To your point about gun violence, you would need to implement a worldwide ban on firearms in order to effect a drop on firearms to the degree you'd like, otherwise people will simply buy them elsewhere and import them. As far as firearms violence statistics, firearms violence is close to be statistically insignificant in the grand scheme of violence in the US. Firearms account for less than 1% of fatalities here in the US, and that's including accidental discharges that result in death.
I never made the claim that economic factors would solve anything, only that they were more efficient and effective than a system in which coercion is the method used. Coercion is violence, and as such increases the overall violence in the system. When you rely on voluntary and consensual exchanges instead, you remove that glaringly large portion of violence from the system.
Sweatshops aren't inherently bad. Many people that work in them in the third world have no other prospects besides starvation and death. Would you rather have a child working in a sweatshop or being a prostitute, as is common in southeast Asia?
Are you fucking serious? There's 0 incentive for private firms not to violate the private property and persons of consumers and others? Did you just ignore every comment I've made up till now? What possible motivation would a private security firm have to destroy the private property of others in a free market, where such negative actions would result in unbelievable financial and reputation losses? It's like you're ignoring economic calculation altogether while simultaneously claiming it can't do anything.
States aren't incentivized to try treating anyone fairly. Without getting into a long-winded discussion about time horizons and how democracy is anathema to freedom, elections only serve to soften the electorate to the excesses and abuses of state agents, and they allow otherwise impotent sociopaths a surefire path to abuse and violence.
I appreciate the discussion and your civility, but your blind faith in state government is appalling. You want a group of people to rule other people because people can't be trusted to operate on their own. Nevermind that these are also people, and subject to the same base desires; give them the reins of power! They're immune to their own moral failings! How can you not see how ridiculous that sounds?
To paraphrase a quote: anarchism is no guarantee that people won't rape, kill, or steal. State government is a guarantee that some people will.
So i said i was going to finish there to stop us regressing into endless argument.... but "sweatshops arent inherently bad."?? I'll admit you've baited me here. You're a right tool if you really beleive that... the point was that regulation (national and international) could improve sweatshops, if it was introduced. (As a side point, the effects of poor human rights records dont seem to have really bothered Walmart and Nestle...certainly not to the extent you suggested that reputstional affects would...) But a neoliberal (limited state interference) has blocked it. This has happened largely via multinational corporations lobbying governments against it.
If your anarchism makes you so blind to the merits of state intervention in free markets that you see sweatshops as a genuinly palatable solution to the problem of child prostition in developing countries, I implor you to rethink your position.... appalling ...
So child prostitution is preferable to them working in a sweatshop, even assuming their wages are a pittance. Got it.
You're welcome to stop responding at any time if you don't want to engage me.