[codeulike]

It is ironic that the "free market" eventually leads to such an outcome.

The best way to win in a free market is to stop the market from being free (form a monopoly, influence the governmrnt, etc) ... Surely every good capitalist knows that.

[sgentle]

Relevant (dead) reply from vegedor:

  From the perspective of a monopolized, unregulated etc. market, it is free of
  competition, free from regulation, etc.
  off-topic: what's the preposition to use with free?

Actually not off-topic at all! Here's a quote from The Handmaid's Tale: "There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia. Freedom to and freedom from. In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from."

These two kinds of freedom are the very two you're asking about. The free market is the ultimate "freedom to" - freedom to compete, freedom to sell at the prices you want, freedom to buy anything you can afford.

Proponents of regulated markets point out that there are important "freedom from"s not covered by a free market: freedom from inequality and injustice, freedom from rent-seeking and predatory pricing, freedom from unsafe products and environmental damage.

Of course, for many things the distinction is arbitrary. What is the "freedom to" compete but the "freedom from" monopolies? How is the "freedom from" unsafe products different from the "freedom to" buy products without being harmed?

As you point out, perhaps it's just a matter of perspective.

[shit_parade2]

Sleight of hand and linguistic gymnastics.

Freedom from inequality comes from freedom to buy and sell goods and labor without* restrictions or borders, inequality is near all time highs because of crony capitalism and corrupt governments.

Edited for clarity

[dylanjermiah]

You're no longer winning in a free market if it isn't free.

[drdeca]

This may be true, but as true is it also that when one has checkmated the opponent's king, one is no longer winning at chess. Instead, one has won at chess. And if play continues, the game is no longer chess. This would not mean though that one has not won at chess.

[dylanjermiah]

I would say it's more like physically hitting the opponents king off the board and claiming you've won at chess.