[mtts]

You shouldn't have changed the wording, because you were right: the free market contains the seeds of its own destruction: in a free market manufacturers are free to form a cartel and deny others the chance to enter into their market. Which is exactly what happens when there's no government around to regulate the free market into, uhm, being more free.

[anamax]

> in a free market manufacturers are free to form a cartel and deny others the chance to enter into their market

How do they stop others from entering their market?

The typical means involves govt action....

When buying and selling is regulated, regulators are the first thing to be bought and sold.

[khafra]

The typical barrier to entry erected by many cartels in the US involves government action. The typical barrier to entry for non-regulated industries, like cocaine manufacture and exporting in Central America, involves firebombing a new market entrant's facilities and executing their families. Imperfect as it may be, I prefer the more heavily regulated version.

[anamax]

Surely you're not suggesting that the only alternative to allowing firebombing is govt regulation?

[newt0311]

" firebombing a new market entrant's facilities and executing their families."

Theft of life and property. Not exactly free market either.

[gruseom]

Yeah, that seems to be the historical lesson: free markets don't stay free on their own, so there's a limited role for government to play in keeping them free, much as there's a role for referees in sport. To me this isn't particularly controversial. But "free" is one of those words that easily leads to pointless arguments because people are working from different definitions. To me, "free" doesn't imply no government involvement, precisely because of the paradox you mention [~]. It has more to do with competition and meritocracy (may the best man/woman/product win).

[~] Edit: by contrast, npk's comment implies that "free" means "absence of laws". A different definition.