azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

- In the name of competition, each agency would be forced to compete for customers, therefore strive to provide a better and less expensive service. A less expensive service means that the company spends less on training, uses cheaper technology for vests, guns, etc.When you're dealing with purely technology, like computers this can be a good thing. Smaller, faster, more efficient processes are devised. Police enforcement is limited to people, which means that they will bottleneck any efficiency, and you'll have to cut corners somewhere, for example not paying overtime or removing employee benefits."Cutting corners" is easier and seen to a much larger extent when one company can operate on monopoly terms. Especially if it's a coercive monopoly like the one most governments have.Cutting corners applies to any business model, since capitalism and industry is a matter of thriftiness.- Supply and demand my friend. If background checks for employees are enough of a concern that the demand would sooner pay a company that does them, then that's what these companies will do in order to remain competitive on the market.Why don't you look at real-world examples of what companies do to save money.For example, in the food industry background checks are not made because it's too costly despite the handling of food. In business, employees receive few benefits unless there is union intervention or state intervention. They are also paid less without union coercion.Background checking would be in a long line of things cut.- Again, supply and demand. You're not the only person against such corruption. If rackets are such a worry amongst the populace then one of two things will happen (probably both). Either people will willingly opt out of an agency they fear are getting too big, or companies built for the sole purpose of investigating police agencies will arise and do just that. Look into insurance companies and how abusive they became towards customers, and how leaving it to economics didn't solve this.You can't opt out of the current system and you have nothing but the corrupt system itself to depend on for stopping it's own corruption. It works well, actually. I also wouldn't want a corporation with armed military capacity forming within our borders, it is a recipe for a coup.It's just simple logic. Companies that must strive to be the best will offer a better service than those that don't have to.And yet history reveals a different story, that it is actually more complicated.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

A less expensive service means that the company spends less on training, uses cheaper technology for vests, guns, etc.When you're dealing with purely technology, like computers this can be a good thing. Smaller, faster, more efficient processes are devised. Police enforcement is limited to people, which means that they will bottleneck any efficiency, and you'll have to cut corners somewhere, for example not paying overtime or removing employee benefits.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. ;)If they get less expensive, it Will be in response to the demand of the people, NOT the greed of the supply.Cutting corners applies to any business model, since capitalism and industry is a matter of thriftiness.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. =/Why don't you look at real-world examples of what companies do to save money.For example, in the food industry background checks are not made because it's too costly despite the handling of food. In business, employees receive few benefits unless there is union intervention or state intervention. They are also paid less without union coercion.Background checking would be in a long line of things cut.Yeah, I'm not concerned with how sucky a business is while not on a free market. If you would be willing to pay a company that does background checks over a company that doesn't, then that's where the money would go. You don't have that option under a coercive monopoly. If a monopolized industry offers background checks, it is only because of crushing demand. If there's such crushing demand for background checks then companies will offer them under a free market as well... since that's what people want.Look into insurance companies and how abusive they became towards customers, and how leaving it to economics didn't solve this.You're going to have to do better than this. Show me an example of a free-market insurance agency being "abusive".It works well, actually. I also wouldn't want a corporation with armed military capacity forming within our borders, it is a recipe for a coup.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. And yet history reveals a different story, that it is actually more complicated.Really? Because the only free-market I can think of in recent history was Somalia... and crime went waaaaaaaaaay down in that time.http://mises.org/daily/2701http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy_in_Somalia 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.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: It is flawed

I only dispute your claim as to the nature of Free-Market entities in that when you say that Rockefeller did not instate Monopoly prices, but that he lowered them, He is a singularity. He was a rather nice man and also held a philosophy similar to that of Nikola Tesla, who believed in Free World Energy, in that he wished for everyone to prosper under Gasoline, as long as he held power and fame. He was a very charismatic man who enjoyed being such and being in the spotlight. I also believe this was a time period where he was fighting his filanthropist son over the philosophical legitimacy of his (Rockefeller Sr.'s) Company. Although I have no proof, this could aid my argument in that Rockefeller not instating a monopoly is a singularity.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Blackwater is not police, it is a private military company. Therefore, it is not a real life example.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Blackwater is not police, it is a private military company. Therefore, it is not a real life example.It deals in the use of lethal force and deployment. It's not a perfect example, but illustrates a lack of scruples to private enterprise and force.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

It deals in the use of lethal force and deployment. It's not a perfect example, but illustrates a lack of scruples to private enterprise and force.Ok, great, but still not police. Besides I am for government military.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

There's a reason why the government has a monopoly on force. The force is divided (in America) between the military, the courts, the police, and the militias.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

So... it's good to let the government monopolize force because the government monopolizes force???
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

So... it's good to let the government monopolize force because the government monopolizes force???Emendatum.When you have amassed force that exists aside the state, it will eventually rival the state and take control. This is known as a coup, or coup d'etat.If you have many such factions, it will eventually lead to an outbreak of fighting, like gang wars, for power. It may lead to an alliance to overthrow the state.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

I'm talking about privatized police in place of state police, not alongside. You can only "take control" so long as you have a tax base. Customers are not enough since they don't have some nonsense idea of dependency on any one company and can simply not pay for a service they don't like. If one company tries to war with another company, persons will just stop paying them and poof, problem solved.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

If you have the guns, why do you need the money? "The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible."
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

A state cannot be funded on coercion alone. You need a constant income, like taxation. Customers just aren't good enough. They tend to stop paying a company that's looking to enslave them.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

A state cannot be funded on coercion alone. You need a constant income, like taxation. Customers just aren't good enough. They tend to stop paying a company that's looking to enslave them.See: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and especially North Korea.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

See: Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and especially North Korea.None of those are example of free-market armies and none of those are examples of exclusively coercive governments.Sorry. =/
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

None of those are example of free-market armies and none of those are examples of exclusively coercive governments.You said that a government couldn't exist through only coercion. These states contradict you.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

You said that a government couldn't exist through only coercion. These states contradict you.No, no they don't. Obviously these countries aren't full of anarco-capitalists. Even if the persons of those countries feel they know better than the government, they still believe in the necessity of their governments. There's far more civilians than police and military, so in order to control a population you need their support.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

No, no they don't. Obviously these countries aren't full of anarco-capitalists. Even if the persons of those countries feel they know better than the government, they still believe in the necessity of their governments. A state cannot be funded on coercion alone. You need a constant income, like taxation. Customers just aren't good enough. They tend to stop paying a company that's looking to enslave them.That is what you said. In Afghanistan the Taliban ruled over villages with an iron fist. In North Korea the entire populace is coerced by secret police and the threat of concentration camps exists, with a personality cult to subdue their minds. In Saudi Arabia it is the religious police and powerful religious figures.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

A state cannot be funded on coercion alone. You need a constant income, like taxation. Customers just aren't good enough. They tend to stop paying a company that's looking to enslave them.That is what you said. In Afghanistan the Tali ban ruled over villages with an iron fist. In North Korea the entire populace is coerced by secret police and the threat of concentration camps exists, with a personality cult to subdue their minds. In Saudi Arabia it is the religious police and powerful religious figures.None of these countries are funded on coercion alone. Just like in North America, most (99%) of their population believes the state is necessary. Perhaps the state has more control over their market then ours does on ours, then again those countries are significantly worse off than ours.Hmm... More state control AND worse off? =/I hope you understand that even if a state could run on coercion alone (it can't, but lest just say it could), that would in no way prove we need a state or that states are good for the economy.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Adam Smith postulated that police and military must be government operated, and I agree with him.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Jeez, all these people I thought to be wise anarcho-capitalists turned out to be ordinary statists in the end...Alright, why is it that police must be under the rule of a coercive monopoly?...
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Sorry, I am libertarian, but I will not support anarchy. Adam Smith, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison all firmly believed police is reserved in government along with the court system.However, privatization of fire departments is feasible.http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Should_fire_departments_be_privatized
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Jeez, all these people I thought to be wise anarcho-capitalists turned out to be ordinary statists in the end...Prayerfails is an anarcho-capitalist in all but name. The rest of us are not because anarchy only leads to government, one of brute force and most often after wars between factions that naturally form as people join together by interest and political affiliation.Capitalism itself is not an optimal economic model. It requires state management, and the optimal models reflect a form closer to socialism or a capitalism/communism hybrid. That is because private industry and government must grow to rival each other, if one eclipses the other we start to see a failure.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Prayerfails is an anarcho-capitalist in all but name.Then, you are a state-capitalist.Sure, but I already said I support government courts, police and military. More like Lassize Faire.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Then, you are a state-capitalist.I am not this either.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

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

Sorry, A COMMUNIST............................................................. I know it's hard for you, but try to think for once without caricatures.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Why does supply and demand need to be "managed"? I have bananas, but I want apples. You have apples, but want bananas... so we trade each other. What need is there for a third party to take a piece of the action?Language emerged and works just fine,humans emerged and work just fine,Why is it that the market is the only thing that cannot function on its own merits?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Because how it really works is more like this:You have nothing I want but your labor, but you need food, shelter, to pay taxes, etc. Give me your time and do exactly as I say and you can live(although not very well, unless so and so also wants your labor and there isn't someone to easily replace you).
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

You're trying very hard to turn something that sounds perfectly reasonable into something cruel... =/If you want money for food, clothes, housing, etc. then you'll need a job. This is true regardless of how free the market is. If you do poorly, you will be fired an replaced with someone competent. So, considering this begs the question - what's your point?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

You're trying very hard to turn something that sounds perfectly reasonable into something cruel... =/Left to their own, business owners are callous and self-motivated. It is cruel to the workers.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Only if you're stupid enough to purposefully work for whomever offer the worst working conditions...Otherwise everything runs perfectly. =3
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Only if you're stupid enough to purposefully work for whomever offer the worst working conditions...Right. Because it's a choice.Otherwise everything runs perfectly. =3Only for the wealthy. You can bet they'll have tanks and helicopters at their command.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

Right. Because it's a choice.You seem to be under the impression that you've made some brilliant point...Would you work for whomever offers the worst working conditions when you obviously don't need to? Of course not. So having choice clearly doesn't cause society to collapse. =/Only for the wealthy. You can bet they'll have tanks and helicopters at their command.... You're just not trying as hard as you were before. =/Show me how being wealthy gives you more power on a free-market than on a state-run market. The only way to become wealthy on a free-market is to supply a demand better than your competition and the only way to remain wealthy is to continue to do so.It's not a difficult concept, avesk. Persons don't like being screwed over, so if you screw them over they'll stop paying for your products. In a free-market you're only successful so long as you're improving on the economy.
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

You seem to be under the impression that you've made some brilliant point...Obvious point.Would you work for whomever offers the worst working conditions when you obviously don't need to? Of course not. So having choice clearly doesn't cause society to collapse. =/People don't elect to work under poor conditions, they are forced into such a position by poverty, monopoly, or no better standards.Show me how being wealthy gives you more power on a free-market than on a state-run market. The only way to become wealthy on a free-market is to supply a demand better than your competition and the only way to remain wealthy is to continue to do so.The wealthy would have access to better police protection than the poor. Just like insurance.When you are wealthy you can acquire other businesses that compete with you, you can spread fear through media that your rivals offer bad products, you can export your labour to places of extreme poverty so that you don't need to pay much, you can make deals with your rivals to sell at a fixed price, etc.It's not a difficult concept, avesk. Persons don't like being screwed over, so if you screw them over they'll stop paying for your products. In a free-market you're only successful so long as you're improving on the economy.You ought to have looked into the industrial revolution by now. So, did you like what you saw?
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much better...

People don't elect to work under poor conditions, they are forced into such a position by poverty, monopoly, or no better standards.Well, seeing as there would be no taxes without a state poverty is dissolved... and without a state, monopolies are virtually impossible (and even if they do form it could only be because they offer the best service possible) that only leaves no better standards. Since North Americans have what I'm assuming you mean by "better standards" I'm going to guess your getting at developing nations and sweatshops again. Sweatshops are a phase. Most nations have and will go through them at some point in time. Sweatshops may not be great by your standards, but the alternative is poverty (more so) and prostitution. I'd like to think you'd agree that working in a sweatshop is better than being a child prostitute. Once wealth is built up, there would be no (or at least less) need for child labor, so children have more time education and the like. Which means when they grow up they'll have a more competitive advantage.The wealthy would have access to better police protection than the poor. Just like insurance.When you are wealthy you can acquire other businesses that compete with you, you can spread fear through media that your rivals offer bad products, you can export your labour to places of extreme poverty so that you don't need to pay much, you can make deals with your rivals to sell at a fixed price, etc.Persons who emerge wealth will have more disposable income thus be able to afford nicer things... so? Are opposed to success? Companies trash talk each others products. This is true with or without a state. It's no big deal. =/When ever I make an important purchasing decision, I consult a third party review or something along those lines. Most intelligent persons do that same.I've already linked a video on how oligarchies can't occur on a free market. Here it is again:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frm2_kazljw You ought to have looked into the industrial revolution by now. So, did you like what you saw?...I've sent you links on this already! There's no "ought" here. I should be asking you if you liked what you saw. =/
Debate: Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
Side: Much, much worse...

Well, seeing as there would be no taxes without a state poverty is dissolved... and without a state, monopolies are virtually impossible (and even if they do form it could only be because they offer the best service possible) that only leaves no better standards. Things wrong with your statement:-Taxes are not the reason for poverty-Monopolies form naturally in a free market-Great service isn't a requirement for a monopolySince North Americans have what I'm assuming you mean by "better standards" I'm going to guess your getting at developing nations and sweatshops again. No. Better standards as in, the only jobs available to them will have bad standards. There are none available that are fair.Sweatshops are a phase. Most nations have and will go through them at some point in time. Sweatshops may not be great by your standards, but the alternative is poverty (more so) and prostitution. I'd like to think you'd agree that working in a sweatshop is better than being a child prostitute. You have it half right. Sweatshops are a phase in that industrialists will take advantage of lack of regulations and install them. Sweatshops like slavery only end when the populace is fed up enough that they demand labour reforms from government.Once wealth is built up, there would be no (or at least less) need for child labor, so children have more time education and the like. Which means when they grow up they'll have a more competitive advantage.Schools under private ownership are more expensive to the users and thus did not help with illiteracy rates as much as public education did.They are also filled with sectarianism.Persons who emerge wealth will have more disposable income thus be able to afford nicer things... so? Are opposed to success? Which becomes hoarded and wasted, and doesn't help the poor.Companies trash talk each others products. This is true with or without a state. It's no big deal. =/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_papers It is an example of how wealthy businesses form in a way that isn't dependent upon the quality of goods.When ever I make an important purchasing decision, I consult a third party review or something along those lines. Most intelligent persons do that same.Not available in the 19th century. Also, third parties can be bought.I've already linked a video on how oligarchies can't occur on a free market. Here it is again:History trumps theory.The industrial revolution saw many oligarchies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy#Reasons ...I've sent you links on this already! There's no "ought" here.I should be asking you if you liked what you saw. =/You seem ignorant of it, which is why I asked if you educated yourself on it.