Debate: Which side Government or No government
Side: No government society

It's important because for the free market to work in reality (not just theoretically) the consumers need to be well informed but consumers are not well informed on 99% if their purchases.They only need to be informed of their demands, and have accurate information as to the characteristics of the goods they purchase, for the free market to work reasonably well (better than government intervention). Bearing this in mind, how are the wal mart shoppers in your example uninformed?Nobody has time to be well informed on every purchase they make. and? Whose responsibility is it to make sure you know what you are buying, assuming that the advertizing is truthful?I don't know the companies environmental record, their transportation methods, etc. Basically I have my own life to live and there are not enough hours in a day to make sure every purchase is the "best" one including the companies environmental record, wages it pays employees, etc.If you care, you will. If you don't care, then the issue isn't important to you. Why should someone else force you to pay more for something you don't care about?If most people make the same "mistake" I do when shopping, a company can do bad things and NOT be driven out of business.Just because you see ignoring aspects of a business unrelated to the price and quality of the goods as a "mistake" does not mean others do. By what right do you force your value system on others? If enough people see it as a concern, they will start to act according to their own value systems.Nothing, but I think the consumer will support the cheapest monopoly or oligarchy around, not the "best" option for their community and ultimately for themselves.By what right do you decide what is best for another? Or to impose your idea of what is best for their community?It's a race to the bottom for the worker. You could say "it's their own damn fault", but you and I will be dragged down with them regardless. Keep in mind that our security and all other "market purchases" will suffer the same fate.Labor is a market good, just like everything else, and is traded as such. It is subject to the laws of supply and demand. I don't think so. If I have a monopoly that makes it hard for competition to compete (though controls on price, or resources, distribution, not threats or force) it's bad. If this monopoly or oligarchy, can limit competition, drive wages down, keep prices "slightly" higher than they need to be, that's bad. If through there non coercive methods they are able to repeatably crush the competition, competition will stop trying as they will spend their resources someplace else that yield more profits.Name one monopoly that has ever been able to do this, without the help of government. If the competition cannot compete on the free market then they are supplying the demands of the consumer less efficiently than the existing firms. Seeking profit in a different field is healthy for the market, and good for the consumer.Standard oil (your example) caused the price of oil to drop dramatically, to the benefit of the consumer.Vanderbilt operated steamboats and gave free rides (made money off concessions) on steamboats (illegally) breaking a government supported monopoly. Both are cited as "robber barons" but both helped the consumer. Their competitors, advocates of "anti-trust" laws were the ones who were gouging the consumers.