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

Now, who enacted those regulations and subsidies?Government represents the people, but the wealthy have an intrinsic advantage. Therefore it must be that those regulations did not exist at one point, a monopoly or hegemony formed and undermined the power of democracy so that people were forced to pay more for something.I can't believe you still don't get this...State+wealthy=subsidies(e.g. BtE)These subsidies are a problem, so to remove them either the wealthy has to go, or the state has to go. The wealthy can't be removed because what defines "wealthy" is arbitrary and as long as there is trade, there will be those more "wealthy" than others. This leaves only the state.Secondly, you're "point" about these monopolies forming BEFORE the regulations is retarded. If a company had built a sustainable monopoly before enacting any regulations, then there would be no need to enact these regulation in the first place.You're seeing these regulations being enacted and thinking "ah, good. Now it's much harder for any firm to create a monopoly" but, you're completely ignoring that these regulations are only being put in place to allow already large firms to grow without the threat of competition. The very regulations you want to see happen are the very reason why monopolies can happen.What happens without a state and free market? Factions form, fight and a dominant one emerges. Businesses form, compete and a dominant monopoly forms. What does the monopoly do? It buys political favours from the faction.Typical Avesk, loading your argument with the same un-backed assertions that you've already made. =/What happens in a state and regulated market? Regulations exist which punish businesses which try to become monopolies. Wealthy businesses may band together and buy political favours. People band together and try to punish this in an endless cycle."Regulation" is not the opposite of free. State control is. At least you understand that with a state business buy favours from the state, we can build on that.Now, you just need to understand that without a state in the first place, there's no political body to buy economic favours from.Why did single-cellular life become multicellular?Once again, your analogy fails hard.1. There are still single cell lifeforms NOW, which, given the analogy, proves that not all hierarchies turn into states.2. Multi-cellular life forms are an emergent phenomenon, they're not a top-down order as a state is, so they're not even comparable.Just like a creationist. You'll quote Mises or some crackpot website to "debunk" reality. Just like how a creationist quotes Kent Hovind or Answers in Genesis. Did you know that the earth is 6000 years old? It isn't? Well you must be wrong because Mises... err... Answers in Genesis says so.Jeez, no matter how un-equivalent two things are, you'll try to make it fit into a Christianity analogy like a develop-mentally handicapped toddler trying to fit the square peg into a round hole..."Mises said it, therefore it's wrong!" << there's a word for such reasoning. It's called an ad hominem.Pillaging means theft and violence perpetrated against others, and this was an expected, normal part of life. Training for the inter-clan fights that needed warriors.This is just want we expect in anarchy. A lack of central authority breeds factions which fight for power.So you're just going to totally ignore that the few Irish feuds of the time were to a piss-ant scale in comparison to the rest of Europe, eh?Most of the feuding in Ireland was against England, not other Irish. The same thing was seen in anarchic-Somalia. The factions warred with the Islamist and U.N. invaders, not each other (or at least to an insignificant amount).Persons are violent and they were much more violent 1000 years ago. You're argument isn't a critic of anarchism, it's a critic of reality.When you evolve past fighting for land and foraging for food, and have a stable society where you are provided for, higher demands develop for knowledge and so science flourishes.You've contradicted yourself. If we're evolved past fighting for land and foraging then there would be no need for any firm, statist or free, to uphold law. If we haven't evolved past this, then it becomes a matter of which works better. Seeing as the Iraqi guerilla army has been able to hold off the U.S. mega-army the superior form of protection is clear.It also isn't opinion, try studying history.Wtf are you talking about? Just because it's in a history book doesn't mean it isn't opinion. XDJudging something as "great" is an opinion. Judging someone as "wise" is an opinion. Judging a country as "advanced" is an opinion. If you honestly can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion then it's clear to me how you can be so backwards on your views of the state. =/I have one for you. The economy improved, then pirates returned to make a living. This proves that pirates are caused by a flourishing economy.Libertarians. Gotta love the stupid.I'm guessing this was just a bad example on your part because what you're saying is technically true. These pirates would have seen that there is money to be made in Somalia now that it's becoming prosperous, so they would move in.I'm sure there were other factors, but you're conclusion could be argued well.I mean, the Islamist and U.N. invaders did the very same thing for the very same reason... just how the hell did you come to the conclusion that this argument debunks libertarianism? Every post you make is progressively less intelligent.Hell, what you said wasn't even an attempt to debunk my argument in the first place. =/Three authoritarian states with monopolies and corruption. One loses the corrupt and authoritarian government, and the monopolies vanish. Gee, I wonder why a region without heavy-handed law, vote-rigging, and monopolies is doing better...It's starting to look like it will take the actual collapse of the U.S. government to get you to understand exactly what I'm talking about. Are you just incapable of looking past the superficial? Are you just incapable of seeing why Somalia got better and seeing the similarities between it and the U.S.?The U.S. has monopolies, heavy handed-law and authoritarianism; though, significantly less than most African countries, but since the U.S. is significantly better off than most African countries this makes sense. So logically the U.S. would also do better without heavy-handed law, monopolies and authoritarianism.I wouldn't refer to a firm void of these things as being a state, but perhaps you would. I don't know, since you haven't actually said anything about exactly what parts of government you have a hard-on for.Simple minds again.The state was in near-anarchy and civil war before the collapse. Then it subsided. Next we saw clans fighting for power in guerrilla warfare, in other words a new civil war amongst new factions that formed after the state collapsed. Then it was quelled, and a transitional government was attempted. Long story short, Transitional government versus Islamists is yet another civil war that broke out.