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

If a company overworks their employees to the extent that the employees don't feel compensated, then they'll quit and instead work for whomever offers better working conditions. Doesn't usually work that way, because jobs require specialisation which means that unless they gain a new field they're stuck in a low-paying or poor career (because it's not often the case that there are all sorts of employers with better working conditions than the job they're in).CEO's know this. That's why it's in their best interest to keep their employees at least happy enough that they voluntarily continue working. at least is what defeats your argument, at least means minimally fair pay and benefits.Absolutely not. You're trying to say that under a free market, companies will overwork their employees and I've responded by showing you how cutting corners (or, more specifically, cutting salary) will result in less employees, thus less revenue. Keep in mind, an employee's desire to work is also a form of demand and a hiring employer is also a form of supply. I never said lesser product or service, I said lesser employee pay and benefits.You have already expressed your desire to see workers have "good" working conditions. You are proof that persons care enough about where a product comes from to want to see workers get benefits.Unless you are the only person who wants good working conditions, there's nothing to worry about. =/Most people are apathetic, that is why kids in china are sewing shoes together.Well, of course it had administrators. The website needs upkeep after all, but law enforcement? That's quite the stretch on your part seeing as less than 1% of all trade done on e-bay results in fraud... which means they don't actually use law enforcement... oops. ;)Try selling U234 on E-bay or child pornography. You'll see what I mean.But lets say they did (they don't, but lets just see where this takes us). This would in no way prove that you need one group to have a monopoly on police protection in order for online trade to work as free enterprise could do the job at LEAST as well at a fraction of the price. Going back to the above, you'd have lots of unpenalised fraud, arms dealing, nuclear isotopes, and child pornography being traded.Also, without a government, whom is there to bribe? Other businesses? Are you of the mind set that a company can pay a like company to purposely botch their services to give the first company the competitive advantage? You never heard of espionage, or stock manipulation (insider trading and rigging).Bribery works on every kind of system.If it's enough of a concern to keep an eye on the large companies that emerge under a free market, then naturally companies designed specifically to keep an eye on these companies will emerge. Who will be bribed with no fear of repercussions. Because there is no law, remember? No state means no common law, just small circles or jurisdiction to evade.You can't bribe these watch-dog companies because their reputation is at stake and if one says company-A is clean, but another watch-dog proves company-A is not clean, then the first watch-dog loses business and goes bankrupt. Poor, naive fellow. Never heard of implausible deniability and coverups.