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

Anyone with authority may issue edicts or orders or change rules. There is nothing stopping them from breaking precedent either, just look at Somalia for a billion examples.You just... don't understand anything beyond the superficial. Just because a persons title translates to "chieftain" in English doesn't magically give them super powers over the market.At best, the chieftain could request that the other Tuath members buy a certain man's product. He couldn't force them to, he couldn't enact barriers to entry and stop competition from forming, he had no power outside of a simple request. If the other men followed his advice or not is up to them.How old are you? Up until now I just assumed you were around my age, perhaps a couple years older, but judging from your fundamental lack of understanding beyond the superficial, either you are a pathological liar or you're brain literally isn't developed enough to see such an obvious difference. It would explain why you also seem to be having such a difficult time considering more than the argument directly laid out in front of you... and your child-like egotism.Did you miss the part where you grow larger and absorb smaller competitors, until you are a monopoly, and then you enact monopoly rates because no one can compete against your inherent advantage.See, this is an example of what I was talking about. It's painfully obvious that if a firm's advantage is high productivity and low rates, then raising the rates hinders their advantage, giving room for another firm to grow. Just being "big" isn't enough to get customers. Persons would, and in fact DO pay smaller firms for a product if a large firm starts charging at monopoly rates. Besides, since a "natural" monopoly isn't coercive, simply enacting monopoly rates would almost over night drop productivity because there are many persons who would sooner go without this product than pay for it at the monopoly rate.Have you even ever taken a class on economics? I mean, this is so basic and far behind the scope this conversation was originally meant to be in. How can you honestly think you're a "genius" when you don't even understand the absolute basics of the market? Next you'll be telling me that "supply and demand is an inherently flawed theory". XDPassive aggressive mental masterbationNo, you just make bad arguments and provide links in lieu of context and substance. Seriously, I never said anything that could be construed as those comments. You on the other hand said clearly that anarchy plagued Somalia is better now for it, and other lines more or less like what I condensed.I'm STILL arguing with you on those points under the assumption that these are you arguments and you're STILL responding to them (even in this very post) in a way that validates them. I know you have difficulty holding in your head things I've written that aren't directly in front of you, but fuck, it gets ridiculous at a certain point.A stateless region appears stable to you because there is no state which can collapse, instead there are factions which rise and fall in power. A state is a delicate balance of power and citizens' wants being fulfilled. It can easily topple, over which a new state takes power.Air-tight as a wiffle ball, as per usual. No states emerged in the entire 1000 years of anarchic Ireland. These faction were non-geographic and had no market influence beyond voluntarism. If states really are for the best, you would expect anarchic Ireland to be a tale of extreme poverty and uncertainty, but they were about as well off as the rest of Europe expect there was no threat of depression and no wars (at least, not notably when compared to the rest of Europe). So in your mind a thousand factions fighting each other daily is better than a single faction taking power and once every few decades or centuries being replaced. Makes sense...Once again, fighting between Tuatha was uncommon. Much less common than the states of Europe warring with each other. Also, since currency wasn't monopolized there could be no depressions. So yeah, it does. Virtually zero? The insurgents are being funded by other States covertly, Iran and (I think it was also) Afghanistan, plus all sorts of drug trading.Despite all that we have claimed the area as our own. If we had better strategists and commanders (I blame the Bush Administration for jumping into this unprepared) we may have made it less of a sectarian quagmire with Human Rights Violations.Do you have evidence supporting this claim that the guerilla armies where receiving state funding, or is this just conjecture?States go through periods of war, as opposed to constant skirmishing which is the nature of anarchy. I think you mean Religious power took a nose dive.Well, at the time they were very much synonymous. If it isn't Al-Shabaab, it's the ICU and subsidiaries. Somalia is plagued by inter-faction fighting, terrorism, and sectarian violence.I really don't know what to say to a person who thinks this is perfectly acceptable, as long as it has a free market.Again, a very poor argument. The standard of living in Somalia went up after the end of taxation. There was war beforehand, there was war after, the only real difference is individuals had more wealth, health care, utilities, etc. after the collapse.