azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

- Without taxes you would be looking at an increase of marginal wages from roughly 30-50%, maybe more depending on your job. This alone would be enough to dissolve most poverty.- No they don't, I've proved this over and over again. At least skim over the information I send you so you don't appear so ignorant.http://mises.org/daily/621http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frm2_kazljw Not once has a monopoly ever occurred on a free market. You are 100% wrong on this point.- Not so long as there is a government. ;)You have it half right. Sweatshops are a phase in that industrialists will take advantage of lack of regulations and install them. Sweatshops like slavery only end when the populace is fed up enough that they demand labour reforms from government.But you don't need a government to have better working conditions. Companies see that persons are more willing to come and work for you AND work harder if they have better working conditions. It's in the best interest of a company to keep it's workers happy on a free market. Workers now have much more freedom than the slaves of ancient Egypt, and the economy is much better off because of it.Schools under private ownership are more expensive to the users and thus did not help with illiteracy rates as much as public education did.They are also filled with sectarianism.Private schools are much cheaper than public schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_school Again, you have it all wrong.http://mises.org/daily/2750Which becomes hoarded and wasted, and doesn't help the poor.Where government does help the poor? Tell me how welfare does a better job than charity.Besides, If I've earned more money than you, what do you care If I waste or horde my money. It's MY money after all. It's none of your concern what I do with it.It is an example of how wealthy businesses form in a way that isn't dependent upon the quality of goods.You haven't actually said anything new here... Companies trash talk each other, this is true regardless of the existence of a state, so this isn't even an argument FOR the state. Microsoft has survived through all the bashing it's received from Apple and vice-versa. FUD just isn't enough to collapse society...You seem ignorant of it, which is why I asked if you educated yourself on it.Even if I had never heard of the industrial revolution before you brought it up, the fact that I provided counter evidence via links proved that I had at least looked it up to the extent that I could formulate a counter argument.So, either you are a liar or you've been ignoring my arguments. Probably a bit of both.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Why does supply and demand need to be "managed"? I have bananas, but I want apples. You have apples, but want bananas... so we trade each other. What need is there for a third party to take a piece of the action?The only difference between a regulated and an unregulated market is that the unregulated market allows unethical behaviour like slander, propaganda, slavery, child labour, hostile acquisitions, monopoly, collusion, anti-union violence, sweatshops, etc.A regulated market attempts to prevent this.Why is it that the market is the only thing that cannot function on its own merits?It functions at the expense of creating a class of extremely rich, and extremely poor, and engendering human rights abuses.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

The only difference between a regulated and an unregulated market is that the unregulated market allows unethical behaviour like slander, propaganda, slavery, child labour, hostile acquisitions, monopoly, collusion, anti-union violence, sweatshops, etc.A regulated market attempts to prevent this.No, not even close. The difference between regulated and unregulated is one is controlled by the state and the other is controlled by supply and demand. If the demand is for good service, low prices and good working conditions for the employees, then that's what will happen in an unregulated economy.In a regulated (controlled) economy, instead of their service being reflective of the demand, it is reflective of the states interests.It functions at the expense of creating a class of extremely rich, and extremely poor, and engendering human rights abuses.And just how the hell does it do that? =p
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

No, not even close. The difference between regulated and unregulated is one is controlled by the state and the other is controlled by supply and demand. No, that is communism.A regulated market is controlled by supply and demand, it merely is prohibited from unethical behaviours. Free market is euphemistic for unethical market.And just how the hell does it do that? =pTry studying the industrial revolution to find out. Doesn't your school cover this?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

No, that is communism.A regulated market is controlled by supply and demand, it merely is prohibited from unethical behaviours. Free market is euphemistic for unethical market.What the hell are you talking about? If controls from the government are in place, then it's NOT a free market. It's a regulated market, therefore controlled by (but perhaps not exclusively) things other than supply and demand. =/Are you going to tell me that up is down next?Try studying the industrial revolution to find out. Doesn't your school cover this?You know, if you keep answering my questions with these diversions I'm going to assume you just can't answer them. =/If you're so sure about your stance, you should be able to explain it.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

What the hell are you talking about? If controls from the government are in place, then it's NOT a free market. It's a regulated market, therefore controlled by (but perhaps not exclusively) things other than supply and demand. =/A regulated market is like a free market without slavery, sweatshops, child labour, union busting violence, corruption, collusion, etc.You know, if you keep answering my questions with these diversions I'm going to assume you just can't answer them. =/If you're so sure about your stance, you should be able to explain it.I shouldn't have to explain a commonly known piece of history. Google it.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

A regulated market is like a free market without slavery, sweatshops, child labour, union busting violence, corruption, collusion, etc.Because, you know, none of those things exist under a governments watch now. =3A regulated market is like a free market, only a regulated market has one group of people with a vast fiat land claim and coercive monopolies on all the most vital services. I shouldn't have to explain a commonly known piece of history. Google it.Yeah, the thing is, avesk, an event in history =/= an argument. You have to actually explain the events relevance relative to your argument. Googling it isn't exactly going to tell me why you think the industrial revolution means a free enterprise economy would polarize the populations income. Understand?Or are you unable to postulate economic theory based on historic events?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Because, you know, none of those things exist under a governments watch now. =3Free market: those breaches go unpunished.Our regulated market: there are severe punishments for them.A regulated market is like a free market, only a regulated market has one group of people with a vast fiat land claim and coercive monopolies on all the most vital services. Not intrinsic to a regulated market, however the case is that these monopolies operate better than the private industry could (for example medicine, power, roads, water, police).Yeah, the thing is, avesk, an event in history =/= an argument. You have to actually explain the events relevance relative to your argument. Googling it isn't exactly going to tell me why you think the industrial revolution means a free enterprise economy would polarize the populations income. Fine. Short answer: the industrial revolution was a period of great business growth, without regulation (or at least, very minimal regulation). What followed? Businesses exploited cheap labour, and never voluntarily improved factory conditions as they grew to a position to afford it. They hired police to beat union organisers. In this way the factories provided many jobs but for low wages, keeping the workers poor as the business owners reaped the profit. They grew into monopolies that charged monopoly rates for oil and railroad/steamboat use.Understand?Or are you unable to postulate economic theory based on historic events?It's just so obvious that I didn't think it needed explanation. Like if a person says "Anti-semetism isn't necessarily a bad thing" you need only mention the middle ages in Europe and Nazi Germany.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Free market: those breaches go unpunished.Our regulated market: there are severe punishments for them.Then it's clear your governments punishments aren't working. Not intrinsic to a regulated market, however the case is that these monopolies operate better than the private industry could (for example medicine, power, roads, water, police).No, no they don't. Competition makes services and products both a higher quality and more affordable. Could you imagine how shitty televisions would be if their production was monopolized by the state?Fine. Short answer: the industrial revolution was a period of great business growth, without regulation (or at least, very minimal regulation). What followed? Businesses exploited cheap labour, and never voluntarily improved factory conditions as they grew to a position to afford it. They hired police to beat union organisers. In this way the factories provided many jobs but for low wages, keeping the workers poor as the business owners reaped the profit. They grew into monopolies that charged monopoly rates for oil and railroad/steamboat use.I'm a little disappointed in both how much effort it took on my part to finally get you to give a reason for your claims and what the final reasoning turned out to be. =/Rather than re-write a long explanation on why what your saying doesn't make sense, I'll post these two short summaries of these topics.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1kJlCJfhtw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZImO9O-Xkqw It's just so obvious that I didn't think it needed explanation. Like if a person says "Anti-semetism isn't necessarily a bad thing" you need only mention the middle ages in Europe and Nazi Germany.You assume I haven't debated on the industrial revolution with statists before. It's clear that the industrial revolution proves just the opposite conclusions you've come to, but I'm not as foolish as you to assume you've realized the same, so I've posted counter-arguments along with sources. There's just no excuse for trying to use an event as an argument. =/
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Then it's clear your governments punishments aren't working. So we have child labour, sweatshops, unpaid overtime... oh wait that's right, these are illegal and we don't have them any longer.No, no they don't. Competition makes services and products both a higher quality and more affordable. Could you imagine how shitty televisions would be if their production was monopolized by the state?Ironically they are made by the state - China, a communist government, where all our labour is exported there to sweatshops where the state has its hands in.Rather than re-write a long explanation on why what your saying doesn't make sense, I'll post these two short summaries of these topics.I stated the facts concisely. If it doesn't make sense then that means your theory isn't able to accommodate the facts.You assume I haven't debated on the industrial revolution with statists before. It's clear that the industrial revolution proves just the opposite conclusions you've come to, but I'm not as foolish as you to assume you've realized the same, so I've posted counter-arguments along with sources. It's clear that America's history indicates that it was founded as a Christian Nation - to Christian Reconstructions.It's clear that Germany's history indicates a lack of death camps - to Holocaust deniers.You can paint history however you want. I read how history is painted by libertarians and it's always the same "The industrial revolution increased wages for workers compared to the feudal era (forgetting that this was small compared to the wealth being generated by their labour) and child labour was used by state orphans (forgetting that it took government law to abolish it completely) and unions committed violence against businesses (any question why they did and what businesses did back to them?)"There's just no excuse for trying to use an event as an argument. =/I'm sure that Holocaust deniers feel the same way about Nazi Germany, and Christian Reconstructionists about our secular history.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

So we have child labour, sweatshops, unpaid overtime... oh wait that's right, these are illegal and we don't have them any longer.Tell me, are they illegal because there was demand for them to stop happening, or was there demand for them to stop happening because they became illegal?Obviously demand is the initiating force that stopped these things in North America. And demand is not monopolized by the state.Ironically they are made by the state - China, a communist government, where all our labour is exported there to sweatshops where the state has its hands in.China's bad and all, I know. My point was (and still is) that televisions are not a monopolized market and they would suck if they were.I stated the facts concisely. If it doesn't make sense then that means your theory isn't able to accommodate the facts.Or, this point has been dealt with several times already and I just don't see the value in repeating myself again. Would it kill you to just check them out?You can paint history however you want. I read how history is painted by libertarians and it's always the same "The industrial revolution increased wages for workers compared to the feudal era (forgetting that this was small compared to the wealth being generated by their labour) and child labour was used by state orphans (forgetting that it took government law to abolish it completely) and unions committed violence against businesses (any question why they did and what businesses did back to them?)"As have I and I've come to just the opposite conclusion. the difference is I understand that if persons have worked there way out of poor conditions, it was because there was demand for better conditions. I'm sure that Holocaust deniers feel the same way about Nazi Germany, and Christian Reconstructionists about our secular history.Are you comparing me to Nazi's and Christians because I said an event =/= an argument? Everything about you seems brilliant, but your analogies...Are you really saying an event does equal an argument?... Really?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: It is flawed

If there was multiple police forces what happens when a police officer witnesses a crime committed against someone who is not under his organization; Is he supposed to stand aside as that individual is assaulted, killed, or has his property destroyed?The entire point of the police force is to uphold a functional society, I fail to see how a for-profit police force manages that.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

I won't pretend that I know exactly how things will turn out on a free market because the market is a dynamic thing with a constantly changing supply and demand. But, I would imagine that if such an event occurred, the officer could protect the civilian (or his property, whatever the crime happened to be) then bill him for it later. Persons solve problems all the time, its what they do. When a demand arises, so does a supply to take advantage of it. When you allow one entity a coercive monopoly on police protection, you inevitably get police shortages at monopoly rates, since they can get away with it. Competitive police agencies remove the possibility of monopoly rates and forces each agency to compete for customers, therefore constantly improve on their service to out-do the competition.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

As incompetent and inefficient government is, it should assume the the duties of law enforcement. Not sure if a private company could legally enforce laws without being the entity of lawmaking.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

It would be MUCH MUCH BETTER...for those who have enough money.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Subsidies are a good way of dealing with that problem.We can handle police protection the same way we handle health insurance.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

We can handle police protection the same way we handle health insurance.Oh please no.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Not much of an argument there...But maybe I should revise my statement and say "We can handle police protection the same way we should be handling health insurance" -- that is, a regulated market with mandated coverage, premiums for the poor, and a public option.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Actually, with several agencies competing for the most customers, prices will be driven down much more affordable rates than we pay now.Take roads and schools for example...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W99ziyoUpSQ
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Actually, with several agencies competing for the most customers, prices will be driven down much more affordable rates than we pay now.At the cost of employees not having medical, or retirement.Take roads and schools for example...Two things which require a consistant quality that private enterprise cannot provide.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

At the cost of employees not having medical, or retirement.Come on avesk, you're more intelligent than that. =/Why do these these exist in the first place? Because there is demand for them. A manager who offers such benefits will have a much easier time finding employees than a business with piss-poor working conditions. Are you under the impression that demand for good working conditions and benefits would go away without a state or something??? Two things which require a consistant quality that private enterprise cannot provide.Where is this mindset coming from that only the state is capable of doing things... =/The state is made up of people. They can do it. Society is made up of people... but they can't? Personally, I think the train would become a much more popular means of transportation under a free market, but if demand leans towards functional roads, then that's what will happen.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Why do these these exist in the first place? Because there is demand for them. A manager who offers such benefits will have a much easier time finding employees than a business with piss-poor working conditions. Again, the real world disagrees. Try talking to employees in most manual labour and service jobs.Are you under the impression that demand for good working conditions and benefits would go away without a state or something??? Thriftiness. The market favours profit with thriftiness being rewarded and required. It's like in evolution, how nature favours those that can survive best with resources not being wasted on unnecessary metabolism, but the market functions on money, instead of resources like food. Survival means that having adequate working conditions is neglected.Where is this mindset coming from that only the state is capable of doing things... =/Business cuts corners and is trying to survive, the state has a steady income and rules that determine how everything must be done, it is accountable.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Again, the real world disagrees. Try talking to employees in most manual labour and service jobs.Try looking at studies and trends rather than relying on a few personal experiences. The fact remains that benefits exist because there is demand for them. Thriftiness. The market favours profit with thriftiness being rewarded and required. It's like in evolution, how nature favours those that can survive best with resources not being wasted on unnecessary metabolism, but the market functions on money, instead of resources like food. Survival means that having adequate working conditions is neglected.It's as though whenever this conversation moves two steps ahead, you revert back to step one. Alright, I'll say it again (and hopefully for the last time); if a company cuts corners to the extent that it results in a lesser service or product then it will pay for it with less profit. Unless it negatively affects its customers and workers, no one will care. When a company can cut corners without suffering a loss in revenue, it's called efficiency.Business cuts corners and is trying to survive, the state has a steady income and rules that determine how everything must be done, it is accountable.But there's no need for the state. Persons can conduct trade on their own just fine. Look at E-bay. The only thing regulating it is a rating for each person based on how trust-worthy they are and they have a less-than 1% fallout rate.persons can trade on their own, there's no reason to allow a third party to have a piece of the action.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Try looking at studies and trends rather than relying on a few personal experiences. It's not a matter of personal experiences, it is a well-known fact that companies will overwork their labour and service employees to be competitive.The fact remains that benefits exist because there is demand for them. That demand comes from law and labour unions.It's as though whenever this conversation moves two steps ahead, you revert back to step one. Alright, I'll say it again (and hopefully for the last time); if a company cuts corners to the extent that it results in a lesser service or product then it will pay for it with less profit. Strawman of what I said.Unless it negatively affects its customers and workers, no one will care. When a company can cut corners without suffering a loss in revenue, it's called efficiency.Correct sentence:Unless it negatively affects consumers, no one will care.But there's no need for the state. Persons can conduct trade on their own just fine. Look at E-bay. The only thing regulating it is a rating for each person based on how trust-worthy they are and they have a less-than 1% fallout rate.E-bay had administrators, and law enforcement... oops.persons can trade on their own, there's no reason to allow a third party to have a piece of the action.You're so adorably naive and simple-minded. It isn't about two people trading on their own, it's about shady corporate deals and protection mechanisms to prevent counterfeit goods and bribery.