Quite a few people are under the probably false assumption that market anarchy would flood our marketplace with questionable wares, quacksalves, lemons, and that product liability in any sense would cease to exist. This is just a brief outline, but I do not think this is the case:

It takes years and years of good products and goodwill to establish oneself in market anarchy. The first of which will be spent advertising, meeting, discounting your prices to probably below your long term average cost, to appeal to a broader base of people. At this point, you cannot afford to lose money any faster than you already are, you’re simply putting a tourniquet around a severed limb, trying to staunch the hemmoraghing cash.

But if you provide good services, very good services, you can raise your prices to those which the market will bear. If you are the bes,t you’ll charge the highest prices, if you’re not, you’ll charge something lower. If you could make more money elsewhere, you’ll change businesses.

But once achieved, the goodwill can literally be destroyed overnight. Continuing attention to detail in all aspects of your business means that it is probably less likely for corporations to grow to sizes which will render them A)unaccountable to the consumers, B)unaccountable to its managers/auditors, C)criminally negligent with others’ investments.

As it is now, the incentive is set up to attract those who might do you harm. Giving the benefit of the doubt, I do not mean that the system is set up to encourage fraud or incompetence. But a market-anarchy would require that people never lose sight of their objectives, of their businesses, of their responsibilities. Such accountability doesn’t exist when you can bribe your way into existence: Pay some money to various regulators and agencies, fill out some paperwork, and so on. You get the state licensure which tells people “This guy is just as good as the next,” when in fact, no license can really do that. It just certifies your ability to accomodate bureaucracy.