[aliasxneo]

I'm not an economist, but the first definition that came up for me was:

> an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.

And the word unrestricted is underlined. It seems to me that land use restrictions (I mean, it's literally in the name) are directly working against this philosophy.

[dghlsakjg]

Unrestricted in this sense means that both parties are able to deploy their capital as they choose, and specifically without outside requirements.

In this case someone took a piece of capital (land), and traded most of the rights, but not all to someone else.

The buyer took the deal knowing that they hadn't purchased unrestricted use of that land, but instead a limited use of the land.

Both parties agreed to the deal, and no other party restricted their actions, or unfairly restricted competition. No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms.\

An example of a great non-market restriction would be: you can't enforce any land use restriction covenants.

[aliasxneo]

That is interesting; I can see it from that perspective. I suppose when I read "unrestricted competition," I infer it to mean that any contractual agreement created for the purpose of limiting competition would be regulated to maintain the free market. I'm under the impression that this is the reason for most of the anti-monopoly regulation that currently exists. Outside of regulation of anti-monopolistic regulations, I don't think a free market (where competition isn't hindered) could develop?

Alas, I could be in over my head, but I guess I don't interpret "free market" to mean anarchy (no regulation).

[dghlsakjg]

Free markets don't necessarily lead to the best outcome, and certainly not to the best outcome for a society.

If you go read the actual invisible hand quote from Adam Smith, that so many people are fond of quoting, he is pointing out that the free-market leads to unintended outcomes and side-effects:

"By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention."

His argument is basically that sometimes merchants accidentally do things that benefit society. The unstated opposite is the issue.

The concept of free-markets is nebulous, and thus more of a political football than a serious thing. Every culture has limits on what it will allow of the market, and what is considered not allowed. A monopoly that harms the consumer is not allowed, but we do allow monopolies in circumstances where it would be massively inefficient not to operate as a monopoly (utilities is the most common one, e.g. only one company is allowed to own power lines in your neighborhood).

[kmeisthax]

> No party was coerced, and they could have negotiated for different terms

This is my pet peeve with certain forms of right-wing libertarianism. If it's possible to recreate all the market restrictions of a totalitarian government through private property, markets, and cunning; then what does that kind of libertarianism actually say? Tyranny is only bad if the tyrant hasn't signed the right paperwork?