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

Exactly why anarchy will never work. I think since you understand this there is no need to go further, since it's only a matter of you wishing for humanity and morality to be otherwise, and needing to reconcile your hopes with this simple fact that you know.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. Go to that link and select Somalia from the drop-down list and then read the synopsis.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 isn't an anarchy, it is a stateless population. Anarchy means that there are no rules, no authorities. Somalis went back to Xeer and Sharia. Despite this there are still rampant power struggles, wars occur. Islam is trying to take down the transitional government. You're wrong, and couldn't be more wrong.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.Conquest. Submission. Occupancy.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. =/(note: I re-posted on purpose. You can't simply "conquer" a nation. You're going to have to do better than a 3 word rebuttal.) It's a matter of accuracy. Third world is a cold-war term that fell out of use.Third-world: soviet-aligned states, or ones with communism.Second-world: states that overthrew soviet communism and recently employed capitalism.First-world: capitalist states.You already know what I mean when I say "third world", so there's no problem anyway. =/I wonder if this is a sacred cow. Your kind just can't seem to drop an erroneous argument.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. Sigh. Read the facts. Quit being so asinine. I linked you to at least two histories and summaries of Somalia. Both are credible, one is authoritative, and they both call it a hellhole is very kind words.They both describe continual power struggles and wars. I don't know how someone can be in such denial. You make sweeping statements about Somalia by just looking at some numbers with no context of what life is actually like over there, how it transformed after the state vanished.You're datamining. And your desperate need to support your viewpoint won't let you look at the context.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.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?The information you've linked is loaded with meaningless trivia like At a 2000 peace conference in Djibouti, many of Somalia’s factional leaders agreed to participate in a three-year transitional government with a 245-seat Transitional National Assembly. The government and more than 20 rival factions signed a ceasefire in 2002, but serious fissures developed as some groups launched separate power-sharing negotiations in Mogadishu.But this has nothing to do with which was more habitable. Show me (or at least link) relevant facts ONLY.Okay, you agree with me then. State intervention made monopolies illegal.There's no specific law criminalizing monopolies, perhaps in some governments there are but it doesn't matter because a governments intervention ensures they will have the monopolies. There's just no need to criminalize monopolies since they don't happen without state intervention.Without a state the same thing would happen. Wealth buys favours, no matter the authority in charge.If by authority you're talking about a state then your very statement is already self defeating because we're discussing state free markets. Without a state there is no authority to buy favours from, thus no way to enact barriers to entry.Unskilled labour. I've seen it before numerous times where a job provides bad hours and pay, but the workers stay because they need the income.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.Which history shows will be a lot (look at sweatshops).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?Their income comes from their near-monopoly status as providers of TV shows, music, movies, etc. It's like selling cocaine and the demand won't decrease for a long time, definitely not until decentralised indy media becomes ubiquitous and the same quality. Near monopoly status? Look at our current situation. This hasn't happened enough.Do you need me to hold your hand through everything? Look up barriers to entry. Whatever you want to caricature it as, it works better than private charities because the government is big enough to to handle the logistics of supplying monies to people across the territory, and in a way that is accountable.... You really do need you hand held through the entire damn thing it seems.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. I mean, are you honestly saying it takes a fiat land claim and a tax base in order to move cash from one location to another? How the hell are other charities doing it then? What you're saying is stupid and senseless. Charity fails because they can't move the money from one point to another? Only the government can successfully move donations from point A to point B?Do you just not understand how charities work? Is that it? I mean, I can't even think of an analogy for failing to understand something better than this. In the future I'm going to use what you've said in an analogy to explain to somebody else the magnitude of foolishness in whatever it will be that they've said.Private education existed for millenia and never brought illiteracy down as much as public education did.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.The fact remains that private schools are cheaper and the students receive a higher quality education from them.Market: whatever is most profitable sells. Competition means different standards.Government: accountable institutions that provide the necessity.Perhaps it's these stitches in my mouth, but I just feel less tolerant of your density today. 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 essentially an extortion racket. I made the argument that the planters and breeders had no idea that harvesting and planting seeds would one day give us corn, or breeding would give us cows.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. Order is emergent. Built from the bottom up, it becomes something too deeply rooted to collapse. Top-down order works in the opposite fashion, which is why every government has toppled where anarchism has been proven to last at least well over 1000 years. 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.If you just can't wrap your head around the word "anarchism", then substitute with whatever non-anarchic word you don't have this irrational uncomplacent view of.Call it a "taxless state" if you must.Which isn't taxation because the good doesn't belong to the person. It is a transaction for services (property, military, roads, schools, etc.).In other words, in exchange for living here you forfeit ownership of a sum of money for the state.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.But, then again that's worse than just being robbed in the first place, so it doesn't matter. =/They are wrong because history says a free market is bad for society.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.If there were no taxes then the wealthy would continue to amass a fortune, and the poor would maintain what they have. There would be no redistribution so unemployment and welfare wouldn't exist, meanwhile the wealthy would have all that money just sitting there.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. "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".Don't bother trying to tell me charities can't function better than state welfare because what you're saying is that the coercive extraction of funds followed by vigorous debate over the distribution of said funds works better than the voluntary donations of charity. Essentially you're saying that an army of conscription is more efficient than an army of voluntary soldiers. I sincerely hope you're not foolish enough to believe that to be true...There is no "deserving" here. A wealthy person can give away 90% of his wealth and still live more comfortably than most people. This kind of difference in incomes and assets causes social turmoil, it is hoarding a resource that others need which supports criminal behaviour, as desperate people feel the need to steal and cheat the system.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. This is only a problem when you're tied to the wealth of everyone in your nation. If there are none of these ties, it doesn't matter if other persons spend less of their money than you do (well, in a way it does - but in a much less significant manner).It's called Earth, species H. sapiens sapiens.We are human, therefore fighting each other over how to spend the remnants of coercively extracted funds is more productive than simply spending our money in fields we want to see expand....Must be that public education at work. =/