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

Again, I'm not interested in the problems of companies that don't function on a free-market and this is why:I'll be more explicit: you can measure the outcome of a free market by observing how businesses behave when they have a level of freedom. The trend is always that a business will outcompete its rivals unethically when there are no prohibitions against this.If there are no coercive monopolies or barriers to entry (things that can only happen under state rule) than all market problems can be solved simply by choosing to pay whomever provides the better service. Except this never happens because reality is much more complicated.All companies. This is not something exclusive to free-market companies. Monopolies are very rare, even with a state oligarchies are easier to accomplish. Monopolies are naturally favoured by economy of scale and the unethical practices that follow from power.The fact remains it's almost impossible to corner the market when it's free because as soon as you try to charge at the monopoly rate, people take their business elsewhere. Not so easy to do with our state-run coercive monopolies... =/Same as above.Affordability clearly isn't the only factor in the market. Sure, a go-cart is more affordable than a car, but people still buy cars. It's about providing the best service for the price. If that isn't being done, persons take their business elsewhere. If you don't approve of the working conditions for employees at a certain business, don't pay them. Go with a company you do approve of.It really isn't that simple. One business will acquire its rivals in a region, thus negating choice. The small companies will vanish as they are crushed by big ones or acquired. Then choice vanishes.So, again understand we live in a highly statist society that allows large business certain advantages in exchange for lining a few pockets. Insurance agencies will always have means of protecting themselves, it's only rational. But if what they supply doesn't meet the market demand when the market demand is the only economic force driving the supply, they'll lose their business.Again: private businesses evolved into the insurance behemoths you see today that screw their customers. What government intervention happened was the result of insurance companies buying favours from government. This is how business works.Reality trumps your text-book response.If Microsoft started using their income to conduct a fiat land claim and began a military campaign over it's customers, persons would simply (here it comes) stop paying for their service. It doesn't work that way.Since you seem to be oblivious to something really obvious, I'll just spell it out: businesses and politics is about creating false dilemmas to customers when a consumer or voter choice is involved.This is how power is achieved and then maintained. You give the consumer two or more choices that negatively affect him, so that no matter what he does, he is helping you despite his interest.Clear example: Palladium and PCs. Consumer advocates managed to cancel a proposed bill mandating the fritz chip. What later happened was that the design went into all motherboards sold, as it was taken up by manufacturers in the private sector, even though Palladium doesn't really serve our interests. The market created a situation such that no matter what PC you buy, you are supporting palladium, even if you don't want to.I never claimed it was better off (more peaceful) than us, merely that it got better once the state collapsed. Which it did. =3No, it didn't get better.Again, an army can't be raised on customers alone. Persons must have some belief in the nobility of the state in order to support it. So long as persons are foolish in this manner, there will be states. Try observing ancient history, and also tribes, and lower primates. People band together to war without a state, it is merely about a different motivation.Just because states exist and persons think the market can't function without them, doesn't mean they actually are good for us.Knowing, not thinking.Child labor and sweatshops aren't so bad. =3You're a fucking retard.Show me one of these "free-markets" with sweatshops.The developing nations.