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

How? Those with the political influence (chieftains, elders) may change clan edicts or create new ones that benefit the wealthy.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...Monopolies happen because the larger you become, the more efficient you become at making a product, and the more able you become at distributing it.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. There's your $20 lesson on economics. It doesn't take guessing. If you're not as quick-thinking as me, I could simply treat you as a child, if that is your wish.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 never said those.Not in so many words, but it doesn't deviate any more than yours did from mine. Do I really need to point out why this isn't a rebuttal? Anarchies always infight. States achieve stability. Besides that comparing an anarchy to a medieval theocracy doesn't make the anarchy somehow good.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. 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. I never said we evolved past violence. I said we evolved out of a violent lifestyle. Big difference.A semantics difference perhaps. Violent persons live violent lifestyles. I was comparing relative military and technological strength. In other words a few suicide bombs is no threat to a military with a budget which dwarfs the spending of the next most wealthy nations combined.We captured their governments, and established our own. Insurgents are an annoyance, a threat if there becomes a power vacuum or complete unrest.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. In an anarchy the people are too busy fighting each other and rival factions, hunting and gathering, to worry about science. Those states slowly brought enough stability that people could investigate (whereas before they were toiling in fields and slaves).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. Again, did I need to lead your hand? Correlation is not causation means that despite Somalia's correlation that the state's absence seemed to lead to improved economic growth, it does not lead to the conclusion that removing states improves economic growth. There is insufficient evidence to draw this conclusion.I've explained this to you in a causal manner so many times already, I figured at the very least you would understand it if I cut out the variables for you. You still don't... =/It's hard to build a monopoly when guns are shooting your workers and grenades are exploding your factories...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.