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

Businesses are always looking for ways to expand. If they're okay with minimal to absolutely no growth, then so-so working conditions are fine, but in the mean time their competition has raised their working conditions and opened up another store.I'm saying that in a market flooded with unskilled labour there is little incentive to improve.Irrelevant. The point still stands, what defines acceptable working conditions is market demand. Which isn't helping those people. Therefore a state intervention or union would accelerate this.Outsourcing jobs has become so prevalent because it's much cheaper than hiring persons here. When you outsource you don't have to worry about all the mandatory taxes and insurances that come with hiring locally. Exactly.You'll do well to take notice that jobs are outsourced regardless of the governments existence, so even if the market couldn't solve this problem (it can) this is in no way an argument for the state. It apparently cannot solve this problem since it continues to exist. However government could solve it by putting up a heavy tariff.1. E-bay has police, but it doesn't need them since fraud happens less than 1% of the time anyway.Your argument was that E-bay demonstrates the ability of an anarchy to work in a market due to lack of police oversight. I contradicted this. Argument over.2. You don't need a state to have police.Police without a state are gangs, organised militias. This leads to fighting over jurisdiction and lack of standard laws.3. You don't need the government to monitor trade on E-bay. Whatever E-bay doesn't want being sold on their site can be blocked by themselves.Not your original argument.Then government is a mere redundancy. Depends on what type of enforcement must happen. If it means crossing country lines to kill a deal in radioactive isotopes, then government can do what E-bay cannot.There's a difference between a massive-fiat-land-claiming-tax-sucking government and voluntary agreements. What makes you think any kind of governance if intrinsically voluntary? When you are born into a community, whether it is a state or an informal government, you are tacitly a part of it. You can choose to leave either, too.Why is authority needed? If a company wants to be trusted by the public, it will let however many watch-dog companies the market demands to investigate it. Authority is decisive and can enforce a judgment between two rival powers. If there is none, the ruling must be settled by violence or acquiescence from one of the parties.Government "officials" are only impartial until there's something in it for them.This is called corruption, which is why separations of powers exists and in our government we have a vote.What's so great about common law? Why not let the results of ones actions define their behavior?A common law creates standards as opposed to disagreements and wasteful rivalries.Lol @ "you just bribe those who know about the deed". I mean, in the very post you're responding to with this I already said a company simply can't bribe everyone. Not everyone, only those who know.If they started redirecting revenue in order to bribe everyone, their stockholders would notice. Companies cannot misrepresent their revenues and figures?Also, the public tends to notice when persons preaching about a companies corruption get knocked off.Not when it is an ambiguous death.