“I hope the OP doesn’t mind my temporary hijack (although the following questions are relevant to the flow of the thread):”
I don’t mind at all.
Here is a quick stab at it:
Yes, just like there is an “arbirtrator” in this society, the courts, there would be an arbitrator of some sort chosen by both parties.
…
Good question. Child abuse goes against the non-agression principle, so in a minarchist society, I’d say that is one of the limited uses of government. But in an ancap society, I would guess it would a private defense force that would step in? Still need to think this one through.
I think the answer differs on who you ask. But, IIRC, Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty(? - it’s been a while) argues that if you voluntarily become a slave forever, you still have the right to dissolve that relationship. As for the rational, that escapes me at the moment.
Basically, you may break any contract at any time (because of inalienability of free will), but doing so may trigger transfer of title of certain property (as defined by contract - technically, the title is transfered at the moment the contract is signed, but conditionally upon you breaking the contract).
From this argument, combined with inability to transfer title to human beings (also because of inalienability of free will), follows impossibility of slavery. There are a lot of fine points, but the general gist is like this.
The solution to child abuse is extended family, not government. Look at the abuse in the foster parenting industry - a child is many times more likely to be abused while in the State’s foster care system than otherwise. Human society had solved the problem of child abuse long before the modern, all-loving Wonder Government swooped in somewhere in the 18th and 19th centuries to save mankind from itself, even if it has to destroy mankind in the process.
Some of the points that were made could still exist in a free market. But it would not be a regulation out of coercian by the state, but it would be a market cooperation that was acting to meet a market demand. So labelling of food products could be a main selling point in a market of health conscious consumers.
Some of the regulations i can not see ever existing in a free market, like licensing for hair dresses. Certain safety regulations might come about through liability reasons rather than pretentious health and safety maniacs. But even though the regulations (or contract terms) could exist and might be used, in a free market there would still be the option to go flying at night on your first time, buy a building with asbestos etc. But they would probably come with more liability or you would have to do it without anyone else being known as to fear of ruining your reputation etc.
The issue is that they aren’t looking at the opportunity cost of regulations. Sure, safety is good, but you have to trade it for higher costs or lower quality. All regulations amount to are parentalism - saying that consumers don’t value the right things with their limited resources - so the state has to intervene and correct that.
Also I hate when people try to operate along the regulation/deregulation paradigm. Deregulation is not synonymous with the free market. After all, if you “deregulated” and made murder legal… that’s not very libertarian.