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

You'll also notice that the only time I said that your examples were not examples of stateless societies were because they actually weren't stateless societies... It doesn't get much more simple than that.This reminds me of arguments with creationists over abiogenesis and the Miller–Urey experiment. They deny the Miller–Urey experiment on the grounds that it didn't produce a bacterial cell. In other words, like creationists, you discount portions of evidence that fit a free market/stateless region and regulated market/state equally because it works against your conclusion and so you demand unreasonable criteria for evidence to qualify."Taxes are theft" = "there are no transition fossils"? "that's not a true free market" = "random chance"? All you're doing is taking what I've said and trying to connect it to YE creationism in order to connect it to something stupid. The problem is you're connecting the positive assertion of creationism with the negative assertion of stateLESSness.Did you know that Young Earth Creationism isn't a religion, because it's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Ponder that for a moment and then think about your assertion that statelessness makes the claims of taxes being theft, that free markets work, that anarchy works, etc. all based upon negatives.Since you're a bit slow, I'll explain the analogy for you:"There are no transitional fossils" is a lot like the claim that under free markets there are no monopolies. In the first statement, whenever you present a transitional fossil the goalpost is moved so that you are expected to provide an additional forward and backwards transitional form. To libertarians, no matter what example of a free market monopoly you provide, they simply assert that the state made it that way (when the state made it that way after it became a big corporation), or that barriers to entry made it that way (when those barriers came to exist after the monopoly), or that the powers that the company corrupted were states anyway (when they were merely authorities that could be corrupted regardless of the status of state)."Random chance" is a mischaracterisation that is a lot like the mischaracterisation of socialism as communism, or regulations as socialism. Any kind of regulation becomes "socialism!" just like all creationists hear in evolution is "random chance!""Market solves X" is a lot like "goddidit." It is simply a blanket statement with no depth. Have an ethical problem? Market solves it (with no depth of explanation to how a market that favours money can adequately pressure individuals to behave with a desirable ethos when that ethos isn't profitable or related to money). Example: Market solves child labour. It actually does solve it, the solution is that children as young as three years old work to sustain their families for sixteen hours a day in boring, menial, but dangerous jobs where their exhaustion causes them to die or lose limbs frequently. That was the market solution to an ethical problem. Kinda like "goddidit" to the Great Flood."That is no free market" is a lot like "creatures don't evolve into different kinds." When you find a free market, the libertarian will say "but see it wasn't free enough because of obscure regulation number 5-804c" despite the important consideration that it was, whatever you wish to call it, severely unregulated compared to today's western market. Creationists do this with an example of evolution. You show them an evolved bacteria (example nylon-eating bacteria, or the citrate-eating E. coli) and what do they say? "It's still a bacteria, not a dog.""Taxes are theft" is a lot like "god exists!" No matter how you demonstrate through metaphor or text-book definition what theft is, what taxes are, the libertarian will still call it theft because it ultimately feels unfair. That's all it is about, just like "god exists!" because of an emotional need, taxes must be theft because they feel so wrong.Anarchic Ireland. There was feuding, but since there were no kings or any geographic political bodies or taxes the chieftains weren't able to conscript vast numbers of men to fight for him. So quarrelers typically fought out there quarrels amongst themselves via fist-fighting.Items of note:The law texts show Gaelic society to have been hierarchical. The texts take great care to define social status, the rights and duties that went with that status, and the relationships between each "layer" of society. For example, chieftains had to take responsibility for members of their clann, acting as a surety for some of the actions of members and making sure debts were paid. He would also be responsible for unmarried women after the death of their fathers.[5]A hierarchy. Just as I predicted must arise from anarchy.Gaelic society was by all standards a warlike one, where clanns competed for dominance of their perspective territories and kingdoms and warfare was endemic and brutal. Young males were indoctrinated and trained into clann warfare from the youngest ages, sometimes starting at 7 or 10 years of age. They typically were trained by their foster-parents as fosterage was by far the most common form of apprenticeship in Gaelic Ireland and Scotland.As shown by contemporary sources and Irish literature, clann warfare was commonplace in Gaelic lands. Young Gaelic males organised themselves into small, semi-independent warrior bands known as Fianna (singular: fiann), which engaged in constant training, hunting and raiding during the warmer months. Stories of the Fianna can be found in the Fenian Cycle of Irish mythology. These "fianna" groups often lived in the forests and wilderness areas while seeking to obtain wealth and resources through raiding, rapine and mercenary activity until they could join a tribal chief's retinue, marry women, have offspring and become independent boaire (cattle lords) to support a family.I want to live there. Well then again, I have a criminal mind... a life of theft might work for me.This as opposed to the rest of Europe at the time (~650 CE to ~1650 CE) of which had constant monolithic wars and also, a central government. shock!So, a choice between a life of stealing from other tribes and ultimately rearing cattle, or fighting in wars to support the local king.Which one has the libraries, science, academies and universities?Also, I'm not saying war is better than no war. That's not the point of what I'm saying. I'm saying no state is better than a state, with having several small states somewhere in between total state and no state. What you're really saying is that present anarchy is better than living in a repressive state on the verge of anarchy.A stable state (I.E. one not ravaged by civil war, totalitarianism, excessive poverty) will outcompete Somalia.Yet another straw-man, yawn. I've mentioned my opposition to fiat land claims as well at least a dozen times already. I've cited examples of what I mean by anarchy as well as defined how I use the word for you. If you're definition of "state" includes "non-state"... I guess that's really the only way for what you're saying to make sense...I think I'll just ask someone who knows what you hate about government:There's a difference between voluntarily paying for a service and having your money coercively extracted so you and everyone in the country can fight over what it will be spent on.Paying for rent of land apparently isn't a service to you...... Ah, how silly of me. Opting out of government services is so simple, all you have to do is live a life of poverty and homelessness. =/Oh wait, that doesn't work either since all (or most, depending on which country you live) goods and services are taxed anyway...Presumably because they demand money for services...Mafia and gangs are just small governments. I'm opposed to governments. There's no contradiction.Are you in support of gangs and mafias? ;)A town existing on state land, using state military to protect its sovereignty is apparently not expected to pay...The "like it or leave it" argument works with a stateless society, but not with a state run society. If a bunch of persons decided to leave the states rule and start up there own little town and started to become prosperous, the state would eventually intervene and force their "services" on them.This is because the state has a fiat land claim. It "owns" every square inch of land from ocean to ocean (In the case of the U.S./ Canada etc.). So there you have it. Anti-tax is your credo. Anti-tax is what defines your cut-line. If something taxes it is a state, no matter how blunt of a definition that may be.Again, Somalia wasn't stateless for three decades, so this civil war you're talking about is unrelated. Besides, Somalia improved not only in absolute terms, but also relative to Ethiopia and Kenya. Oops. Ethiopia and Kenya: Some of the poorest and most corrupt nations on earth.If you had faith in lack of state, I'd expect you to compare Somalia to a free state that isn't ravaged by poverty.I mean, it barely takes 30 seconds on a Google search to know that Somalia wasn't an anarchy for even two decades. And if there is still civil war now despite the fact that Somalia now has a central government, it only proves my point that these wars were a state failure, not a market failure. I said civil war for almost three decades which is true, there was something of a civil war before the state collapsed. What, you think all was good, then one day the state topples and anarchy takes over as a better system?The state brings "stability", but only once it has amassed it's coercive monopolies through decades of war and murder. Oh yeah, that sounds real swell, avesk. XDWhatever you want to call it, you're living in it now and need not fear death squads storming into your house and killing you with a machete, or a new gang taking threatening to take control of half your country while demanding new laws, like no religion but Islam is permissible.This is called compromise.I don't know if you've been to Japan, but their culture is about as opposite to ours as a culture can be.They dropped imperialism, and emperors.What favours? The chiefs don't have a tax base, they have no market control... did you even read the information I sent you? Why am I even asking, given what you've said thus far it's clear you haven't...Chieftains have political power. They can make laws, or edicts, or agreements with other Chieftains for special territorial privilege. Maybe by providing a special luxury to the chieftain you will be allowed to open booths in the village sacred site, or will be allowed to mine in the nature reserve.The industrial revolution was better than what preceded it. Understand? Compared to our standards, it sucked. Then again compared to our standards every past society sucked. Sure, the industrial revolution had child labour, but what preceded it was child prostitution. Which do you find is worse?Before the Industrial Revolution small industry existed, as well as agriculture. The small industry was usually based on family-run businesses and apprenticeships. The conditions were certainly not as good as what we have now, but you could make a living without having to work 16 hours a day, partly because if you worked in these small businesses, you were paid a little more since the cost of goods was a little higher.When factories opened up, cheaper goods were made available, which out-performed most of these small businesses in quantity, and the goods were often of inferiour quality (at least in the beginning, ever heard of cutups?). Suddenly you had to leave your small business and enter a factory which paid less, had longer hours, and had minimal safety (because the interest was in mass production, not safety).That's only part of it, you see the period also saw a rise of immigration to cities which were not prepared, so buildings were thrown together, overcrowding occurred, and the water sources were tainted with sewage, effluence, and waste from factories. Care to guess how that affected the working class who couldn't afford to import water? They got really sick, and most drank spirits as their "water" because it was cheap.Infant mortality was really high, and children died all the time from malnutrition (brought on by poor wages), and dangerous working conditions. Children were beaten for being tardy to work, or made to wear weights around their neck. They might also be docked some pay. They operated machinery that had no shields for the dangerous parts, and were expected to run under operating machines to collect scraps. Just dosing off from exhaustion might cause them to get caught in a mechanism and killed or maimed. Then there were the noxious compounds they worked with, like phosphorous (ever heard of phossy jaw?).The average life expectancy, I read, for factory owners was in the mid-fourties. For workers, the mid-twenties.Basically... and I hate to be crude... if the choice is between dying of syphilis or getting maimed or pureed in a machine, I'd rather sleep with older men in my childhood years. Besides the fact that childhood labour did exist in the pre-industrial era, but wasn't as hard on the child.I would like to think that you're a decent guy, just an extreme idealist, so when you defend the Industrial Revolution, I have to guess that you never really looked into it very deeply and just let a libertarian article sum it up for you. Please read the testimony of doctors and witnesses of child labour (to say nothing of adult labour, let's not forget their troubles!).http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRchild.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRaccidents.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRpollution.htm http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/IRpiecers.htm Modern developing nations have the same issue. They have sweatshops, and they pay poorly, but they still pay more than these children earned before the sweatshops being prostitutes. I advise you to read deeper about what sweatshops are like, I provided some historical links. Please read them, and also about modern sweatshops. They are terrible places and should not be called progress when, with some charity, proper working hours, safe facilities, and decent pay are all within reach.Please, for the love of science, watch this so you'll stop making arguments that are already debunked in the information I send you. I've already seen this kind of stuff before and it really means nothing to me, because the heart of his argument is a false dichotomy between being pulled into a machine and crushed into salsa, or dying from your jaw deteriorating due to phosphorous (both common occurrences, and among many fates) versus thieving or being a prostitute. The third path would be a regulated factory system, with strictly enforced safety, wage, and work hour guidelines. Sure, it might be less profitable, but I imagine that the fate of so many children is more important than the bottom line of factory owners.The behavior of a typical free market economy is to redistribute wealth to those area's of the economy that are considered the greatest need by the consumers. Ultimately the consumer decides where wealth, capital, and investment are directed. ...This is all managed by the formation of meaningful prices.Right, but as we all know, the price of something doesn't always reflect the cost to society, or the environment.A centrally managed redistribution of wealth undermines the pricing system. This system moves money away from productive area's of the economy usually via taxation, and moves it to unproductive area's of the economy. In the long run this wastes natural resources driving up the cost of living for everyone. Consumers are no longer sovereign in deciding where capital, investment, and wealth should be placed.Again: price doesn't necessarily reflect cost. In the case of 19th century England, the price of a cotton shirt did not reflect the cost in dead children, diseased workers, and dumped waste.Because of these simple facts you cannot expect a market to care about ethical or social issues.This basic economic error occurs because of the inability for the government to calculate, and the undermining of the pricing mechanism. A redistribution of wealth will always be a detriment to the economy as a whole. However it is important to point out that it harms the poor the most, as the cost of living rises under such conditions. The very people the welfare is meant to help, it usually harms.Quick question: are you drinking water that has effluence, sewage, and industrial waste in it? Are our poor routinely drinking from it? Are our houses so close together that you must resort to crawlspaces between them? Is food a commodity that once you run out of money, you starve to death? Does medicine exist for the poor?Remember that in the Industrial Revolution in England, these were all common problems that we entirely forgot about now.However inefficient our government programs are, they seem to work and the question is really about improving them, since eliminating them leads to something very bad that we once lived through.All these mini-states existed before the collapse, so it's not as though a new state emerged. But even if it did, it would only prove that the persons of Somalia believe they need a state, not that one is necessary for an economy. Since Somalia saw such economic growth without the central government, you're left with two options. Either civil war improves an economy or statelessness in general improves an economy.Actually neither.The economy was improved by the elimination of a corrupt state. Kind of like how if North Korea collapsed, even free-market capitalism would improve the situation better than totalitarianism. This is more a point about something being so bad that even an unregulated market is better.Also, your analogy once again makes no sense. I'm talking about a government collapsing and several government invaders warring with each other to establish a new central government. How is this in any way analogous to the missing link? There's no missing link here, everything is accounted for.Just as creationists exclude scientific data, like transitional fossils, from their viewpoint you exclude all recorded governments and stateless regions in order to compare them side by side, and then you insist that one stateless area is representative of statelessness in general.Why are you even here when you clearly can't grasp such concepts? These factions warred with each other to establish control over the public. If Somalia saw this growth despite the constant murder of civilians at the hands of these governments, it means that the prosperity following the collapse of the central government was so great that it was able to absorb it and still grow despite the murders.Now, let's try taking the spin out of what you said: Somalia experienced growth in the face of civil war. Civil war is costly and depletes resources. Therefore if the civil war ended the growth would be higher. What can end a civil war? A state. What did not? Stateless Xeer.No, you don't know. Not at all. I'm sure in all your alleged debates with creationists you've seen several graphs showing the wealth/education/inventions throughout the ages up to the medieval era. This was a time of massive expansion in religion and state power and a time of massive suppression of civilian wealth, education, and invention/innovation. No surprise there. Back in the Greek, Egyptian, and Roman eras there isn't indication that literacy was ever as high as it is now.Do you even try to self-debunk? Don't you ever go out of your way to see if there are any flaws in your own arguments? I mean, the debunking of everything you just wrote is barely a Google stones throw away. Here, I'll do it for you...Also, note what I said: The New Deal attempted to prevent another Great Depression.That a bunch of capitalists entered the market and through their brutal iron fist tactics, exploited the common man and made of with a fortune... somehow, OR that a bunch of capitalists worked in collusion with the politicians to ensure their corporations had advantages on the market through state controls (i.e. regulation) and barriers to entry so that they could amass a fortune despite not actually producing a better product than their competition? Both actually. More exactly, the first then the second occurred, since you need money to buy political favours.Kind of like, you need to be athletic before you take steroids otherwise they don't work as good, so once you're near the top you take them to really excel beyond everyone. Soon everyone uses them to just be able to compete since the bar has raised so high.No, common land is not the combination of private property because by definition private property is not combined. It's privatized. Look up the definition of commons you fool.As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another. . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.Overgrazing in this example happens regardless of whether it is private or public land, the reason is that even if we respect boundaries the herdsmen will add to their flock to maximise productivity until each land plot becomes overgrased.