u-Bob

Right now, we have the government/State making and enforcing laws, rules and regulations and that in no way stops the activities you mentioned. It is naive to think that just because you have the Government/State regulating things that there won't be any crime. If history teaches us one thing it is that the State is unable to provide the security services it claims to provide. The never ending excuses the State uses, is that it fails because it does not yet have enough power. It's already illegal to defraud people, yet fraud still exists and continues to be perpetrated on a daily basis. Over the last 200 years the State has acquired more and more power and has started interfering more and more with our daily lives all because that would somehow be needed to keep us safe, to fight crime, to protect the children, to protect our mental health, to, to fight terrorism,... Yet crime still exists. Terrorism still exists. Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
When will we learn that giving the state more and more power does not bring progress? Violating people's privacy, monitoring what they do online, harassing people at airports, deciding what sites they can visit etc. does not keep them safe. Forcing people to pay money to give it to "those in need", does not end poverty. Forcing employers to pay certain minimum wages, does not help the poor. Having the state police the net, will not bring back 2001 style sales.

In a free world (free market), crime would still exist. Phishers, fraude, malware,... would still exist. As long as there are human beings, crime will exist. However, the difference between a free world and the State is that while the State constantly grows bigger and bigger and collects more power at the expensive of the people, in a free world people are free to deal with problems, dangers, crime themselves.

If you are afraid of catching a malware infections, you can reconfigure your system to make it more secure, you can download or buy protection software, you can chose to avoid certain sites, you can chose to buy another security package if you are not happy with your previous package, you can chose not to go online, you can chose to recover your system from an image after you've browsed the web, you can buy operating system A instead of operating system B if B has a bad security record,....

Let's say you keep all your valuables in your living room and don't lock your doors and a criminal walks in and steals everything. Do you blame the State and ask them to make more laws and regulations or do you start locking your doors? What if you did lock your doors but the burglar was able to pick one of the locks? Do you ask the State to make more laws (for example a law to require everyone to install a certain type of lock. A law that would be enforced by police officers that come by to check if you have the correct type of locks and will fine you if you use a different type of lock (maybe even a better one))? Or do you buy and install a better lock or maybe even add an alarm system or maybe even put your valuables in a safe...? If the next burglar notices you have a special lock that would take a very long time to pick he might not even bother trying and head over to your neighbor. If your neighbor has also secured his house, the burglar might not even bother trying that house as well and head over to the next house. Maybe that house isn't as secure, but maybe the owner will learn his lesson and install better locks so he won't get burglared again in the future.

Thing is, we are all individuals, we are all different, we are all good at different things, we come up with lots of different solutions to fix problems,... Who do you think will come up with the most, the most efficient, the most effective solutions to problems? Millions of people freely deciding what they want and need and what they are willing to do or invest to get it or fix it or secure it? Or Government officials that don't know what they are talking about, that rely on corporate lobbyists for information and have no real incentive to find the best solution? Who do you think will able to defend your life and property? You, who have a very good incentive? Or the police who have no incentive? It's not like if you can stop buying protection services from the police and start buying protection services from another company.

Even if you gave the state 100% control over our lives, the still would not be able to end crime. Environments with 100% of State control already exist: prisons. A prison is a facility where you have no rights: the State determines where you sleep, what you eat, when you can exercise, what you can read, when the lights go out, when you have to get up, what clothes you can wear, if you can have visitors, how long they'll keep you there,...
And guess what? Murder, rape,... still happen in that environment with 100% State control.

The Sate make it illegal to use certain chemical substances for recreational uses. And in the name of this "war on drugs" they constantly violate people's property rights, but at the same time they are willing to admit that they will never be able to keep drugs out of the prisons. If they are unable to keep a substance they prohibit out of an environment they have 100% control over, why do we even believe the state when they say they need more power, more control over our daily lives to "fight drugs"?
If the state is unable to prevent murder or rape in an environment they have 100% control over, why do we trust they will keep us safe outside of that environement?

Are you saying antitrust laws prevent monopolies? You do realize the first antitrust laws were welcomed by the larger cartels as a way to protect their market share, right?

First of all, you need to understand what a monopoly is. A common misconception is that having a monopoly means you have a very large market share. Monopolies are not based on scale. Monopolies are based on force. You only have a monopoly if your forcibly prevent someone from entering the market.

The only monopolies are those of the Sate (aggression, security and judicial services) and those granted by the State.

Like Ludwig von Mises said, There's Government (intervention) and there's the Market, there is no 3rd option. The problem here is that people seem to think that State means order and justice and the Market means chaos. This couldn't be further from the truth. The State means chaos. The State constantly changes the rules... they even agree that it is now impossible to merely count the number of laws and regulations you have to abide by. If you can't even count them, how can you expect not to violate them? The State creates a system of fear, chaos and uncertainty. The State constantly creates more rules and regulations, all in the name of protection us while in reality only the State and those big corporation that are in bed with the State benefit from them.

In a free world (free market), there is order. There is the non aggression principle: All human beings are master of their own body and property and are free to do what they want with it as long as they don't cause damage to another human being or his property. This means you are free to buy property, trade or sell property, give things to charity etc but the second you damage another human being's property he has the right to retaliate.