Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

You're ignoring most of my point from my post. In a free market, all other actions of business (not just product price and quality) must also be regulated by consumers because there is no government product safety,  food safety, These two can be handled by private certification, like the UL now.environmental protection, If you mean damage to property, there are ways to mitigate and recompense these outside of government. They are a bit cumbersome, but possible.business ethics, etc). What do you mean business ethics? The only ethic is to represent whatever you are trading accurately. If you don't people find out, and you go out of business.I think most Walmart shoppers will say "it's cheap and convenient" as their reason for buying product X.That is satisfaction of consumer demand & a sign of an efficient market. If the consumer cares for nothing else, then you have no right to force him to.I'm not ignoring your point. I'm pointing out that the fact that you believe these things are important is no license to force others to act as though they mirrored your value system. How you wish others to act is irrelevant. They have a right to act according to their value systems, so long as they allow others to do the same.Are you prepared for the aggregate effect of all the consumers to decide the quality of your local security company?I will choose the value of my security company, according to my needs, and means. As will others. Yes, I would leave the array of choices to the sum of thousands of choices, instead of a single self-appointed "expert".Yes, the market weeds out fraud. The most successful companies in a free market are those who meet the demands of the consumer. Fraudulent claims for products get around, and the fraudster is run out of business. However, it opens up a niche for private certification agencies whose "product" is their reputation. Specialized agencies like the UL and the Better Business Bureau operate today , successfully, even with government competition.The government does not have to decide everything, all it has to decide is whats bad for everyone: You can't polluteIf it affects only your own property, why not?you have to make some effort to keep your meat safe,private certification, or individual investigation.if you want to work on the electrical system in someones house, you have to be qualified to do so, Private certification and/or insurance on your work.etc. Once the basics are covered, the market is "free" after that. These laws were not made up for no reason. They were made because men, in the pursuit of money, will break these "common sense" rules over and over.Most of these laws were made to protect incumbent companies and trade guilds from competition from freelancers. Just like the anti trust laws were advocated by people who were being prevented from gouging the consumer. (See standard oil, and the carpenter's union support of the Davis-Bacon Act.)Yes, but unlike other goods, labor IS "the society". If it gets manipulated one way or the other there is revolution, or millions starve. It can't just fluctuate up and down like the price of a dozen eggs. Labor is at a distinct disadvantage. It's not mobile and can't efficiently just move around finding the optimal opportunities. Why not? Liberty and Labor http://mises.org/daily/35One laborer has no leverage over the business and is in a much weaker position. Employers are in competition with one another for good laborers, just as they are in competition with one another for market share. The fact that medical insurance and other "benefits" are included as a matter of course in employment are a result of this competition for good workers. The gvt instituted wage caps after WWII and the companies had to compete for the best workers by increasing compensation without increasing pay. This was in a market with a very large supply of labor, as the men returned from war. Common sense (and history) shows what happens to labor over time. Just look at labor in the US now.If you mean the government privileged labor unions such as were seen recently in Michigan protesting right to work, then I say good riddance. Labor unions are not for the worker. They are for the union, and in the long run, even hurt union workers, by increasing the cost of production and increasing prices, lowering real wages, regardless of what nominal wages do.What will happen in a free market when technology replaces all physical labor with machines (probably in 50 years)? I think we will need government intervention to make some serious changes about how economies and society works.There will be a need for people to build the machines, and fix the machines. There will also be new demands for people to fill. This was covered by Bastiat, in "that which is seen" ( http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#machinery  ) & more recently by Hazlitt ( http://library.mises.org/books/Henry%20Hazlitt/Economics%20in%20One%20Lesson.pdf  chapter 7 ) The same cry went out when they invented the pin making machine in England, that people would lose their livelihoods. You know what happened? Pins got cheap enough that more people could afford them, and more people were employed. Another thing comes to mind when thinking about this topic. My whole argument is that power and money concentrates and this hurts the people and labor in particular. You haven't proven this point.Concentration of power and money is already happening and it's not ONLY because of the government.Name one big box that does not adhere to onerous government regulations, which it takes an army of lawyers with which to fully comply. Small upstarts have little or no chance of complying with such regulations, and maintaining a profit.  It's mostly because it makes for good and efficient business. The problem is it destroys the society eventually. Perfectly legal. Perfectly efficient. Society still destroyed. Government must and will prevent this conclusion. You know who lobbied for many of those regulations? The big businesses. The cost of the lawyers, is the price of keeping competition out of the market, which cost, they pass on to the consumer, in the form of higher prices. You want lower prices, and more competition, for labor and consumers? Make the market more free. The government interference is what concentrates the money and power, not the market. More government interference, in the form of more regulation, will not stop it.