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

These subsidies are a problem, so to remove them either the wealthy has to go, or the state has to go. The wealthy can't be removed because what defines "wealthy" is arbitrary and as long as there is trade, there will be those more "wealthy" than others. This leaves only the state.Do people form groups? (Correct answer: yes)Do groups form hierarchies? ("...")Is such a hierarchy more efficient and powerful than the individual? ("...")Therefore, the wealthy, that always exist in any system, will have a political advantage, no matter what kind of state you build or if you imagine an anarchy (read: stateless collective or tribe).Secondly, you're "point" about these monopolies forming BEFORE the regulations is retarded. If a company had built a sustainable monopoly before enacting any regulations, then there would be no need to enact these regulation in the first place.Rule of nature: monopolies happen.Second rule of nature: monopolies are transient.Third rule of nature: a monopoly will seek to prolong its existence (in this case through political meddling).Now, you just need to understand that without a state in the first place, there's no political body to buy economic favours from.Do people form groups? (Correct answer: yes)Do groups form hierarchies? ("...")Is such a hierarchy more efficient and powerful than the individual? ("...")Therefore, the wealthy, that always exist in any system, will have a political advantage, no matter what kind of state you build or if you imagine an anarchy (read: stateless collective or tribe).Once again, your analogy fails hard.1. There are still single cell lifeforms NOW, which, given the analogy, proves that not all hierarchies turn into states.2. Multi-cellular life forms are an emergent phenomenon, they're not a top-down order as a state is, so they're not even comparable.If you were smart you would read my reply to mean "large super-hierarchies have an intrinsic advantage in efficiency as compared to many small hierarchies or individuals acting on their own. This is why states exist as the dominant political end-game." You might also appreciate that a state is originally an emergent phenomenon.Jeez, no matter how un-equivalent two things are, you'll try to make it fit into a Christianity analogy like a develop-mentally handicapped toddler trying to fit the square peg into a round hole..."Mises said it, therefore it's wrong!" << there's a word for such reasoning. It's called an ad hominem.Your comments on economic theory are so wrong it's usually funny, therefore when you quote some authority which is actually a think-tank with an obvious agenda, it looks like a crackpot to me.My favourite lines so far: "sweatshops are good!!! rofl" followed by "somalia is better for being an anarchy in civil war omglol!!!"So you're just going to totally ignore that the few Irish feuds of the time were to a piss-ant scale in comparison to the rest of Europe, eh?Most of the feuding in Ireland was against England, not other Irish. The same thing was seen in anarchic-Somalia. The factions warred with the Islamist and U.N. invaders, not each other (or at least to an insignificant amount).How long did Gaelic Ireland exist? Almost a thousand years? The in-fighting was a common part of growing up, from what I read. It actually seems like a part of growing up was becoming a criminal in a gang. Over a thousand or so years, this adds up to a lot of wasteful violence.I consider that a failure. Should I add "Irish teen gangs are cool lol!!!" to your memorable quotes?You've contradicted yourself. If we're evolved past fighting for land and foraging then there would be no need for any firm, statist or free, to uphold law. If we haven't evolved past this, then it becomes a matter of which works better. Seeing as the Iraqi guerilla army has been able to hold off the U.S. mega-army the superior form of protection is clear.We have apparently transitioned "evolved" past foraging and hunting game. We lead longer, sedentary lives that allow us to pursue arts, culture, and knowledge.I see no contradiction there. Pursuing these things doesn't require that we be entirely peaceful, just that we are no longer preoccupied with hunting.We succeeded in capturing Iraq. The insurgents are a problem for stability, not conquest. Put more bluntly, if we devalued life and only wished to spread fear and distrust like the insurgents do, we have the technology to turn the entire Middle East into a glowing, glass-top wasteland within hours. Those guerrillas do not have this technology.Maybe that is our weakness. If we made an example of Iran for its supply of aid to the insurgents all these years, by reducing it to a radioactive death-zone with dirty bombs, maybe we would actually have respect from these so-called men in arms.Wtf are you talking about? Just because it's in a history book doesn't mean it isn't opinion. XDIt is a fact that that period saw many advancements in science by the Islamic world, and that the 1400s and later saw the slow birth of the scientific method in the west.Hell, what you said wasn't even an attempt to debunk my argument in the first place. =/Correlation does not equal causation. I guess I was too subtle with my over-the-top pirate analogy. You see I thought if I just stated outright the flaw in your reasoning, you wouldn't see how the flaw applied, so I invented an absurd parody to highlight it.It's starting to look like it will take the actual collapse of the U.S. government to get you to understand exactly what I'm talking about. Are you just incapable of looking past the superficial? Are you just incapable of seeing why Somalia got better and seeing the similarities between it and the U.S.?I see how Somalia improved in some areas, but also collapsed in others. I don't toe a party line and allow myself to see the complexity of a situation.