This is my point. The state monopoly has taken the place of the market system in your example. Authority figures were not only not saying smoking was not bad, they said it was good. I'd argue that if you had competition for the "authority figure" role you'd probably had seen the public learn much faster. The state allowed this all to happen under their watch. I don't think that's a good example to say we need the state to keep industry in line.

What we need is the public to realize they can't depend on political systems to be ethical and motivated by their self interest. I'm not saying industry is motivated by the self interest of their customers but rather that the relationship is more transparent and therefore people tend to be more skeptical.

What I meant regarding the straw man was the ethical and moral question. You are asking about that with private businesses. Yeah, they aren't just gonna be always ethical. But the status quo isn't either. They are motivated by profit. Yeah, in modern times many try to market themselves as moral and ethical but your skepticism is fair. My point is the state/politics isn't moral or ethical either. So you are putting up a straw man on the market.

One last thought. Many people do not realize that the legal system can and does exist outside of the state. So I don't see your argument as a strong one for the state monopoly on violence for this is the root of the state's part to play.