Sure, people could invest in verification companies, much the way many invested in accounting firms such as Andersen to verify that their investments were not being made in a sham company like Enron. Except without state regulations, what Andersen did would not be wrong or illegal. Instead, people would then need to invest in verification services of the verifier. The cost of verification becaomes significant enough, and an obvious place to cut corners for those who wish to take risks, that verification becomes non-existant.
And that is without even getting into how the government would be able to enforce contracts under such a system. How would they verify compliance with anything?
First of all, I am no anarchist. You will note however, that the market is killing Andersen, if you didn't notice. It eventually took a dim view of Enron too. That's accountability. Compare that to government where there is virtually none. Indeed, when problems get bigger, budgets go up.
There are regulations that I still think proper (particularly in the anti-trust area), but it is worth a look to determine how to make them unnecessary. That is what an intelligent Congress would do.
Instead, people would then need to invest in verification services of the verifier. The cost of verification becaomes significant enough, and an obvious place to cut corners for those who wish to take risks, that verification becomes non-existant.
You neglect to note that the verification companies in my system are subject for civil penalties and are insured to cover errors or the unforseen. Between that and competitive forces to deliver verification services at minimal cost, the system motivates investment in new technology to reduce those costs and improve reliability similar to any other business.
And that is without even getting into how the government would be able to enforce contracts under such a system. How would they verify compliance with anything?
They don't. The only time the government would step in is if there is failure to satisfy a civil judgment upon failure to satisfy a contract, similar to any other contract in this country. Under Article I, Section 8, the Feds don't own property legally, do they?
As I said, I am not an anarchist. Try reading the first chapter to understand why there is no demarcation between regulation and ownership and what the consequences are.