A truly free society would require more work on part of consumers. Take a simple example. Buying meat at the grocery store. Today, the FDA imposes regulation and inspection, so the assumption is the meat is of a good quality. Obviously FDA is occasionally wrong and accidents happen, but for the most part you feel safe purchasing. The price you pay for this is higher meat cost (cost to producer for following regulation) and higher taxes (you pay for the FDA and enforcement). In a world with no FDA, businesses and people regulate. A meat producer would go to Wal-Mart and propose to be sold there. Free markets dictate that it is in Wal-Mart's best interest to not sell bad meat. If they do, they almost assuredly lose long term customers. Likewise, it is in a producer'a best interest to sell good meat for the same reason. The meat industry has a high cost of entry so there would be large risk to risking the entire business by cutting corners for short term gains. In this day and age, people are more informed about the products they buy and controversy surrounding them - it wouldn't take long for news to spread. The questions you ask yourself then are: 1. What quality difference is there between what the FDA sets and what Wal-Mart on its own would accept? 2. How much money is saved by allowing producers and distributors to regulate rather than the FDA? Like any decision, you end up with a cost/benefit analysis.