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

Theory on meIt's a nice theory, but the recurring theme of my posts has been for fair competition on the market, not my opposition to taxation. Don't get me wrong, I do oppose taxation, but only because taxation is the means of sustaining the states many coercive monopolies, which are the opposite of fair competition, therefore I oppose taxation. FYI, I grew up with my mom (single parent) with my brother and sister living a lower-middle class lifestyle. The states done nothing to me personally (at least, no more than anyone else), I oppose that state for intellectual reasons alone. If we were to have verbal communication, you would see I talk about the state in much the same way I would talk about physics, but since we can't you'll just have to take my word for it. 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.Persons solve problems all the time. It's what they do. At the very least, even if all the "trade rout blocking" and "unethical behavior (?)" you mention were to happen and unsolvable, it would still result in a more firm-fair market and require these large firms to be more competitive anyway.That's not all I have to say on this, but taking a quick glance at the rest of this post, it looks like I'll get it all out anyway.Anyone 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.... ... ... ... ... ... Wow. Okay... congratulations. You just stupefied me by saying by far the most... I don't even know a word for it. I'm just going to get right into this.So, your argument is essentially "theories are not perfect, therefore anything you have to say that relies on theory is automatically flawed". Talk about a fucking cop-out. No theory has yet to account for all possibility. That's a given. Hell, that's literally the entire purpose of calling it a theory. The point is to look at the most common occurrences and derive probability based on them. Every morning you wake up and roll out of bed. Usually your feet hit the ground and your day continues, but there's a chance you might slip right through the floor, or that your leg might explode or something like that. Your feet touching the ground with no consequence is just a theory, but it so accurately relates to reality that you can comfortably build your morning around the assumption that if you put your foot on the ground, your leg wont explode. The same can be said for economic theory. The theory "natural monopolies don't happen/ are unsustainable" (depending on how you define a monopoly) may only be a theory, but since it has held true thus far AND there's strong logic standing behind it, one can comfortably derive that monopolies will not happen naturally. You can even take it a step further and recognize that monopolies are more likely when the state is present as that's pretty much what the state is. It should never be necessary to have to explain something like this in a debate. I mean, this is a-priori stuff. I get the feeling this is a "last resort" sort of thing. You've run out of arguments, so as a last resort you've decided your just going to write off anything I say because it's theory, well guess what, the same can be said about you and your "hybrid" theory. The only difference is my theories come from the Austrian School of Economics, the school that has produced more correct prophecies than any other school of economists in all of human history. What have your theories done? What have you proven? Which of your prophecies have come to fruition? Where's your school of economics? If I can't be right because theories can't be right, how can you be?Once again your argument is abstract and non-cognitive. You say a lot, but your words have no substance. You haven't actually shown anything I've said to be wrong here, you've just asserted it.Your understanding is too narrow. I overestimated you many times.Judging by your last argument, the overestimating has been on my part. 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? Have you ever considered posting an argument with statistical substance? Even once? If I'm incorrect, it should be easy for you to post counter evidence that stands behind actual figures, not just non-cognitive conjecture. Looking back on your previous posts, there's very, very little actual substance to your arguments. 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.Somalia isn't a story of factions emerging and fighting for dominance. You are alone on that theory. Every other economist to chime in recognized that Somalia is a story of a state collapsing and other states rushing in to establish power. The current Somali government wasn't formed by the Somalians, it was formed by other already existing states.Wikipedia disagrees with you about Gaelic Ireland.This would have been a very easy argument for you to provide statistical substance to, but you didn't. Well, go on. Show me where on Wikipedia it shows Ireland going through a depression caused by non-monopolized currency. Show me where on Wikipedia it lists these apparent battles between different tuatha. In all of Wikipedia, the only time it even mentions warfare between tuatha is in this single sentence "Gaelic Ireland was a land of continuous warfare, as túatha fought for supremacy against each-other and (later) against the Anglo-Normans." but there are so many problems with this.1. Exactly how much war are we talking about? To what extent? 2. The article it links to admits to having NO SOURCES.3. It's talking about pre-600 C.E., which is before the time of anarchic Ireland anyway.You're wrong again.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.Well, I've been giving you all the chances in the world to show me these statistics. No ones stopping you. Go on, give me some actual numbers.