... so once again you've shown nothing to support the idea of a state.Mostly, lock-ins aren't a big deal. It's only rational for a business to want return customers and if doing so is as simple as making their product non-compatible with that of their competitors, then obviously that's what will happen. Switching costs aren't that big of a deal either. If it's bad enough that persons would rather take their business to another company, then that's what will happen. Especially now in the age of the internet where word of a poor service can be seen by millions in only a few moments.I'm sure you've noticed many companies (especially phone services) are beginning to drop switching costs already because of this. I'm not doing your homework for you.No, this is YOUR homework. An event =/= an argument. If you can't postulate economic theory based on historic events, fine, but don't act as though simply naming a period in time is a competent substitute. Especially when I've already sent you links on how the industrial revolution in no way proves the economy would collapse without a state.If you bothered to read it, you wouldn't be so painfully ignorant in the first place.Now only have I read about it, but I've sent you links on it. So, either you're a liar or you've merely been ignoring everything I've been saying to you.In anarchy a government will form and businesses will strike deals with that new government. Then you have monopolies that form because of this, and years later reforms happen and we get a stable market that is fair and a bloated government.You are advocating starting from square one because we live in square four, and you dislike government.What seems to elude you is the plain fact that human nature leads to this progression, and anarchy is not a solution, but a prelude.Before beginning, it's worth noting that again none of what you said proves government is beneficial to the market.You say anarchy is the prelude and government is the solution. I find this humorous as no government has survived until now since it's antiquity. Governments inevitably collapse. they aren't solutions, but rather periods in between anarchy. The only way to initiate a government is if the population already believes in the necessity of the state, and even then and even with a tax base already in place it could take upwards of 15+ generations to establish.History disagrees supremely.Show me. Go on, show me a a free-market where the population wanted good products, working conditions, etc. and that wasn't what the market reflected.Again, look at Somalia. It got better without a state and it continued to get better for years even with several other governments trying to establish power. This is the power of the market. Behaviours exist in a regulated market that follow into a free market. Likewise we can look at existing free markets in developing nations to see what happens. We also have history. They all disagree with your conclusion so you dismiss them as not free enough.Show me these free-market nations. I've already proved that history shows a strong stability in anarchic nations. here, I'll show you again:http://fringeelements.flux.com/foranemergentgovernance Scroll down to the parts about Iceland and Ireland... actually, skim through the whole thing since it addresses and debunks literally everything you've said thus far.Without a state there is no law. There are competing factions with their own ethics but no common law exists, which is why war breaks out.Check the link above.Please move there or shut the hell up. I hate stupid people.An intelligent person wouldn't pretend that warring factions make a place better to live.Ah, the old "fuck off to Somalia" argument. Like I haven't heard that one before. =/So you're going to sit there and tell me that you'd rather live in pre-anarchic Somalia which had more crime, less doctors, more sickness, higher mortality rates both amongst infants and non-infants, less disposable income per home AND less drinking water/food? I don't think so. =3How to put this in a way that even a stupid person can understand...A market is worthless for stopping war in anarchy because a faction can emerge at any time deciding that it wants to control everyone else. It can take ownership of the market.Check the link above, I've grown tired of explaining this to you... =/I'm not even going to address this. I will bold it instead because it falls under its own stupidity.My friend's going to laugh so hard when I tell him some of the things you said today.Yes, yes; I`m sure your friends know more about economics than, say - the Austrian school of economics...Once again you've dismissed my argument without ever making one of your own. If it's so stupid, it should be easy for you to say why. Otherwise, it's clear you can't.When someone argues that the earth is flat and held up by a giant tortoise, you can't really debate them seriously. In fact I'm surprised I made it this far with you. You're hysterical, a parody of libertarianism. No one takes you seriously except jessald.That's factually not true. You're acting as though I'm the only one whom believes a stateless society could not only work, but would work better than a state run one. There are entire schools that teach the economic theory I've been proposing to you. Ludwig Von Mises predicted the stock market crash of the 1930's down to the month it happened when no one else could. Somalia did better without a state than it did with a state. Ireland lasted without a government for over 1000 years. That’s far longer than any government in history (with the possible exception of the Roman Empire, if you count Byzantium as the continuation of a single line of government).So who's really claiming the earth can be held by a tortoise? I've answered and debunked everything you've brought up thus far while you have not done the same. Try following the link. Most of them have unregulated markets and sweatshops.Why is it so hard for you to name one? Just one. Show me one free-market with sweatshops.