And you will make available all the information that goes into that process, the algorithms applied to that information, and the prices offered to other people?
Air travel is not a free market - the capital requirements are insane, the cost of fuel is often subsidized by the government (you cannot tax or excise it IIRC), you have a lot of regulations and so on ...
Air travel in the US is highly regulated, but the market is actually very free. If you have sufficient capital you can absolutely start a new airline and be carrying paying passengers in under a year. In fact you could probably do it in a few months by leasing existing aircraft and contracting with existing aviation service companies for most operations. The FAA actively supports new ventures and will work with them on the approval process.
Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not (i.e., regulation imposed by a monopolistic entity).
There are many forms of private governance and regulation that protect consumers. That's not to say free markets are utopias, but believing that governments are the only source of regulation is incorrect. In fact, in many cases private governance is far more effective (e.g., the private regulation Uber is subject to is stronger and more efficient than the governmental regulation traditional taxis are subject to).
See "Private Governance" by Edward Stringham for some good examples of market governance in action. The book received the following review from Peter Thiel:
"Stringham dispels state-worshipping fiction with historical fact to show how good governance has preceded Leviathan, ignores it when necessary, and can surpass it when it fails."
> Regulation is part of a free market, but governmental regulation is not
Until someone comes, holds a gun to your face and takes your sandwich. Then you'll be thankful for government regulation.
I'm absolutely certain that the government's (attempt of a) monopoly on violence is one of the most crucial aspects of free markets. Another is contract law.
Governments did not came from outer space, nor are they form a separate magisterium that's unrelated to free market. It's something that naturally forms as society grows larger than few hundred members and the simple interpersonal methods of coordination and punishing defectors (like losing support of the whole clan if you cheat) stop working. The whole idea of separating government from market models seems strange to me.
Frankly, I fail to see how you can hold a working market in a big population without a somewhat monopolized government structure. If suddenly, say, the USGOV disappeared, leaving behind a libertarian utopia, I'm pretty sure it would quickly degenerate into acts of violence, an era of warlords and famine, after which people would probably figure out that a single entity enforcing some rules was generally not a bad idea.
There are reasonable and intelligent criticisms of market institutions. This is not one of them.
Exactly what recourse would I have against someone who stole my sandwich? Unless I know the person or there is solid evidence to identify the individual, the costs of investigation and prosecution far exceed the value to be recouped. Police will take my information, file a report, and nothing else will happen.
Not only is that state not helpful under these conditions, but private institutions have often found solutions to similar problems before the government does. Look at Paypal. They faced very similar conditions of fighting fraud and theft that couldn't be remedied through legal means, so they developed many private forms of regulation which allowed online exchange to flourish.
Are you sure? I've never heard another free market capitalist argue that government regulations are an important part of how their ideal market works. Can you point out any free market economists that have argued for government regulation?
That's because those free market capitalists are (at best) hypocrites or (at worst) stupid. Obviously capitalism relies on regulation - of property rights, IP rights, contract laws, bans on fraud and insider trading (although opinions are mixed on that last one), ...
Free market capitalists argue that what we have now is not a free market. IP rights wouldn't exist in a free market system, for example.
It's probably best to find another term to describe the market you see working, as 'free market' is what free market capitalists argue for. I don't know what a better term would be, but I'm sure that economists would've thought of one.
Regulations that make possible entrance to a market - standards, forced ineroperability, common carrier, dumb pipes etc - are generally good and provide more efficient market.
Regulations that prevent entrance to a market - by artificially rising the capital requirements to the impossible, are probably not helping the free market.
Exactly - the government should prevent markets from becoming less free - discouraging monopoly, persecuting fraud, encouraging transparency, taxing (appropriately) externalities, and owning natural monopolies (like infrastructure - dumb pipes owned by the government or a very regulated entity, and used by market competitors). I also think there should be less regulation in certain very regulated markets (banking, food) to encourage experimentation, but those should come with restrictions (e.g. no advertising, limited sales volume, etc.) - I think the world of hedge funds is a good example - they have less restricitons and hence can offer lower costs and better (or less correlated) performance, but they are effectively closed off to the general public (only "knowledgeable" investors can invest).
How do monopolistic entities full of self-interested humans solve problems of externalities?
The economics research on public choice has done a great deal for setting aside the common yet inaccurate assumption that government agents pursue the interests of society. It's not appropriate to compare real world markets to utopian governments. Both are imperfect. The real question is which is superior under realistic assumptions.