Well, I am a proponent of a laissez-faire system. I think it could work, and I think it is the only truly "free" system. I know WHY it works, but I want to know why it WOULDN'T work?

People say it would make monopolies run rampant. But, people are not forced to consume certain products. If people don't want to buy from a certain company, they don't have to. If Wal-mart starts selling contaminated food, people can simply stop buying from there and Wal-Mart will go out of business. A truly free market encourages competition, which drives quality up and prices down.

People also say that we need things like the FDA to keep us safe, but, again, no one is forcing people to buy certain drugs. Also, there are private agencies, such as Underwriters Lab and Consumer Report that do testing and make sure products are safe, yet aren't funded by the government. If people wanted to consume only products they knew were safe, it would be their choice to consume products that were tested by these companies (and other reputable ones). It is your decision to make the wrong choice, if that is what you please. Also, the FDA's standards not only are extremely expensive (which drive up prices due to companies trying to recompensate what they lost), but they are ineffective, as many good drugs are banned and many bad drugs are passed. Also, the prices of testing would further decrease as free markets always increase quality and decrease prices due to competition.

People say that pollution would run rampant. I read a Rothbard article yesterday that introduced the idea of privatizing oceans and rivers. Now that I think about it more, while we COULD find ways for it to work, we'd have to veer away from a truly laissez-faire market, it'd just be more agencies, regulations, and documents for the government to worry about (which would cost too much money to accomplish very little), and it'd just be too much of a hassle.

The main reason I was contemplating that idea was because it would discourage pollution due to property rights violations and lawsuits from property owners. However, I think the same could be accomplished by making sure that, nationwide, a person's body is CLEARLY defined as property. Some property right legislation is VERY ambiguous, and I think, if we could CLEARLY state that a person's body was their property, it would accomplish the same thing. For example, if a company decided to dump toxic waste into the water, residents could file class-action lawsuits against that company, as that waste would certainly enter their drinking water and harm their body (therefore violating their property rights). You already CAN file suits against these companies, but, if I'm not mistaken, it can't be a CLASS-ACTION lawsuit. The company would get a slap on the wrist in the current system. Simply by outright defining one's body as your property and legalizing class-action lawsuits against these companies, the companies would be subject to harsher penalties, such as cease and desist orders and/or possible jail time, thus, they would be discouraged from polluting.

Is there anything else? Are there any flaws in my arguments? Since there has never been a TRULY free market, we'd need to cover EVERY aspect and address EVERY flaw.