So slavery ain't really permitted (unless someone is dumb enough to become a voluntary slave and stay that way) in ancapistan mate. Negative rights are a pillar of it, so unless you consent to it all without coercion (unlikely), it's not really an option. Well, not unless you want your neighbour to feel justified in shooting you for violating others negative rights.

Also to reduce prices & costs , one must have competition in market, so... That disproves your second argument...

As to maximising profits, the rate of roi trends downward, so maintaining profitability becomes harder, not easier, over time.

That's why we always are innovating new ways to make profit off old things.

The fact is that without any regulations companies are completely free to simply impose whatever working conditions they prefer, and it's not like they will set up good ones out of the kindness of their hearts

Why is the state the only entity capable of regulation? Have you never heard of user reviews, user ratings, the percent scores on ebay and amazon?

Any why is it impossible for a market to provide the regulations themselves for other markets?

I see no desirability in making regulations a monopoly provided market.

Justify the need for that monopoly. I'm happy to change my mind, but it better be damn convincing...

Of course the people can influence the market thougth purchases and rewiews, but it's likely that all companies, and not only a few, will set up horrible wotking conditions, just like in the 1800s.
The fact is that all markets require regulation and up to a certain point it can be provided by the buyers, but only if there are alternatives: why did workers accep the 1800s working conditions? Because they were the only ones.
That means that there needs to be a small amount of influence from an external force, in this case the state, to ensure the upholding of basic human rights.

OK so a) why would people give up good working conditions? You act as if the companies can just get skilled labour for free.

B) They didn't accept the conditions. There we a lot of strike actions in the USA, all of which to my knowledge withstood all private intervention, until *the state militias were called in to break the strikes*.

And c) those that did saw the benefit in comparison to how they lived in the 1700s.

So d) why would we give up the labour benefits we set in contracts just because the government isn't there? The contracts still exist without a state mate. So do lawyers. And judges.

Also, if you are going to claim the state protects human rights, explain why the state justified slavery should exist for over 5000 years, before a British judge ruled it was not permitted in either British or common law.

@mikimof2 is the 21st century comparable to the 19th in our cultures in any way? I say no, not really.

As to your consideration "companies will just give workers bad conditions" well, there is nothing stopping people starting a company with better working conditions as a way of distinguishing oneself from the pack. Why do you think devs liked working at Google before they began hemmoraging talent? Free food, great amenities, lots of open spaces and support. They don't have to give it, but if they don't other tech companies will give them similar treatment.

Smes often sell their culture to prospective employees harder than salary these days.

The first argument relies on the assumption that there will be alternative working conditions provided by various companies, which, since the only goal of them is to maximize profits, seems quite unlikely to happen, as they will all gravitate towards the less expensive, hence worse, ones.
The second one assumes that in a completely stateless society there will not be private militias employable by the companies, also, the fact that it was the state that put the strikes down is because they asked the state to impose better working conditions, not the companies.
C) Yes, but due to tecnologic advancements, not the fact that they worked 12 hours a day doing the exact same thing over and over.
D) what makes you think that in a stateless, hence lawless, society, judges will have any kind of power? And who will check that contracts will be respected? We would need some kind of external authority to make sure that the law is upheld, and such authority needs to have the power to chastise and punish those who break it, basically we would need a state.
E) Touche.
F) how will people have the power to create a new company? And what makes you think that companies will simply not force people to work for them? As I said earlier, there will probably be some kind of private militias.

Also, about the culture argument: I was not talking about culture, I was talking about basic human nature

A) the goal is to get the best employees in order to maximise profits. Culture and amenities are a nice benison to a good wage packet, and if everyone is willing to offer your asking price, it's a valid way of edging competition.
B) private defense would be a thing, and is presumed in ancapistan as being a thing. It's also presumed that property rights are respected in ancapistan, so defense providers protect rights, not laws. As such, you are highly unlikely to get bands of merc brigands because of the risk other defense forces will just wipe you out for violating negative rights.

C) due to tech, we have 8 hr days. Soon it may be even less with 3d printing rising so fast.

D) law doesn't require a monopoly to exist. Polycentric law systems have existed for hundreds of years, surviving things like the conquest of the british in Ireland.

F1) anyone who wants to and /or is fed up with how something is done now. Lots of companies I'm actively applying to started due to frustration with some thing they have to deal with (sometimes, like with taxes, because the state made it harder than it should be).

F2) how? I can shoot you without a qualm if you try to enslave me.

F3) as mentioned the private army option doesn't work if "shoot on sight" is everyone's recommendation to an encounter with them.

And if they take your neighbour, why would you presume they won't take you? *Get your .50 cal, boys, we're goin' hunting for heretics.*

A) yes, however why educate the workers when you could just keep the knowledge to yourself and establish a "superior class" that controls the workers thought ignorance?
B) and who establishes the rights? Also, what makes you think that they will simply uphold them out of the goodness of their hearts? This argument requires every human being in existence to 100% agree with the ancap ideology, which is quite unrealistic, it seems.
C) why not just force 12 hs days? This way we can produce even more due to tech!
D) yes, but there still needs someone to make sure that it is respected.
F1) and how will they simply not be leveled to the ground by militias?
F2) the companies' private militias will probably will be equipped with armored vehicles, and the argument assumes that you are wealthy enough to afford a gun.
F3) again, armored vehicles.
F4) so it would basically devolve into civil war.

A) Bournville factory can be used very flippantly as a 200 year old example why this is nonsense. They didn't have to provide housing and everything else needed to make their products, but they did. Also, it is in the interests of any company to have better knowledge, not worse.

B) the rights are negative. They are inherent because its based on what is possible when you don't do certain things (like act to stop someone speaking, or owning themselves).

And no, you just have to agree with negative rights theory and voluntary interaction, aka reciprocity. You can have a voluntary minarchic state inside ancapistan provided you don't try to invade or expand without consent.

C) why work for the 12 hr contract if you can make the same working 8 somewhere else?
D) and you are presuming the only way to provide respect for contracts is by coercion. Ostricisation is also a thing you know.
F1) what kind of militia are we talking about. A bunch of guys with rifles, or a battalion from the us army? If so, it's not really a militia anymore, so how is it funded so well?

See the private army argument is really weak once you get into the economic weeds. Army's are *expensive*. It takes a lot to train a man to kill another without thinking.

That costs a lot of money and time. Then there is the means, which are literally firing burning money in lead and depleted uranium forms.

Then there is the reputation costs. This militia is now a one client company.

It can't afford to try other customers because their agents will likely be shot immediately for killing others without any cause.

So now the company is employing an army.

So every dead agent is a huge loss. You can forget getting any investment as a company. Then there is the company's reputation, which like its customers is gonna get shot to hell. People will stop buying those products in favour of others, and then the company has no means to pay their men.

At that point the army kills the company.

So yeah, bit of a shit business model in capitalism. But if you can take people's money without them being allowed to say no, you already have taxes and a state, mate.

And that's the only way to fund an aggressive army. Only taxes make it work.

A), sorry, but I don't know anything about Bournville Factory. However I can tell you that since all of the schools will be private, only the wealthiest will be able to afford them. And who are the wealthiest? The high-ranking members of the companies.
B) Could you elaborate on the concept of negative rights? I honestly never heard of them.
C) but why would there be 8 hour contracts?
D) megacorporations like Facebook are almost universally hated, but they are still extremely wealthy and stupidly powerful.
F1) refer to the megacorporations, training an armored battalion is financially basically nothing to Google, Facebook (which is developing it's own currency), and space-x.
About the "it can't afford to shoot customers" argument Yes, but threat is often more than necessary.
Honestly, your arguments would be valid if it wasn't for the absolutely massive corporations which exist in this day and age.

A) if the schools are all private they have to compete. You can get a lot of custom by cutting your prices in that market.
B) you have, just not called that. First ten articles of the constitution of the USA. Read the phrasing. It's always "shall not be infringed", not "has the right to do x". That's because of negative rights.

The idea is that you are capable of doing things in isolation which people should not stop you from being able to do out of isolation. It's based at the core on the concept of property rights, and starts with an axiom of "you own yourself".

The second component is they have to be reciprocal. If you believe they exist in you, they must also exist in others like you. Ergo, if someone doesn't reciprocate your rights, you don't have to reciprocate them back.

This then brings us to perhaps the most neglected right to day, the right of association, which also is protected by the first amendment in the USA. This right allows us to choose whom we associate with and whom we won't. If someone doesn't reciprocate your rights your first action is to not associate.