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

And what part about anarchy is an attempt to force everyone into one lifestyle? This is a description of a state. The state molds our children via public education, the state illegalizes having certain vegetation, the state demands you conform to it's agreements. If there is no objective moral code then when it comes to big decisions over resources and land, fighting will happen, because of moral differences.Read it. Nothing in it debunks what I've been saying about Somalia. In fact, it barely touches on it. No where does this synopsis compare things like the amount of doctors, or violent crime rates of pre-collapse Somalia relative to post collapse Somalia. It gives the picture of Somalia that you were ignoring: war and strife.Then you're still straw-manning me, avesk. I've already told you, when I say "anarchism" I'm talking about the lack of government. Not the lack of "rules" or "authorities" (though, you should define what you mean by these as well). Somalia became a stateless population, an anarchy and it became better off because of it. This is recorded fact.Anarchy is defined as a lack of government, laws, and authorities.We may casually use anarchy to refer to lack of order and violence in an area.You are using the casual definition. Somalia isn't an anarchy.Also, having a couple extra doctors and televisions doesn't make a region better. The chief thing that makes an area good, and indeed better, is stability as in a lack of civil war.How are you going to go about establishing a state? Religion? Persons aren't so stupid anymore. Convince them you can do more for them with their money than they can? Good luck. Even the current government has trouble with that, and they have the advantage of forcing children into twelve years of compulsory "education" camps to indoctrinate them in the values of the state. =/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan The only sacred cows in this debate are your precious political leaders. I've posted facts and figures on pre-collapse Somalia vs. post-collapse Somalia showing Somalia improved after the fall of the state and you've failed to debunk it. Civil war is not an improvement, no matter how many televisions, radios and doctors were added to the area.You're projecting, avesk. Sweeping statements? I've gone so far as to list point by point at least a dozen specific markers of quality of life that improved after the collapse of the Somali government. The only thing you've posted is a site that talks about what a war-torn nation Somalia is without posting any actual relevant figures outside of dates.Civil war. Civil war. Civil war. Islamic courts union. Islamic courts union. Islamic courts union. Suicide bombings. Suicide bombings. Suicide bombings.TRUMPSBetter infant mortality rates, more TV and radio, internet access, and more doctors.I want to see hard facts. Exact figures that show contrary to the ones I've posted. I've given you as specific numerical differences between the two as there is available and you have not done the same, yet you have the audacity to say I'm data mining and making sweeping statements?CIVIL WAR. GREATER THAN. TELEVISION.There's just no need to criminalize monopolies since they don't happen without state intervention.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Company Without a state there is no authority to buy favours from, thus no way to enact barriers to entry.Without a state you buy favours from the head gang in your district, or the local chieftain, or the council elders.I hope you understand that I can't consider this a relevant argument as it only represents your personal situation which also involves an already existing government.It's common knowledge, easily accessible.Again, sweatshops are bad by our standards, but you've got to consider social change relative to what preceded it. Sweat shops suck compared to what we've come to, but child labour beats the hell out of child prostitution. Wouldn't you agree?You've never heard of leapfrogging, have you? This means, you jump from one generation to two or more ahead of it because others have cleared the path for you first.Look, the government is composed of persons, right? What your saying is that persons are incapable of supplying money across a territory, but persons are able to supply money across a territory. No, I am saying that persons of their own charitable nature will tend to supply less money, and in a less accountable way, than other persons who use mandatory contributions as a source with oversight to prevent abuses.That's because the demand for literacy grew to such an extent. Again, the government didn't create the demand. Hell, the government hindered it. Especially throughout the middle ages.Ad hoc explanations aside, public education made illiteracy virtually nonexistent.Perhaps it's these stitches in my mouth, but I just feel less tolerant of your density today. Yet not on your fingers...Competition means drive to be the best. The market is selling that which is most profitable and if good quality products and low costs is what the market demand, then that will be the most profitable.Government is like a leech that drains wealth from the market by tricking persons like yourself into believing it has some "magical" property about it that allows it to both offer the best possible service and protect you from the "evil corporate elite". It's all about standards really. If I want roads in Wisconsin to all be made the same, then I need government for that.Learning to farm was an emergent phenomenon that came from humans increasing in intelligence and observing how different plants grow. The same can be said about breeders.There was no need for God to hold our hands through this, it happened on it's own and now we have that knowledge to pass down to future generations. Right, but the point was that it wasn't a result due to market preference for a super-grain like you supposed. How could farmers 6000 years ago know that a grass would turn into corn?Don't bother telling me anarchic Ireland wasn't an anarchy because what anarchic Ireland was is what I mean when I say anarchism and what everyone else well read on the subject calls anarchism.Anarchy: lawless region where there is no ruler.Ireland (historical): informal government.Well, that would depend on your personal definition on ownership. If you personally find that fiat-land claims are a legitimate means of defining ownership than absolutely I agree you cannot be robbed by the government because they already own everything.No, they own a portion of your income. You own yourself and your property.No, YOU say that free markets are bad for society. History shows just the opposite. America out-preformed the USSR because they were more capitalistic. Post-collapse Somalia out preformed pre-collapse Somalia because it was more capitalistic. Anarchic Ireland lasted well over 1000 years despite constant invasion from England. Even the industrial revolution was a step up from what preceded it. For you to claim history shows free markets are bad for society, that's quite simply a lie.Economy =/= SocietyExpand your horizons. Society is more than the pursuit of most profit.BTW, lack of regulations gave us the great depression and modern financial crisis. So much for free market or even unregulated market productivity.Ah finally, a point out of ignorance rather than arrogance. Governments aren't what holds back the wealthy. In fact, just the opposite is true. Governments enact barriers to entry at the request of the wealthy in order to suppress small businesses which allow large companies a more inelastic equilibrium for whatever it is their business happens to be. I didn't say hold back, I said allowed to amass wealth.Besides we are discussing taxes."Unemployment" and "welfare" would still exist because demand for them would still exist. They would just be run by charity or some sort of "neighborhood agreement".Except they didn't, and when they were needed most. That's why welfare was created in the first place. Ever heard of the New Deal?You've got it backwards. If there is no "deserving" here, then the poor aren't entitled to the income of the wealthy. The wealthy earned their wealth (or, at least they would have on a free market), they are free to "hoard" it if they please. See:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243 A.K.A. Tragedy of the CommonsEssentially, allowing people to hoard puts a majority at a disadvantage for the benefit of a small party.