Probably, but there is no such thing as an unregulated market. Every market, including the most theoretically free market imaginable, is regulated. And such a theoretically free market has much better and more effective regulation than a government-regulated market. In fact, government-regulated markets encourage poor goods and services much more than a free market. Look at the housing crisis, banking crisis, energy crisis, medical insurance crisis, college cost crisis, and so on. These are all problems created almost wholly by government regulation, because where government regulates, government decreases competition, and consumers -- not government -- are the main driver for low costs and high quality.

Agreed, where "well-regulated" means "consumers are able to determine the products and services they are offered and purchase," which happens best in a free market.

Again, no such thing exists, even theoretically, but that actually happens far more in a government-regulated market than a free one, where government protects businesses from their failures. Google "moral hazard," which generally doesn't exist in a free market (so long as that free market has lots of information available to consumers, and civil actions to recoup losses).

Show me evidence. You have none.

Correct. However, the facts in fact do not support your view, but mine, and I explained clearly how.

Show me. That you haven't linked to it is telling. But I will reiterate my argument, since you ignored it: most such fraud will never be detected if you don't check for ID. If I vote for my cousin who says he doesn't want to vote because he doesn't care, how will anyone ever know? How will there ever be an allegation of fraud? The data of specific allegations, because of the nature of the fraud, is necessarily going to be a small portion of the actual cases.

False. You're lying. You said it is "far more difficult" for people who "make less money working longer hours." I said it's not. For my claim to be true, it can still be slightly more difficult for a small number of people who make less money working longer hours. Given the fact that most of those people already have government-issued photo IDs, you have already lost the defense of your claim before we get into any more specifics.

Yes. And this does not justify your claim that it is "far more difficult" for those people. This only justifies a claim of being slightly more difficult for a small number of those people, as most of them have a day off they can take here and there over the months and years of lead time they have. Yes, some people cannot get time off, or it would be an unbearable economic burden to do so. But that is a tiny number of people, and you said it was far more difficult for all people who work longer hours and make less money.

And -- again -- most of them already have photo IDs. (And funny that we don't say it's racism when we require people go into the DMV to get a driver's license. ...)

False. If there were a cost, you'd complain it. Please stop lying.

In fact, every single state has the provisional ballot requirement. You just don't know what you're talking about. It's part of federal law.

No, it's not. You don't understand provisional ballots at all. It is perfectly in line with the goal. All it means is you fill out a ballot, and it is set aside and later checked for validity. So the jurisdiction would accept the ballot and then validate your identity at a later time, and it would not be counted until they could validate it. It doesn't mean your vote will count, it means you have additional opportunity to validate your identity, which is the whole point of the fraud prevention.

False. You lied, and it was a big whopper of a lie. And it is very clear that it was a lie. You said this law made it "far more difficult" to vote for people who work longer hours for less money. But most of the people you said it is "far more difficult" for are completely unaffected by the law. You lied. I can't find the stat right now, but a bit less than half of people in the lowest quintile had a driver's license, and more than half of the next quintile. Over half of the groups combined. And even if it is less than half, it is still a very large percentage that are completely unaffacted by the law.

You're lying.

So? You still have the right to do it. Stop lying.

So you admit I am right, and you're wrong. The only "evidence" that you provide is not of the market causing death at all. Your argument is like saying that breathing causes death.

I feel like you are trying to make a point, but I don't actually see one.

False. Please stop lying. You were criticizing my response to him, which only makes any sense whatsoever if my response to him wasn't valid.

> Look at the shelves at the local brick and mortar rental store next time a big release comes out, see the hundred or so copies? 2 weeks later it's 50, 2 weeks after that it's 10.

Having worked in a video rental store, you'd be surprised how much those DVDs actually cost from the distributor. And yes, it's more than what you'd pay if you went out to buy it.

We may as well go all the way with your slippery-slope, and stipulate that by your terms, the human body must be immortal, because by your criteria any death would equally be a "design flaw".

But your premise is entirely erroneous. It is never suggested that this is the design intent (in fact, to be explicit regarding one ID scenario, it says we were made "good", not "perfect"--"perfect" being reserved for a future potentiality). Secondly, we have inevitable secondary consequences to such a "design objective" (if there were some reason to say it must be the objective, other than your whim)--such as overpopulation. Further, we have exacerbating circumstances (such as environmental damage) that are quite of our own making.

In short, this argument is a Straw Man based on the notion that the actual design objectives are to be determined by you, not the designer. And your design objectives wouldn't work.

You're essentially saying that there is no such thing as demand, as demand creates vacuum.

And now you open Pandora's Box of utilitarian tradeoffs, as you try to figure out how if more lives can be extended vs. curtailed by experimenting with new foods, medications, surgical procedures, gadgets, &c.
Geospatial databases can guide first responders to victims. Errors in those databases can lead to the demise of first responders. Should we outlaw these databases?

The challenge I have with your analysis is that you seem to ignore the fact that markets have consumers. Consumers, given solid information, tend to have far more immediate impact on quality. For a good example of my point, see Microsoft Bob. Regulation both lags and loads down the market. Too much regulation leads to over-damped systems. If there was just one point I could somehow make clear to you, this would probably be it, sir.

. . .your link was about them funding our Syrian farce.

TFA says:

Unfortunately that link got you to a page on www.citeworld.com which carries a link to www.nytimes.com

After a wild goose chase I finally got that link ---

https://aboutthedata.com/

>>>The free market ... causes harm and death.
>>You're lying. The free market has never caused any harm or death, ever. We know this, because we know it is not even capable of doing so.
>You're simply full of shit there. There have been millions of cases of people who have purchased goods on the free market which resulted in their deaths, which could have been prevented had there been even the most basic of safety concerns from the manufacturer.

Is there a distinction between product and market? I can agree with McLuhan, if it's all information, that: "The medium is the message".
Saying "Best Buy is a dishwasher," doesn't work, though. Somehow, there is a distinction in the physical world. I could be ronngg.

Okay, so you retract your implication that my three words were the -only- argument I have for it, which you knew via your psychic powers, and now state only that I consider it "supportive" of it, correct?

In fact, given the broadness of how one might interpret those three words, I suggest that the sole reason you formed the interpretation you did, and the objection you did, is -you yourself- find it "supportive", and now are denying your own evaluation of your own brain, and projecting who has an issue onto me and Dr. Parker.

You're bad at searching things on the internet.

Look for private school closures. You'll see that there are lots that close due to poor enrollment.

That is how they die.

As to your claim that competition for business has no impact on quality, the reality of the last 300 years of capitalism disproves that notion.

Why do you use one product rather then another? Because its better or cheaper or more available.

If a product is worse, more expensive, and harder to get ahold of then you won't use it.

Ah, but what if I force you to use it exclusively? They're boned. And that's how public education works. You must use it. And even if you don't use it, you must pay for it.

Which is why we need a school voucher system that allows parents to take state education funding and contribute it to whatever school they actually want to attend.

Do that, and public schools will rapidly grasp that they are in direct competition with private schools for attendance. And they will either adapt or die.

Hash? Welcome to planet Earth, deal with it.

Not abolished. Disaffiliated. Unlinked.

Take it up with Dr. Parker. He used the term "incredible", quite deliberately and with full awareness of the implications of the term. Even if -you- want to redirect to a semantic objection that holds no relevance, nor accurately recounts the statement--but happens to correspond what you personally wish he had said, had meant, or was the case.

And, of course, one could not possibly evaluate a position based on one sentence regarding it, ever, for any topic, nor is there even the beginnings of a rational thought on your part there.