Wow... you are being dense.
I was not even arguing with you. I told you it depends on your definition of the idea of "free market".
Lets take it up a notch...
https://www.britannica.com/topic/free-market
Free market
ECONOMICS
WRITTEN BY:
See Article History
Free market, an unregulated system of economic exchange, in which
taxes, quality controls, quotas,
tariffs, and other forms of centralized economic interventions by government either do not exist or are minimal. As the free market represents a
benchmark that does not actually exist, modern societies can only approach or approximate this ideal of efficient resource allocation and can be described along a spectrum ranging from low to high amounts of
regulation.
free-market economics: Smith, Adam; Hayek, F.A.Learn about free-market economics, as advocated in the 18th century by Adam Smith (with his “invisible hand” metaphor) and in the 20th century by F.A. Hayek.© Open University
Many economists consider resource allocation in a free market to be
Pareto-efficient, where no one can be made better off without making other individuals worse off, given certain conditions (like the absence of externalities or informational asymmetries, among others). Moreover, according to this theory, through the invisible-hand mechanism of self-regulating behaviour, society benefits by having self-interested actors make free economic decisions that benefit them. Some ethicists have argued that the
efficiency of free markets depends on several
moral parameters as scope conditions, such as
fair play,
prudence, self-restraint, competition among equal parties, and cooperation.
Critics of the free market system tend to argue that certain market failures require government intervention. First, prices may not fully reflect the costs or benefits of certain goods or services, especially costs to the
environment.
Public goods are often underinvested or exploited to the detriment of others or future generations, unless such exploitation is prohibited through government regulation. Second, a free market may tempt competitors to
collude, which makes
antitrust legislation necessary. Antitrust and similar regulations are especially necessary in cases where certain market actors, such as companies, have acquired enormous market power. Third,
transaction costsmay mean that some exchanges are best performed in a
hierarchy rather than spot markets. Most importantly, Pareto-optimal resource allocation in a free market may violate principles of distributive
justice and fairness and may thus necessitate some government action.
In response to these
critiques, economists
Ronald Coase,
Milton Friedman,
Ludwig von Mises, and
Friedrich A. Hayek, among others, have argued for the robustness of markets because they can adjust to or internalize supposed
market failures in many situations. For instance, many goods traditionally conceptualized as public goods requiring government provision have been shown to be open to free market contracting.
Libertarians are strong defenders of the idea that a system of free markets provides the best
economic system.
Please stop with the farting unicorns. How do you prevent monopolies and blatant price collusion without government intervention? How can you call a market truly free if the safeguard is in place by virtue of government intervention?
Please stop trying so hard to be daft. You're a natural.
But on to other business: How do you define unrestricted competition?
