Number of problems I have with a completely free market society: varies, depending on the political structure behind it. In Libertaria, for example, the handicapped(wheelchair-style) wouldn’t be able to “walk” on sidewalks. There simply aren’t enough people to provide economic incentive to building ramps…provided that non-ramp sidewalks are already in place. So long as we stick to new one-floor buildings, cities, and skyscrapers, then, even in Libertaria the handicapped will get along eventually in semi-limited areas.
The problem I have with this scenario is that handicapped-ness, if we may mangle English so, is a no-fault scenario. That is, it is easy to say, “Why should I be punished (forced to pay for renovation, etc) for them being handicapped?” Why should they, either, as it was as much their fault as yours? The ideal libertarian society would not account for things that weren’t matters of coercion and yet do indeed affect other people. (anecdotal reference: I came to this line of thought at an airport, of all places, when travelling up an escalator). However, in our society the majority gets “punished”, as it were, for the no-fault shortcomings of a minority (who also are punished, but since they are a minority less so) group. Since it was no one’s fault, no one should have to pay for it. Clearly, however, if we are to have any sense of equality then we shouldn’t be forcing someone to pay for something that isn’t their fault or responsibility…and yet there is no other way to compensate for this. Someone has to pay. Since it was no one’s fault, everyone should pay.
Natural disasters are, as well, another no fault damage which can render people helpless without some sort of societal intervention. “Don’t live on the coast if you don’t want the risk” is not acceptable since the coasts are HUGE sources of commerce and importing/exporting.
Flooding, earthquakes, tornadoes, et cetera…there are a large number of issues which a completely free market would improperly address, or not address at all.
The important thing to remember here, IMO, is that in any sort of “changed” society argument, many opponents feel that society should remain largely the way it(for example, we change games from chess to checkers but keep the pieces in the same place) is and can’t understand why their opponents insist on promoting things that obviously aren’t possible (ie-the privatization of roads). Folks, we’re talking about a new society here. That like saying, “What do you mean they didn’t have microwaves? How did they make their popcorn?!?!” and then being truly shocked when someone mentions that, indeed, popcorn may be made without a microwave.
I think a very slightly modified Libertaria, as presented here, would result in a very nice place to live, even though it comes with shortcomings and so on (what doesn’t?). I also feel that it addresses man best since it, honestly, doesn’t address him much at all; that is, man is not a static/robotic creature that may be cleverly manipulated given the appropriate society. I think history has demostrated that very well that, in the end, every oppresive regime meets trouble. As such, any society which automatically assumes things about man and his character and makes societal requirements of these men (gender neutral, of course) is doomed to failure of some sort by virtue of unconscious sabotage.