Earlier quoted context omitted.
Regulations? You mean the same mechanism ISPs, food companies, "sin taxable" companies, etc use to capture entire segments of the market and price fix their way to a billion dollar profit? Or the regulations that nearly sank Tesla in the cradle that existed for no reason other than politicians are as corrupt, if not more, than the worst CEOs? 99.9% of the time regulation is unnecessary. Over-regulation is a huge prob…
If you didn’t have regulations you wouldn’t be able to consume or produce any modern product. It’s not worth making electronics if your users all have randomly shaped random voltage power sockets installed by whoever built their house, uncontrolled RF emissions, and want to pay you in private bank currencies you can’t spend. This is an example of the article - libertarianism requires people to replace how things actu…
This isn't true at all. You basically backed this entire point up with "company store money is bad" which is true. But The Fed issues "Company Store" money that just so happens to be accepted widely. We don't have a public currency. Without a private corporation (The Fed) we would have no money because congress relinquished it's power several hundred years ago, and in 191x they sealed the deal with the Aldrich Bill. If you want to have a truly regulated socialist utopia you're going to need to go back about 200 years to stop the banksters.
"No regulations" does not mean "no standards". The difference is the onus is on the agreement between the company and user. In a theoretical free market (just like your theoretical land where regulation works) companies would cooperate for base goods like sockets, because by standardizing along sockets, other companies would be able to sell more products. Then they can sell more sockets, and the cycle continues. In fact regulation doesn't guide standardization except in the most surface-level sense.
Uncontrolled RF emissions is another strawman. The free market doesn't mean that BigCo. can drop a 5G tower in my backyard. Again, killing people is STILL bad in the libertarian world and exposing people to danger is similarly bad. As a counter-example, EPA regulations have done very little to stop chemical spills. EPA is an "after-the-fact" regulatory agency and companies have incentive to either buy them out (DuPont) or only fix exactly what they say (BP). There's no indication regulation fixed anything. In fact all regulatory agencies can only act after-the-fact. This makes them fundamentally useless towards protecting people before danger strikes. Do you know what spurs regulatory agencies into action? Wide, large scale, protests. These would also work in a free market. If BigCo's towers are microwaving birds the people have a responsibility to stop them. In the current over-regulated environment BigCo simply defers to the agency, which then drags it's feet for 10 years, and then comes up with a half-baked solution that the company finds another end-around for.
You are conflating "regulation" with "standardization" in order to make a point about how libertarians are smooth brained pseudointellectuals but you ended up hurting yourself in the process.