[littlestymaar]

With enough regulations, subsidies, strategic planning and government interventions when things turn bad, mixed economies do the job pretty well, that's right. And when the regulation is lacking the outcome is as well.

And even these economies are structured around monopolistic and oligopolistic actors.

They are as related to “free market” as northern European countries welfare state is related to Communism.

[0x3f]

Right, those are the current technologies we have to make markets work in a particular way. They don't preclude other technologies which work with freer markets.

Like there's a whole zoo of healthcare provision approaches, for example. Single payer can work fine (ala Norway), but so can Bismarck (ala Switzerland). The latter is a technological architecture that _enables_ similar or better outcomes, while being closer to a fully market-based approach.

[littlestymaar]

It's not “closer to a fully market-based approach” any more than climbing a hill makes you closer to the moon.

Also, if you call regulations “technologies” (which I don't disagree with) then “free market” means technology-free.

[0x3f]

But climbing a hill does make you closer to the moon. There's nothing wrong with incremental progress towards a goal, assuming this is a goal for the free-market people.

Also, I'm not sure a free market is technology-free per se. What you're talking about is specifically ancap-like, but most free market frameworks involve a state actor that should (among other things) not allow for itself to be weaponized against other market participants.

Like the paradox of tolerance, you can't tolerate a free market for bribing your way to benefit from the state's monopoly on violence. I don't think the existence of this paradox destroys the value of free markets or tolerance.

[littlestymaar]

> But climbing a hill does make you closer to the moon. There's nothing wrong with incremental progress towards a goal,

I'm sorry to tell you we don't build spaceports on top of mountain, for a reason.