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

Understand, sort of regulate =/= unregulated. If you want an example of what happens to an economy free of a government, look at Somalia or America.A new market, like ISP, started without regulations and immediately followed with unethical practices like filtering what content customers could see.Somalia has a government, the Transitional Government, and it has the ICU who are fighting it. It is a state of warring factions. Before them, there were Islamists and Christians fighting each other.Then you admit you're only comparing regulation to regulation, since a business lacking in regulation has no merits. ;)Random comment inapplicable to what I said.All you have to do to understand which economy is better, stateless or state, is to look at a country that had a state and then no longer did. Like Somalia.Somalia is a hellhole now. Over twenty years it has seen the rise and fall of numerous factions grasping for power. Islamists, terrorists, Christians, gangs, and so-on. Welcome to anarchy.Of course, there was no crime, because there were no police and no laws.You don't even actually have to understand the logic behind it, it's plainly visible.Of course, idiots who advocate anarchy just look at a distorted image of Somalia and say "omg freedom!"You know, you're not as mature as I thought you were...A business requires nothing but revenue. The CEO of a business could be a moral-nihilist and still have a business so long as it meets the markets demand.A business without ethics devolves quickly into worker exploitation, consumer exploitation and management power struggles.I've already debunked half of these. Don't be a fool, merely re-stating your argument and ignoring my counter-argument doesn't make you right. =/These are facts. They are not assertions. What you did was deny the evidence like a good little crackpot.If there's something specific about anarcho-capitalism that you don't understand, fine, lets talk about it. There's no need to get so upset.There is one thing. I don't understand how people could support such an obviously corrupt system. Just like fascism and dictatorships, there are people who support these too strangely.I have two hypotheses for how they gain support:Opportunists who want power support them because they think they could be a ruler in such a system.Really, really dumb people who get wrapped up in the propaganda from the former support the system, and are masochists for it.So, which are you? The dumb guy or the opportunist? Or the troll.Grow up, avesk. =/Relative to the market, success means to sustain a business competitively. This is what I mean when I say "success" relative to economics. Now you know. =/Then a regulated market is successful by your definition and it has ethics, too.Again, relax. I'm not trying to make you look foolish or anything. There is no reason to be so impertinent.I have an aversion to stupidity.Tell me what exactly it is about the industrial revolution that makes it impossible for you to not pay for products made by a company you don't approve of.Monopoly on an important good or service. Vendor lock-in. Having a wage that gives you no choice.Economy of scale... yeah, yeah big companies get bigger. It doesn't matter. Please, just try to understand. If a monopoly occurs naturally on a free-market it could ONLY be because that particular company did a better job than all the other like-companies. As soon as it begins preforming worse than it's competition (e.g. charges at monopoly rates, cheats its employees) persons will take their business to another company. Economy of scale means that the bigger the company gets, the cheaper it is for it to produce its goods.A smaller company becomes more and more disadvantaged towards it and obviously cannot undersell it since it needs that profit for growth.Would you continue to pay a business whom offers a lesser service to a like-business? I doubt it.Industrial revolution. People were forced to pay.There are only two real ways to kill competition. Provide a service better than the competition or through barriers to entry. That's it. You can either out preform them, or cripple their productivity. Also FUD, vendor lock-in.Under a free-market there is absolutely nothing stopping a person from opening a business and under-selling the competition.But lets say there was, just for the sake of argument. If the company with the cheapest product continues to have the cheapest product but cuts back on quality or something like that, persons will STILL take their business no another like-company because there's more to consider than just affordability.A big business can afford to undersell competition, a small business cannot.Then connect the dots. Show me something, avesk. Come on. =/I'm not doing your homework for you.Is this your "thing" now? Telling me to look things up rather than actually making a counter-argument?Look, I'm not going to spend hours re-reading things I already know in an attempt to guess exactly how you think an economy cannot be sustained without regulation.If you bothered to read it, you wouldn't be so painfully ignorant in the first place.I mean, I think you're trying to use these organizations influence over the government as an example of how a free-market economy can't be sustained... But that's just such a stupid thing to say that I don't want to believe that's what you mean...In anarchy a government will form and businesses will strike deals with that new government. Then you have monopolies that form because of this, and years later reforms happen and we get a stable market that is fair and a bloated government.You are advocating starting from square one because we live in square four, and you dislike government.What seems to elude you is the plain fact that human nature leads to this progression, and anarchy is not a solution, but a prelude.If people want good products, fair prices and good working conditions, then the market will reflect these demands because it's in the interest of the suppliers to do so. History disagrees supremely.Obviously I'm saying that a free market is a free market and using non-free market examples as evidence against a free market doesn't work because its NOT a free market.Behaviours exist in a regulated market that follow into a free market. Likewise we can look at existing free markets in developing nations to see what happens. We also have history. They all disagree with your conclusion so you dismiss them as not free enough.I don't believe you have so little understanding of what I'm saying. There's no reason to play a fool, I know you at least sort-of get what I'm saying.You can have courts and contracts without a state.Without a state there is no law. There are competing factions with their own ethics but no common law exists, which is why war breaks out.Simply ignoring the facts doesn't make you right either. Look, you and everyone else can clearly see that Somalia became a better place to live after the fall of the state. I would sure as hell prefer to live in anarchic Somalia than the state-run Somalia that preceded it and if you have any intellectual honesty you will admit the same.Please move there or shut the hell up. I hate stupid people.An intelligent person wouldn't pretend that warring factions make a place better to live.Competition is nature. You can give it an ugly name like "war", but it is only one side of the coin. So, again, if the population values good products at fair prices etc. over war, then that's what the market will reflect.How to put this in a way that even a stupid person can understand...A market is worthless for stopping war in anarchy because a faction can emerge at any time deciding that it wants to control everyone else. It can take ownership of the market.Oh, an anarchism IS all about accountability. Without the state there is no welfare to fall back on. there is no appealing to the state for barriers to entry, everything you accomplish a product of your own ability.I'm not even going to address this. I will bold it instead because it falls under its own stupidity.My friend's going to laugh so hard when I tell him some of the things you said today.How do you expect to convince me of anything when you're dismissing my arguments rather than countering them? =pYou're not a very good debater. I'm not saying this as an insult, I'm saying it as a factual observation.When someone argues that the earth is flat and held up by a giant tortoise, you can't really debate them seriously. In fact I'm surprised I made it this far with you. You're hysterical, a parody of libertarianism. No one takes you seriously except jessald.Great, you know how to copy/paste. Though, this doesn't in any way fulfill my request for you to name a current free-market with sweatshops.So again I find myself making the request;Name one.Try following the link. Most of them have unregulated markets and sweatshops.