You are conflating lack of regulations with lawlessness. If literal anarchy was the alternative, then you'd have a point.
Anyways, the device in question would simply not have existed if there wasn't for competition. His comment is thus evidence of its content being false.
>>Plenty of nation that are not lawless but are effectively unregulated in the matters being discussed.
I think you have basic misunderstandings of economic concepts and the state of the world economy. Can you provide an example of poorly performing economies which "are not lawless but are effectively unregulated in the matters being discussed"?
You're moving the goalposts, while launching a torrent of insults without provocation.
You wrote:
>>>>How are the citizens in the least regulated doing on that front?
Now you're noting that some countries don't have specific workplace condition mandates. Not having said law doesn't mean they meet the ideals noted, of having laws establishing a free market, while lacking regulations that restrict voluntary exchange. To elaborate: in order to prove classical economists' and libertarians' claims about the free market being optimal are wrong, you'd have to show far more than these cherry-picked examples.
Your argument is sloppy, and when I request for more vigor, you lash out to create a flame war. This is not intellectual or scientific.
I'm absolutely justified in demanding you support your claims with evidence, and your belligerent responses are not justified, no matter how morally superior you believe yourself to be.
Now you're being disingenuous, framing an answer to your explicit query as anything other than that.
You said "Can you provide an example of poorly performing economies which "are not lawless but are effectively unregulated in the matters being discussed"?" And that's what I was replying to.
I provided an entire class of people who are harmed in such nations, of which too many exist.
Just because they don't share your preferences doesn't change the fact they meet the criteria you set forth.
