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

So you oppose taxation.I just said that, but I don't oppose the state because I oppose taxation, I oppose taxation because I oppose the state. You have an emotional reason for being anti-state. If it was purely intellectual you wouldn't be grasping at straws like Somalia and Ireland. Something is biasing you and you may not even know what it is, or might not be prepared to admit it here.That doesn't make sense. I'm using Ireland and Somalia as examples of functional anti-statism, therefore I'm emotional? That doesn't follow at all.I could say "you keep grasping at straws, like the IR was bad, therefore you're emotional."In the 19th century, industrialists became famous for monopolising specific utilities, services and goods markets. It became so that you frequently had to pay the monopoly you were competing directly with, for services or goods that only they provided. For example if you wanted to compete with Standard Oil, you had to use railways that they controlled.I keep bringing this up because Standard Oil is one of the greatest examples of what is so terribly wrong with monopolies but also how natural they are in a world that has no way to prevent them (meaning no laws that block insider trading and rates).Okay, we've gone through this already. Standard oil is not an example of a free market monopoly. Since oil could only be purchased by the petro dollar, the U.S. government has high incentive to keep oil alive and since oil is already an inelastic demand, you see this sort of exploitation. States would have to invest in U.S. dollars in order to get oil, which both allowed the U.S. to grow despite running two major deficits and paved the way for oil companies to collude and become price makers, when they otherwise would be price takers.Microsoft has a history of behaving in a similar manner. You are now forced to pay them money on most new computers that you want to buy, because they sign deals with hardware companies. Intellectual Property owes much of its heavy-handed contribution in legislature to them and the RIAA and MPAA. Thanks to Microsoft, open-sourced software has a lot of fear surrounding it in the general population. These are all anti-competitive practices which markets allow.Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly and it especially doesn't have a coercive monopoly. I would take firms making deals to help each other out over the states coercive monopolies any day. But a Mac. =/Maybe I should have written it in French. No. I said that theories are imperfect so you need to treat evidence as more authoritative. In other words, because theory is not all-encompassing, when you have new information which contradicts it, you don't discard the data, you modify the theory.I know exactly what you said.1. Theories are imperfect because there is always information they don't account for2. Theories must be changed when new information arises (which will always happen given No.1)3. Therefore, any theory I come up with is automatically flawed.The economic theories I propose come from over a hundred years of direct observation by the Austrian School of economics, which in turn are derived from thousands of years of human history. Given this, they have produced more accurate predictions than any other school of thought. The ones using flawed theories are not us, it's the rest of you statists. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Case in point you just ignored Standard Oil in your statement and elected to support the theory, instead of modifying the theory to accept that monopolies happen. You also ignored Microsoft and De Beers as important modern examples.You threw out standard oil and I went into great detail to show you how it's not an example of a free market monopoly. You didn't debunk it, waited a few posts and then threw it out again. If you focused on my actual argument even half as much as you focused on me, this would of been a much quicker debate.Why do monopolies happen? Because they are more efficient than a bunch of small, competing businesses. Monopolies have a natural advantage.Like I've said, repeatedly, if a monopoly forms from being more efficient than every other like firm in existence (it hasn't happened yet, but lets just see where this takes us) than as soon as it stops being more efficient (monopoly rates) it makes room for smaller firms to under sell them.This reminds me of some Christians I've debated with who claim that because some generic prophesies in the bible have been fulfilled, everything else in the bible must be true.I'm surprised your arms aren't tired of dragging that dead horse around everywhere.I've already had this discussion with you before. The only vindication that predictions give is to the model that made those predictions. Free market economics isn't a part of that. If you're trying to say that a free market works because some arcane models unrelated to it could be interpreted as predicting our recession, then you've just used the same reasoning as those aforementioned Christians.Wrong. The predictions have came true because the theorists proposing them have had an understanding of the economy to such an extent that they can accurately make deductions even on major crashes. It is same line of reasoning that lead Mises to foresee the great depression that also points towards anti-statism. Once again, your argument is non-cognitive and full of un-backed assertions. It also misses the point entirely that we shouldn't judge an economic model's viability by its present ability to be predicted successfully, but instead by its ability to be fair towards the classes both in regulatory mechanisms and in distribution of wealth.Utter failure. You're saying that one should not accept economic theory based on its proven accuracy, but instead should be accepted based on what you think sounds "fair"? It doesn't matter if YOU think it sounds fair if it isn't applicable to reality. Logic 101. Surely you understand this. If you learned to read, maybe I wouldn't be addressing this now.If biology, my subject of interest, worked like your economics, we wouldn't have modern genetic theory and epigenetics. That's because Mendelian Genetics says that genes only behave a certain way, and all the evidence that interactions are more complicated at the molecular level would be ignored by people like you. Think about that every time you say "monopolies don't happen in an unregulated market."It doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, which is the market that economics derives from. Evolution has no intent, no bias, no corruptibility however its history is full of examples where a single species has dominated an environment.Perhaps if you learned to understand things past the superficial, I wouldn't have to be typing this. I'm not saying monopolies don't happen on free enterprise because firms only act a certain way, I'm saying it because there is no mechanism in a free market to produce monopolies.As long as the market is competitive (which is to say, so long as there is a market) monopolies cannot form. But even if they did (fallback) it would only be sustainable to the extent that they remain better than the rest of their competition. As soon as they act abusive (monopoly rates, etc.) they defer their customer base to other firms.You have no appreciation for context.Standard Oil, De Beers, US Steel, Microsoft.Now watch as you ignore them.Yet another wrong prediction from the statist pseudo-economists. ;)You're re-bringing up two of these that I've already debunked, but you have yet to counter debunk. But, if you want to make the case that De Beers and US Steel were able to enact monopoly rates with no drawback from the market I'm all eyes.Statistics are useful for subjects which are complicated, ambiguous, and well-documented. The Industrial Revolution was not well-documented. The occurrence of modern monopolies is not ambiguous, but well-documented and certain.In short, it is enough that I can show you examples of monopolies.Referring to Somalia, it isn't exactly easy to find detailed statistics in a war-ravaged collapsed state.Bullshit. I found many statistics just fine. Your essentially saying my statistics are wrong because you can't find counter statistics. This is childish. You wouldn't take this sort of bullshit from a Christian, why should I take it from you?I wonder if FSTDT takes quotes from Libertarian fundamentalists. I think I'll post this there.Of course, it's entirely possible that your "knowledge" of Somalia comes only from Mises and Youtube, so instead of doing your fucking homework you are just spouting inanities.Take note, once again there is no actual argument here, just you expressing your opinions on me, again.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaelic_Ireland#Warfare Gaelic Ireland was a land of continuous warfare, as túatha fought for supremacy against each-other and (later) against the Anglo-Normans.[28] Throughout the Middle Ages and for some time after, outsiders often wrote that the style of Irish warfare differed greatly from what they deemed to be the norm.[28] The Gaelic Irish preferred hit-and-run raids (the creach), which involved catching the enemy unaware and storming their strongholds. If this worked they would then seize any valuables (mainly livestock) and potentially valuable hostages, burn the crops, and escape.[28] The cattle raid was often referred to as a táin bó in Gaelic literature. Although hit-and-run raiding was the preferred tactic in medieval times, the Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib recounts lengthy pitched battles and the use of boats in tandem with land forces.[29] It was not unusual for armies to launch long-range attacks, setting up camps along the way.[29]I addressed this exact point in my very next argument. Why did you feel the need to copy/paste this? This is just stupid.http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/ocleirigh.pdf Flanagan, Marie Therese (1996). "Warfare in Twelfth-Century Ireland". A Military History of Ireland. Cambridge University Press. pp. 52-75.Not Wikipedia and has nothing to do with depressions brought on by free market currency, but i'll check it out anyway. =/http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/ocleirigh.pdf I'm baffled by how 15th century translates to 600CE.Of course, if you expect modern quality statistics for a region that was fighting itself over a thousand years with different evolving customs and politics, and all of this happening during the dark, lower and high middle ages, they I think you might be a bit batty. In any case I think it is enough that historians consider the period in constant turmoil.Alright smart ass, relative to the Wikipedia article, they were referring to pre 600 Ireland as that's the only time it lists these supposed wars. Anyway, you haven't shown any actual statistics, I am sympathetic however to your situation as finding solid evidence of these wars from so long ago is no easy task, but I managed to find statistics supporting me, you should be able to do the same.Historians consider this time turmoil because Ireland was under constant invasion.The statistics show that there was a slight increase in average life span, a major drop in infant mortality, improved radio/television/internet access, etc. However you ignored completely Al Shabaab, Islamic Courts Union, the Transitional Government, the warlords who horded foreign supplies, the disputes about Sharia and especially the public executions, and so on. You only favoured those things that made your position look good, instead of looking at it all.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.