Nothing about a free market requires all power dynamics to be equal among all participants - that would be impossible without regulation, and a free market must by definition be free of any regulatory influence.
Even fervent laissez-faire economists admit the necessity of appropriate regulations: contract enforcement rules, avoidance of monopolies, a system of law and order for handling disputes, etc.
A free market is defined as an exchange where both sides have access to the same information.
That is completely false. Asymmetric information and imperfect information are expected with free markets.
The price of gathering information is very well studied.
Its free as in freedom; to do anything. You are free to ask anyone about anything anytime.
You can do anything except be physical aggresive (like states).
> Even fervent laissez-faire economists admit the necessity of appropriate regulations: contract enforcement rules, avoidance of monopolies, a system of law and order for handling disputes, etc.
All of these has free market solutions.
All of these peope you speak of are not free market supporters. They are statists.
The free market is a great tool, but no tool is universal.
Why are we more concerned that we stick to an ideology - it's treated as a fundamentalist religion, treated as the solution to every problem and something with which any disagreement or deviation must be shot down - and not the people who are rich or poor, safe or suffering, educated or not, healthy or not, etc.
> Why are we more concerned that we stick to an ideology - it's treated as a fundamentalist religion, treated as the solution to every problem and something with which any disagreement or deviation must be shot down - and not the people who are rich or poor, safe or suffering, educated or not, healthy or not, etc.
You are imagining. I am claiming no such things.
I disagree - it's where neither party is using force or fraud.