If you can make any sense of this post, congratulations
Competition can only result in one thing: competition.
Notably, the very mindset of cooperation is incompatible with a purely market-driven society. People's mindset becomes that everyone else is either a weak to be preyed upon, or a threat to be undermined. There is no "win/win" in competition, there is only "win/lose". A competitor is approaching you with a win/win proposition? It's a scam. He's trying to scam you.
Every voluntary trade, such as cash for a product or service is cooperation where both parties benefit. I can just hand someone a dollar for a pack of 10 pens and don't have to personally manufacture them. I'd rather have the pens; he'd rather have the dollar, both benefit. And there's a saying (I learned it from alex jones, heh heh) "a rising tide raises all ships", as a metaphor for the economy. Like imagine if anyone could compete to create places to live (rent is probably the biggest expense for people). They don't have artificial barriers to entry like 100,000 dollar licenses and don't have to comply with regulations like being forced onto the conventional electric or plumbing grid etc. People would be free to create their own houses without even paying anyone and could use solar or whatever evolves on the free market. If nobody respects plumbing and shitting outdoors becomes a hygiene problem, well now many potential buyers would have demand to solve that problem and thus be willing to voluntarily pay some seller to come up w/ a solution. Anyway, from much cheaper housing/technology/energy/etc everyone would save lots of money. You can maybe 'prove' the economy isn't a zero sum game (though I don't 100% understand that term.. I think potential for winning/losing/draw has to add up to 0, whatever) by just observing that EVERYONE in modern times 'wins' relative to everyone in hunter/gatherer times such as being able to make phone calls, the internet, cars, etc which weren't available then.
But you could be right.. I don't know, what would you prefer, minarchism? resource based zeitgeist type economy? A whole society/civilization is incredibly complex so anyone who claims to predict what would be best or what would theoretically happen by replacing this society by their pet society of choice is probably bullshitting (like me for example.. but I am, uh, energized by lots of youtube propaganda, heh heh).
No money? Then you can't buy a solution, which means you are free to be harvested by those with money for any sort of purpose.
Nobody would be forced to invest in the government tax pseudo charity, so anyone could invest in any charity on the free market with their extra money from 'the tide raising all ships' and extra money that would have been taxed in a statist 'human labor farming' society. Maybe some 'teach a man to fish, rather than give them a fish' type charity would evolve to be most fit. But like you yourself are worried about the plight of the poor, and there would be others with similar worry, and thus there is buyer demand to solve this problem and willing to voluntarily pay for a solution. Not that the statist paradigm is doing particularly well with this issue.
No, it wouldn't be easy to become an entrepreneur. It wouldn't be easy because the already-established Fat Cats and Top Dogs wouldn't make it easy.
Large corporations are already responsible for hindering any research that would threaten their interests. Some nobody with bright ideas for revolutionary innovations that could challenge the status quo and topple a large company? Well, best case scenario, his ideas are bought and patented and then get to sleep in a drawer forever. Worst case scenario, a gang of thugs is send to kill him and burn everything.
In the statist paradigm all these fat cats can use the monopoly of violence, government, which forces everyone to pay it so has unlimited disposable income (especially by legalizing counterfitting for itself in the federal reserve), to attack competing start ups. In a free market, starbucks probably wouldn't have tanks because that'd be a business cost, and if people become aware they can voluntarily stop doing business with a war mongering coffee business. Starbucks could pay a free market defense business to go harass/kill/extinguish competing start ups, but people wouldn't be forced to pay that defense agency and when they learn of such behavior (though they'd try to be secret about it) they can vote with their dollars for a different defense business. So an evil defense business can't accumulate tons of money because nobody is forced to pay it like government.
I see one potential problem that 'voting with dollars' counts dollars not people, so a billionaire has a lot of votes.
Yeah, sure, a population without education and with readily-available drugs would certainly progress a lot faster than all others. After all, just look at Nobel Prizes, Fields Medals, and other such distinctions: practically all the recipient are noted illiterate junkies.
People in your free society would never fund any sort of common defenses anyway. They'd use their money to turn their house into a bunker, but that's all. Defending infrastructures? Protecting the entire city? But that's crazy talk! What are you, communist? There'd be poor people who'd benefit from it! My money would be used to reward those lazy good-for-nothing loiterers. Of course, they'd need to turn their houses into a bunker lest they be harvested for organ donations and whatever else by their friendly neighbors.
Statist 'education' focuses on forced alleged teaching (hierarchical/authority based) rather than learning (individual curiosity based) and basically forces everyone to have their children adopted and raised by the state. On the free market maybe everyone would learn that autodidactism is best and have little demand for authority based education. A bird evolved wings so it flies, that's just what it does and likes to do and evolved to do. Similar with human brains, we like to learn and think when we aren't in what john taylor gatto describes as a very short container with a tight lid full of fleas conditioning them that jumping is useless.
Maybe you're right that nobody would pay for mutual defense, I don't know. Maybe the idea of weapons and such wouldn't even evolve to be the best free market solution. Like maybe information warfare of truth could just annihilate anything else. But like if china sends a nuke or starts a propaganda campaign etc, people's demand would change in support of mutual defense I guess.
Roadways without enough traffic to be profitable would be sold or abandoned entirely. A business is never going to subsidize an unprofitable segment.
But that doesn't matter cuz we'd have flying cars and teleportation, duh! Businesses would have to sell solutions to REMOVE the roads. I forgot what nature looked like under them.
But seriously, I don't know what I'm talking about.