Insider trading, however, is anti-free market, because you're relying on an information disparity to gain an advantage.
In fact, it's required for any market to exist in the first place. Without regulation the concept of ownership goes out the window. "Free markets" would look like anarchy... and exactly as you lay out in the river analogy it would be utter chaos with everyone acting in their best interest like "damn the consequences!" - it's human nature.
Sorry if I'm coming off as abrupt here - I'm aggressively agreeing and building on your point... IMO the markets require regulation when all is said and done. People who point to a "free market" often do so to shield themselves from the same regulations/rules that are designed to keep the markets afloat just like Pelosi has done here. It's gotten to the point that the words "free market" are almost always a sign of a bad faith argument.
Nah - IMO you made a super strong point which is why I wanted to respond with my thoughts. I was just trying to explain why I was being pedantic pulling some of the words apart with my "sorry for abrupt/aggressively agreeing" comment =)
Cheers!
Free market is like the shroudinger's cat, everyone has a different idea of where it is. In the other thread people were claiming that having a central bank is anti-free-market, but it's unclear how interest rate should be set and money supply be created and regulated.
Insider trading is when you steal the information from someone else (often your employer) to make those trades - misappropriating value for yourself that does not belong to you.