You think airlines upkeep thier planes BECAUSE the state goons force them to? They do it so people will fly their airlines. If in a free market if they stopped maintaining their aircraft, no one would use their airlines and they would lose business. It's that simple, that's how the market works
In a free market the savings from less maintenance will be passed on the customer and people will risk flying with the cheaper but less safe airline.
Your claim "Regulators have failed us in every industry" is either ignorant or stupid, i don't know which but it certainly isn't correct. Then you've gone on to advocate private inspection companies - which is just regulation in another form. So are you against state regulation or all regulation?
Why do you assume there will be less maintenance in a free market where the state does not exist to protect the big boys?
Because there already is less maintenance where regulation is lax or not followed. There's starkly different safety records between European/US airlines than those from some other, less rigorous parts of the world.
You are making the misguided assumption that regulation has to be heavy handed and restrictive to large organisations. Consider wine making, wouldn't you wont some approval process to confirm that the small winery is really making wine from only grape juice not from mixing it a bit of anti-freeze? What about technology, would you be happy for all mobile phone networks to use their own technology, so you can only get phones on specific network through them. Or would you rather a standard where the same phones are usable across continent and the world, including those made by new start ups that only have to conform to the specification not get buy in from the network? Maybe you wouldn't mind if cars didn't have brake lights or indicators mandated?
Its certainly true that some regulation can be put up to protect established players and vested interests, but equally it can sometimes level the playing field. And some is just downright practical and sensible, outweighing the drawbacks. Regulation isn't bad itself: bad regulation is bad.
I would again contest that there is less maintenance where regulation is lax or not followed, bear in mind that we exist in an entirely fascist crapitalist economy.
I never said regulation had to be restrictive to large organizations.
Of course i would want someone to regulate wine production, that would occur in a free market because people don't want to drink wine made from antifreeze and anyone trying that would soon go out of business especially in this age of information. People are not stupid cattle, they can tell when something sucks but even more than that, private quality assurance companies would simply assert more influence over the market than they already do-filling the gap left by ineffective monopolized services.
About phones, it would not benefit phone companies to do so, they benefit from people talking to each other so they would be severly limiting themselves and customers do not want phones that only work on one platform so they would not tolerate that either. think about incentives. why would it benefit phone companies to restrict connections from competitors in the absence of the state? In truth, in a free market you wouldn't have 3-4 big phone companies, you would have hundreds of small ones most likely.
Cars would still have breaklights in the absence of government since in the absence of government people still want to be safe, probably even more since the onus of safety would be on the care manufactures even more since they would be routinely reviewed by inspection companies or if they refused would lose reputation and business. How would it benefit car companies to stop installing breaklights when the state goes away?
Eveything you said the market can and would provide better. Who knows, we might have flying cars or be using drone transportation if the state did not prevent drones for commercial use or stifle emerging technologies which would damage big corporations. Imagine, in a free market no one would be able to stop an emerging technology. Bitcoin probably would have been invented 20 years ago.