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

Science works by taking observations of natural behaviors as they appear in conditions mimicking the desired scenario.In other words, if you want to know how a business will behave under unregulated conditions you observe it unregulated. We have had this in our society when a new market emerges, like Internet access, and laws haven't caught up.Quit running from the truth.Understand, sort of regulate =/= unregulated. If you want an example of what happens to an economy free of a government, look at Somalia or America.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5ENtG3B8CQ Free markets have no merits, as was plainly obvious during the industrial revolution.Then you admit you're only comparing regulation to regulation, since a business lacking in regulation has no merits. ;)All you have to do to understand which economy is better, stateless or state, is to look at a country that had a state and then no longer did. Like Somalia.You don't even actually have to understand the logic behind it, it's plainly visible.A business requires ethics, quit being stupid.You know, you're not as mature as I thought you were...A business requires nothing but revenue. The CEO of a business could be a moral-nihilist and still have a business so long as it meets the markets demand.Examples of you being wrong are everywhere. Fast food, for example, selling well despite being lower quality; Com cast ISP still existing despite poisoning its customers' packets for bit torrent, homeopathy selling despite being distilled water with no chemical, Record and Motion Pictures industries suing their customers left and right but still surviving.I've already debunked half of these. Don't be a fool, merely re-stating your argument and ignoring my counter-argument doesn't make you right. =/If there's something specific about anarcho-capitalism that you don't understand, fine, lets talk about it. There's no need to get so upset.Success is subjective, so while you ignore ethics I will ignore success.Grow up, avesk. =/Relative to the market, success means to sustain a business competitively. This is what I mean when I say "success" relative to economics. Now you know. =/Industrial revolution. Quit being a dumbass.Again, relax. I'm not trying to make you look foolish or anything. There is no reason to be so impertinent.Tell me what exactly it is about the industrial revolution that makes it impossible for you to not pay for products made by a company you don't approve of.Lookup economy of scale. While you're at it, look up FUD, proprietary technology and vendor lock-in. You may also want to look into Intellectual Property.Economy of scale... yeah, yeah big companies get bigger. It doesn't matter. Please, just try to understand. If a monopoly occurs naturally on a free-market it could ONLY be because that particular company did a better job than all the other like-companies. As soon as it begins preforming worse than it's competition (e.g. charges at monopoly rates, cheats its employees) persons will take their business to another company. Would you continue to pay a business whom offers a lesser service to a like-business? I doubt it.Not amazing, shrewd and efficient at killing competition. See above.There are only two real ways to kill competition. Provide a service better than the competition or through barriers to entry. That's it. You can either out preform them, or cripple their productivity. The later is only possible with a state. Economy of scale, dummy.Why are you so angry? =/Under a free-market there is absolutely nothing stopping a person from opening a business and under-selling the competition. But lets say there was, just for the sake of argument. If the company with the cheapest product continues to have the cheapest product but cuts back on quality or something like that, persons will STILL take their business no another like-company because there's more to consider than just affordability.It doesn't work that way. Insurance companies acquire each other, change names, etc.Then connect the dots. Show me something, avesk. Come on. =/Dumbass talk ignored. Look into the RIAA and MPAA's influence on government law and regulation. This is an example of you being wrong.Oh, also ACTA.Is this your "thing" now? Telling me to look things up rather than actually making a counter-argument? Look, I'm not going to spend hours re-reading things I already know in an attempt to guess exactly how you think an economy cannot be sustained without regulation.I mean, I think you're trying to use these organizations influence over the government as an example of how a free-market economy can't be sustained... But that's just such a stupid thing to say that I don't want to believe that's what you mean...I mean, you're directly connecting something you don't like to the government and using it as an example of how we need government.I'll just say it again. A company that does not cater to the demand of the market will not succeed on a commercial basis. A company that does, will. If people want good products, fair prices and good working conditions, then the market will reflect these demands because it's in the interest of the suppliers to do so. Let's compare this to a creationist:Again that wasn't an example of evolution. A bacteria is STILL a bacteria, it didn't evolve into a person. When a bacteria evolves into a cat, I'll listen.In other words moving the goalpost instead of accepting that you are wrong.No, that's not what I'm saying at all and you know it. Do you think I don't understand my own position? Do you think you can fool me into submitting to a straw-man? Obviously I'm saying that a free market is a free market and using non-free market examples as evidence against a free market doesn't work because its NOT a free market.It's not as though a regulated market is like the primordial cell of a free market... that analogy doesn't follow at all.All this happened under the industrial revolution, in a completely unregulated market. The monopolies were kept because ECONOMY OF SCALE prevented competitors from damaging them, a small business cannot harm a small business, especially when it depends on goods sold to it by another monopoly.Price fixing occurred too.Alright, since you refuse to listen to reason, listen to history instead.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZImO9O-Xkqw http://theuklibertarian.com/2010/05/15/price-fixing-and-cartels-in-the-free-market/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frm2_kazljw See: industrial revolution. The customers were kept poor be monopolies and couldn't choose anything else because not buying oil or coal meant freezing, and it doesn't work like that anyway because the point of a monopoly is to acquire the market for an important good.See: the links above.You can die, true. That is your only fallback measure since you can't prosecute your employer or seller under a free market.Maybe in the industrial revolution customers should have died more, then the monopolies would have lost their market. It's so obvious.I don't believe you have so little understanding of what I'm saying. There's no reason to play a fool, I know you at least sort-of get what I'm saying.You can have courts and contracts without a state.More dumbass talk. When you decide to actually study your claims with depth instead of only looking superficially into what anarchy is and how Somalia is at present, get back to me.A state ruled by warlords and religious factions is not healthy.Simply ignoring the facts doesn't make you right either. Look, you and everyone else can clearly see that Somalia became a better place to live after the fall of the state. I would sure as hell prefer to live in anarchic Somalia than the state-run Somalia that preceded it and if you have any intellectual honesty you will admit the same.If you don't agree, explain why using facts and logic. Not insults and ignorance. More obliviousness.War is human nature. Primates make war. Forming rival factions is part of human nature, we are hierarchical animals, and government is the product of this. The only reason you support anarchy is because you're naive and think that it would be oh-so-cool to have no accountability. You seem oblivious to the fact that without a state, one eventually forms but not until many small factions emerge, killing each other.Competition is nature. You can give it an ugly name like "war", but it is only one side of the coin. So, again, if the population values good products at fair prices etc. over war, then that's what the market will reflect.Go door-to-door right now and try to convince even 10 people to pay a tax to you and to militarize for you. You'll find it's terribly difficult. In fact, it's much more difficult than going door to door and trying to sell them a product that they want. This is because the demand is for productivity, not war. Large-scale war is purely a government quality. Oh, an anarchism IS all about accountability. Without the state there is no welfare to fall back on. there is no appealing to the state for barriers to entry, everything you accomplish a product of your own ability.Anarchism is all about getting your shit together.More retarded talk. I'm not even going to bother addressing this. It defeats itself because you made yourself look supremely dysfunctional calling sweatshops subjective.How do you expect to convince me of anything when you're dismissing my arguments rather than countering them? =pYou're not a very good debater. I'm not saying this as an insult, I'm saying it as a factual observation.What constitutes as dangerous and hard is based on an individuals opinions (i.e. subjective). Are you really going to say otherwise?Industrial revolution: free market, all sweatshops and child labour.Government intervention: these were abolished on US soil.Again, see the links above.It's worth noting that the only reason for the government to do something "good" for the economy is if there is such crushing demand from the public that it threatens the power of the state. The government caters to it's own interests, and it's interests is expanding it's power, which means throwing you a bone once in a while so you stay obedient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_nations Great, you know how to copy/paste. Though, this doesn't in any way fulfill my request for you to name a current free-market with sweatshops. So again I find myself making the request;Name one.