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

I already explained how this happens. To use a familiar example, take broadband providers like Comcast. They provide a service that is good initially and competitive but after they crush their immediate competition they start to interfere in their customers' affairs with packet poisoning. Another example is how the providers stay competitive by inflating their available broadband, and penalise their customers by having a quota, and demanding that net neutrality be revoked.Again, I'm not interested in the problems of companies that don't function on a free-market and this is why:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8C9s5n9VUk If there are no coercive monopolies or barriers to entry (things that can only happen under state rule) than all market problems can be solved simply by choosing to pay whomever provides the better service. All free market companies endeavour for monopoly.All companies. This is not something exclusive to free-market companies. Monopolies are very rare, even with a state oligarchies are easier to accomplish. The fact remains it's almost impossible to corner the market when it's free because as soon as you try to charge at the monopoly rate, people take their business elsewhere. Not so easy to do with our state-run coercive monopolies... =/People will buy what is affordable. This is why for example they buy cable when the employees are overworked and over-managed. Guess they don't want to pay 20$ a month more to improve this.Affordability clearly isn't the only factor in the market. Sure, a go-cart is more affordable than a car, but people still buy cars. It's about providing the best service for the price. If that isn't being done, persons take their business elsewhere. If you don't approve of the working conditions for employees at a certain business, don't pay them. Go with a company you do approve of.Are you in the USA?All of them. Ranging from denial of claims to skyrocketing premiums when you actually use your insurance, to being dropped because you have one pet too many.So, again understand we live in a highly statist society that allows large business certain advantages in exchange for lining a few pockets. Insurance agencies will always have means of protecting themselves, it's only rational. But if what they supply doesn't meet the market demand when the market demand is the only economic force driving the supply, they'll lose their business.Again, problem solved. =)Look at Microsoft for an example of how wealthy a company can become, or an oil company. What if the police force is acquired by an oil company? Now you have a wealthy, strong force that can stand up to government.If Microsoft started using their income to conduct a fiat land claim and began a military campaign over it's customers, persons would simply (here it comes) stop paying for their service. It's that simple. If a company does something that it's customers don't like, it loses business. You're joking, right? Or are you that ignorant?You can't live in Mogadishu safely, guns are fired frequently, warlords and militant factions are competing for power and land. Somalia is like a war zone, constant fighting between Islamists, Christians, and UN backed government.I never claimed it was better off (more peaceful) than us, merely that it got better once the state collapsed. Which it did. =3You really are ignorant.Anarchy is a power vacuum. In small groups of people this leads to tribalism. In large, city-like populations you have tribes fighting each other, gang violence in other words. Then you have factions, which form based on race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, etc. They fight violently. Eventually you get a government again, that arises from the bloodshed.Anarchy cannot work because it is by nature ephemeral. You also don't want to live in that ephemeral stage because the mortality rates are high.Again, an army can't be raised on customers alone. Persons must have some belief in the nobility of the state in order to support it. So long as persons are foolish in this manner, there will be states. Just because states exist and persons think the market can't function without them, doesn't mean they actually are good for us.Free markets existed in the United States and Britain, there was severe social inequality and workers' rights were nonexistent. In developing nations across the world there are free markets, and what we see are sweatshops and child labour.Child labor and sweatshops aren't so bad. =3Show me one of these "free-markets" with sweatshops.