Often the arguments in support of the state are grounded on the state’s ability to restrict “the bad” in society, or to defend from other states in a defensive war. While it is true that individuals harmful to the health and property of others are the main problem that a society faces, arguments for a centralized power to have any positive effect on this issue are slim at best.In defense of the area in control of a state, history has shown that near extermination of its male population in total war is not out of the question, so the belief that a state has a net positive impact on the well-being of its citizens is a rather unfounded one. While the state’s action against violence and destruction of property are, at this stage, unconvincing, a more voluntary system of governance could, in

Can a government regulatory system be reformed? In a word, no. The free market is always the best regulator of quality and safety.

Original Article: "Regulation in the Free Market: It’s Not What Most People Believe"

When the idea of a totally free market is floated in economic discussion, a widely accepted critique of such an idea is often related to the issue of how goods and services could be guaranteed safe for consumption. After all, without a government sending inspectors and decreeing standards of safety for products, it is often assumed companies, in their everlasting quest for profits without mercy, would have no incentive against selling whatever brings in the most cash.
This, however, is well understood by the Austrian school to be untrue, and I do not wish to beat a dead horse by explaining why. Instead, I want to focus on how a true free market would enact regulation in a natural and decentralized fashion and how it could emerge in a real-world situation. So let’s jump out of our Orwellian