Sorry for late reply, If things were volutaryist no, people would choose to pay into social safety nets or not. They would choose to pay into education and not to. Would the elderly pay into education if they had the choice to? Given the choice many people aren't capable of looking out for their own best interest let alone the interest of an interconnected society. Yes, currently there is a social safety net and there aren't enough people who would voluntarily pay in to support such a thing nor education nor research nor other societal value adding operations such as road repair and parks. In my opinion that is, perhaps you think these wouldn't be affected even in low income areas?

Certainly the first wrong shouldnt have been commited, but after it has, we should try to give back to the people who were wronged. For instance, if a corporation lowers wages, increases product price and decides to use that cheap chemical it knows is poisonous and pay off small settlements in the off chance they get caught/ can't lawyer their way out of it. We put up governmental regulations to deny such activities.

Sure taxation isn't a natural part of capitalism per se, nor are regulations which protect worker and consumer rights. The natural capitalism showed that their was a 100 hour 7 day work week without benefits and for shit pay. And their weren't enough labor alternatives to force any changes. So we made regulations which prevent such abuses.

Rather big business's pretend to advocate for small government, what they mean is less unfavorable regulation and more favorable regulation. Gut the epa, the CFPB, etc. You want wells fargo to create 10 credit cards for you without asking you, for your local landfill to cut storage costs and increase energy revenue by burning your trash or dumping it into the ocean?

Regulations are important, without them, greedy people trying to increase their profitability abuse society. Do away with corporate government which favors corrupt business practices. Though there are things which benefit society whos costs need to be socialized, like education and transportation infrastructure. We'd see increased societal benefit if medicine were too.

Yes, corporations use the power of the state to shield themselves, though they also use collusion within the market, price undercutting, purchasing leverage, price leverage etc as means of barriers to entry which occur blatently in a "free-market" without government regulation to halt such activity. They don't just "go out of business eventhough consumers want a lower price." They could simply force their suppliers not to deal with the new business entity in a "free-market".

"Of increased efficiencies yet increasing prices? Does a massive profit indicate a lesser value of service/product which should be levied for other social benefits?"

So as a company integrates its supply chain and produces more goods, the cost of production goes down. But that cost isn't given back to the consumer as a lowered price point. Of decreasing overhead costs yet again no decrease in the price point. And demand remains stable because the service or product is a necessary purchase and their are barriers to entry which are not just the government stopping entry into the market.

Is it fair to say the price of internet should be 70 bucks a month and to provide no alternatives? To have energy providers burn coal and wood because it is cheaper eventhough it poisens the air you breath?

Are you in favor of getting rid of patents in your "free-market" world?

Yeah I don't know anything about austrian school of economics care to explain?