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

For the sake that this is a debate site I will take the side opposing you... this will be fun!Would you pay for a half-ass police agency? Neither would anyone else. If cutting corners means cutting customers, then you can rest assured that the only companies able to remain competitive on the market will be the ones that provide the best services. ;)McDonalds is that a half-ass food service? To many yes, yet people buy from them despite them being half-assed and unhealthy... they do this by cutting corners to cut time and save money on products increasing profit. By your logic it should be out of business, it's not thanks to the fact that free enterprise doesn't care about quality, but about amount of money made. A robotized police force could go around some of these issues, but has a massive overhead cost.You're ignoring my point. You can get away with a lot more if your company is the only one of its kind (monopoly). And you can get away with a hell of a lot more if your monopoly is coercive... like the ones we have now.But in a free-enterprise system people can open up their own competing business and if people don't like the monopoly they can use your service... some people already use private companies for a police force (some gated communities, some resorts) so there is potential that a privatized police force could come into the mainstream (why hasn't it?). So the regular police force isn't as much of a monopoly as you think, but it still has a large share of the market. You're going to have to do better than this. Show me an example of a free-market insurance agency being "abusive".As a side note, they do take those policies to prevent themselves from being open to fraud like this therefore losing money. However some companies do overreact by putting up barriers to who can join (you know what I mean, who doesn't?), along with disadvantages of the unlucky (those who have the same thing happen multiple times).You can only raise an army with a tax base. Customers aren't enough because customers tend to not pay companies that start to militarize.Can you give an example of costumers stop paying a company that starts to militarize? The business plot is interesting, but unprovable. If anything a private police force would be the easiest company to mask a militarization, they could get more funding because more customers would like the 'sliding' level of protection (with the highest tiers having Assault rifles and such) with the higher cost for the better gear; so people would be paying for the militarization.Really? Because the only free-market I can think of in recent history was Somalia... and crime went waaaaaaaaaay down in that time.Actually there were states, but micro-states with limited influence over the individual... so libertarianism it is then? Also there was law, but unwritten laws and societal expectations; which have a large influence over what you do. So it differs on the cultural background, and about size of the micro-states.In Somalia some areas were better off, like banking and industry... and others were worse off, like violence but due to warlords taking advantage of the situation, and wanting control of it all through war...It's already been proven that things work better without a state. This isn't a matter of arguing logic anymore, but rather a matter of getting the facts out and talked about.Prove it, why do states keep appearing? There is a reason. Get the facts out, I want to see them. I'm interested.side note also I think it differs per person what kind of state (or lack of) they would function best in, due to the way people act under different situations. So trying to find out what's best for all is never the way to go; if you conquer the whole world keep Australia open for the dissenters of your ideology, they would have no excuse really to not go if that way of life is not the way they roll.