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

But the free market has better information than any other system, because all information is acted upon using first hand knowledge of one's own situation.The fact that the free market is the best of all the imperfect economic systems does not mean it solves the problem. For the free market to work perfectly, it must be perfectly efficient, and people perfectly informed. If it's not perfectly efficient, then the bad things that start to happen (business start to get the upper hand, pollute the environment, etc).False, "all monopolies are bad" argument. (i can elaborate, at need)I'm not sure what argument your making? All I was saying is that people make decisions that are not always in their best interest. For the free market to work (not become corrupt, etc) people have to NOT make bad decisions and be fully rational which is not the way they behave. People are at liberty to move.True. So we agree that one of the side effects of Libertarianism would be that people would have to uproot their lives and move each time their "market" does not support enough competition to be "efficient" and fair. It is not the function of government to accommodate the choices of some, by limiting the liberty of others to act. Key word is "convenient".It absolutely is? When you decide to join a civil society the liberty of the individual is limited for the good of the society. For a large modern society to work, people need to be able to engage in commerce (buy groceries) as a right. Without this the society lags because the people have to engage in "inconvenient" commerce, or constantly move. A white person should be able to move to a black town and "know" they are allowed to engage in commerce and vise versa.Myself, and many others. The benefits of such a society far outweigh the detriments, that any such "uncertainty' would cause.I can't argue with that. Most people would not want to live in that world. Do you think that there is any way America would adopt that system? If not, shouldn't you focus your time and "thought" on how to fix the system we have?You have no right not to be discriminated against by a private citizen. Individuals have a right to associate and/or trade (assuming mutual agreement) with whomever they choose. They also have a right NOT to trade or associate.Again, your looking at it outside the context of a civil society. You live in a civil society and only a time machine or moving to another society will get you out of it because most people want to progress and become more civil (less individual rights for the good of the society).How does protecting property rights, deprive others of equal protection by police or a properly functioning justice system?Because as soon as you have to go on the free market and "buy" your police and court, more money means you get better quality. Additionally, inefficiencies in the economy create corruption in the very organizations that are upholding your rights.May I reference your assertion to a right to "EQUAL police and court protection" in our other debate, where "EQUAL protection" is subservient to consideration of the relative wealth of the parties involved? ;)I'm not sure the exact reference your making, but being taxed is not the same as being discriminated against. Low taxes is not a human right. I (and most people I think) don't see all the "rights" the same. I think you see everything under the umbrella of "property rights" and they are all equal. This is not the case in our society and never will be. People don't see the "right to discriminate" and the "right to free speech" the same way. The effect the right has on the society MATTERS.