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

You just... don't understand anything beyond the superficial. Just because a persons title translates to "chieftain" in English doesn't magically give them super powers over the market.If a person can wield authority over others he has political influence over, then he can cause them to make decisions that are not based on the unbiased rules of competition.At best, the chieftain could request that the other Tuath members buy a certain man's product. He couldn't force them to, he couldn't enact barriers to entry and stop competition from forming, he had no power outside of a simple request. If the other men followed his advice or not is up to them.What is the word for this? I'm not going to immediately address this statement but imagine the psychology behind it. Now, you're a young, well-off man with no experience in the poorest nations. You feel entitled to wealth. I assume this because you defend the wealthy, which means you think wealth comes with no personal responsibility, which means you came into money from your parents and not through hard work. You therefore hate taxes because it's your money. That's all you understand. Lack of responsibility means you cannot see it any other way. Therefore you're attracted to libertarianism, because nothing says "It's my money dammit!" like libertarianism. You hate governments. This is a bit harder to figure out. Maybe your family runs a business and the state has made it tough to comply with regulations. Somewhere the state has crossed you emotionally, and your innate appeal to libertarianism (read: "My money! Dammit!") means it's only a stone's throw to become anarchist. So in your mind a dialectic formed, a romanticised one: the noble tribe versus the corrupt state. In your thinking the state is synonymous with everything that is bad about humanity, while the tribe represents independence, self-reliance, individuality.So while I can clearly explain to you that politics is a fact of human nature, and it is what allows a person to force others into doing things even if he isn't a state official, because social bonds and consequences are capable of coercing a group into choices that are against their interests, you will simply deny it because you have an emotional need to blame the state for all problems.How old are you? Up until now I just assumed you were around my age, perhaps a couple years older, but judging from your fundamental lack of understanding beyond the superficial, either you are a pathological liar or you're brain literally isn't developed enough to see such an obvious difference.You're projecting.See, this is an example of what I was talking about. It's painfully obvious that if a firm's advantage is high productivity and low rates, then raising the rates hinders their advantage, giving room for another firm to grow. Just being "big" isn't enough to get customers. Persons would, and in fact DO pay smaller firms for a product if a large firm starts charging at monopoly rates. If competition exists that is equal, you work hard to do better than it. Eventually you will outcompete it, but crucially you may engage in practices that are not anticipated by economic theory. You see, you think only in terms of economic theory, which simplifies a real-world phenomenon. Factors that are not anticipated include the unethical actions that businesses take as social institutions, like blocking trade routes, forming secret deals, spreading misinformation about competition, lying about what is being sold, etc.At some point you can outcompete your main competitors, and this is where you become large enough that new competitors don't stand a chance when competing with your products directly. This is because your business is much more efficient at producing a good, and it is more ubiquitous in distribution points. You have the advantage. You may even own trade routes which your competition requires to compete with you, in which case you are making money off of your competition as they try to outsell you.Have you even ever taken a class on economics? I mean, this is so basic and far behind the scope this conversation was originally meant to be in.How can you honestly think you're a "genius" when you don't even understand the absolute basics of the market? Next you'll be telling me that "supply and demand is an inherently flawed theory". XDAnyone who knows anything, knows that theory is simple model designed to approximate a natural system. Natural systems are frequently infinitely complicated, and even small variables unaccounted for can have drastic results on the system not presently explained by the theory.This is why libertarians are mocked openly. Your entire knowledge of economics is based on theory. This means that you have no appreciation for the real world system. You just consult your theory each time you need to reflect on new information, and instead of being a good scientist who alters his theory to fit new information, you discard new information that doesn't fit your theory as erroneous.Example: "Monopolies just don't happen in a free market!" (Because according to free market theory competition may always arise to displace growing companies. In theory the economic landscape is infinite, a monopoly cannot as per model own the entire market even though as per reality it can succeed in "good enough solutions" which violate theory. You simply ignore this because it doesn't fit theory.Have you ever heard the expression "Evolution is cleverer than you?" It's the same in economics. The market behaves like a virtual ecology, and evolves clever solutions to problems which are thought insurmountable according to current theory. The market is cleverer than your theory.That is why I laugh at your simple understanding of economics.Passive aggressive mental masterbationNo, you just make bad arguments and provide links in lieu of context and substance. Your understanding is too narrow. I overestimated you many times.I'm STILL arguing with you on those points under the assumption that these are you arguments and you're STILL responding to them (even in this very post) in a way that validates them. I know you have difficulty holding in your head things I've written that aren't directly in front of you, but fuck, it gets ridiculous at a certain point.Did you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, you haven't reflected enough on what you're saying that you don't understand the gravity of your implications? Air-tight as a wiffle ball, as per usual. No states emerged in the entire 1000 years of anarchic Ireland. These faction were non-geographic and had no market influence beyond voluntarism. If states really are for the best, you would expect anarchic Ireland to be a tale of extreme poverty and uncertainty, but they were about as well off as the rest of Europe expect there was no threat of depression and no wars (at least, not notably when compared to the rest of Europe). Present-day Somalia helps us understand this. When there are rival factions with nearly equal power fighting, or competing, then it is possible for attrition to forestall a state for a very long time. However, a state will eventually emerge as more stable political alliances form. This is why even states themselves can form metastates like the European Union.It is the fate of Earth, our survival permitting, to have one world metametastate eventually.Once again, fighting between Tuatha was uncommon. Much less common than the states of Europe warring with each other. Also, since currency wasn't monopolized there could be no depressions. So yeah, it does. Wikipedia disagrees with you about Gaelic Ireland.Do you have evidence supporting this claim that the guerilla armies where receiving state funding, or is this just conjecture?Look up the Iraq War Logs. These classified documents have intel which suggests Iranian funding of the insurgents.Again, a very poor argument. The standard of living in Somalia went up after the end of taxation. There was war beforehand, there was war after, the only real difference is individuals had more wealth, health care, utilities, etc. after the collapse.What did I tell you about quoting only portions of statistics and data which favour your position? You have to look at everything, including that which contradicts you.