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

Why? Why not vote on an actual expert in a specific election instead of just letting the market be driven by the "mundane" actions of "shoppers"? Simply picking experts is much more efficient that waiting for experts to slowly emerge from the shopping process.see "stupid" and "expert" argument above.The "shoppers" would pick Justin Beiber to be the security chief?Would they actually PAY to have him as chief?Concentrating the voting process to discreet periods seems more efficient than basically having to vote with every minute of every day?You vote for/against products and services every time you buy or trade anything, without having to do anything but trade, and with no additional cost in time or resources. Seems pretty efficient.The average person is too busy to have to constantly be "perfectly informed" all the time.Covered before, consumer only has to know what he wants, and where to get it.UL works because the government forces products to be certified. BBB is already criticized because it's supported by the every businesses that it's supposed to be monitoring. I'm sure there would be dozens of BBBs, all supported by various businesses touting the value of one business over another. Sites like Angie's list, have found a niche, without government mandate and compete with the UL and BBB, to an extent. There is a market for the information.In a free market wouldn't a good business model be to sell a "bad" overpriced "wonder product", then just close up shop once the public catches on? Wouldn't this practice be bad for all other honest businesses? Seems like the net effect over time would be a public very un-trusting of business making competing with monopolies much harder.Nope, because the owner could be pursued for damages. Corporations are a government grant of limited liability. Business owners could be held responsible for the activities of the business, in a free market. :)How can a iron worker quit his job when there is no other ship builder in his town? It's much easier for the the capitalist to find a new worker than for the worker to find a new job.He can change professions, or residences. When the market was more free, labor was much more mobile.Easier, yes. Impossible, no.No, I mean look at the income of the working class. I don't want to debate unions (the debate is already complex enough) but despite unions and that fact that on average unions workers are the only ones making a living wage, the worker is making less today than they were in the 60s while the cost of living is more. Workers are getting screwed because the capitalists are getting smarter and more efficient and the workers have no leverage.The corporatists, not the capitalists. Corporations lobbying for protection from competition (through regulations) is not capitalism.Additionally, notice the increased environmental regs and increases in the minimum wage. All this increases the cost of production, increasing prices, and lowering real wages. This rent-seeking activity is just the broken window fallacy, writ large.You can't look at the industrial revolution and say "look, people still had jobs". Secondly, creating machine that are built to replace labor is not the same as mechanizing one part of one industry.I'm saying that after every major advancement in manufacturing efficiency, MORE people had jobs, and had more leisure time than before the advancement. There is no reason to believe that that will change.The only reason big box stores have lots of layers is because they are trying to game system and they have a lot of public scrutiny.What onerous regulations does a small retail business have? A few hours of a lawyers time per year is all the small retail business owner needs.I beg to differ.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bLcja6Qe0I I don't think we age getting anywhere with this debate anymore? You don't seem willing to concede even the possibility of a single flaw with free market despite the long history of what many very smart people think really happens.There are flaws with the free market, but these flaws are less pervasive, and cause less damage overall, than any other system.I know you think government is to blame for everything and were going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I am quite willing to concede that the government has plenty of problems, but you cant throw the baby out with the bath water. Even if it turns out your correct on 75% of the arguments, free market would still be a disaster on the remaining 25%.Government INTERFERENCE is the primary cause of instability in the market, but I suppose we will have to disagree. :)I do not argue to convince my opponent, i argue to convince those following the debate. It is very difficult to sway them when my opponent has as well thought out arguments as you have given. Most of the time they wind up spouting ad homs, like nummi. :PWe can end this thread, if you wish. We could each probably turn in our side of this one as a doctoral thesis. :D