First, just to make sure we are on the same page, I am not some kind of free market radical, and I was not arguing for free markets, only arguing the definition.
> Youu believe that a Free Market can exist when buyers don't have access to information and amidst is rampant fraud and violence?
Existence? Sure. The only thing I was pointing at here is your very non-standard definition of a free market.
For the fraud and violence, your original statement was "no fraud", not "rampant fraud". I think you would agree that there are very few markets without any fraud, no?
Such a strong claim definitely requires proof.
To get back to your original claim about free information, I think some amount of regulation would be required for information to be freely availble.
Otherwise, why should someone give away their competitive edge (ie. the information), without any gain? Would be interesting to hear you take on that.
> Youu believe that a Free Market can exist when buyers don't have access to information and amidst is rampant fraud and violence?
Existence? Sure. The only thing I was pointing at here is your very non-standard definition of a free market.
For the fraud and violence, your original statement was "no fraud", not "rampant fraud". I think you would agree that there are very few markets without any fraud, no? Such a strong claim definitely requires proof.
To get back to your original claim about free information, I think some amount of regulation would be required for information to be freely availble. Otherwise, why should someone give away their competitive edge (ie. the information), without any gain? Would be interesting to hear you take on that.