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

I'm saying that in a market flooded with unskilled labour there is little incentive to improve.Of what relevance is a workers skill level to their desire for good working conditions? Just because a worker is "unskilled" (whatever you define unskilled by) doesn't mean they have an unlimited threshold for poor working conditions or that they wouldn't sooner work for a company offering better working conditions over one that offers poor working conditions.Which isn't helping those people. Therefore a state intervention or union would accelerate this.Unions are enough. It apparently cannot solve this problem since it continues to exist. However government could solve it by putting up a heavy tariff.Imposing a tariff doesn't solve the problem, it merely concentrates the sucky-ness.Without governments, outsourcing jobs wont be a problem since each individual isn't tied to the financial situation of the entire country. Your argument was that E-bay demonstrates the ability of an anarchy to work in a market due to lack of police oversight. I contradicted this. Argument over.It doesn't matter that there are police because there is a less than 1% fallout rate on E-bay anyway. I know you understand the correlation =/= causation.Police without a state are gangs, organised militias. This leads to fighting over jurisdiction and lack of standard laws.Companies tend not to war with each other over customers because persons tend to frown upon such acts. If a police agency begins a hostile expansion, you can be sure it's customer base will plummet to roughly zero.Not your original argument.But still relevant to the topic and true none the less.Depends on what type of enforcement must happen. If it means crossing country lines to kill a deal in radioactive isotopes, then government can do what E-bay cannot.Loose nukes will exist in a free market. We know this because loose nukes exist now. Russia made massive cut backs on the amount of nukes they had and as a result many of them went missing. They just don't know where they are. None have been set off yet though. I say nukes are far more dangerous in the hands of the state than the loose nukes in the hands of civilians. Governments have incentives to carry nukes. It gives them power to expand. As long as there are other governments to make surrender to you, you can expand your power with relative ease. Without a state to surrender, you'd have to take over everyone individually. What makes you think any kind of governance if intrinsically voluntary? When you are born into a community, whether it is a state or an informal government, you are tacitly a part of it. You can choose to leave either, too.So I can choose my slave-master, therefore I'm free?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A The state only gives you freedom to the extent that it further benefits themAuthority is decisive and can enforce a judgment between two rival powers. If there is none, the ruling must be settled by violence or acquiescence from one of the parties.Authority is a meaningless word to me. If you're right, there's no need for authority, your conclusions can be explained and proven. If you're not, you need authority to progress your agenda.Companies control the supply, but we control the demand. Only buy supplying the demand in the most favorable fashion can a company remain competitive on the market.This is called corruption, which is why separations of powers exists and in our government we have a vote.Voting is merely the illusion of choice.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyCfJmpVfMQ A common law creates standards as opposed to disagreements and wasteful rivalries.There is no one correct way to be. Life is dynamic and ready-made answers will always lead to problems. This is why there are so many contradictions in our laws. You're last three points are rather underwhelming. Corruption is not impossible under a free market, but it's much easier to get away with when you only have one watch-dog (of whom has a personal interest in expanding its power over the market) vs. hundreds of watch-dogs each with a reputation to keep up.