"Free Market"

Lawyers have been, and always will be, the quickest and most efficient way to regulate the free market.

All government needs to do is supply courtrooms and enforce the laws on the books regarding contracts and liability.

 "Lawyers have been, and always will be, the quickest and most efficient way to regulate the free market."

That  a true statement...  Can't actually argue that...

Lawyers and judges are essentially to up hold the rules of the law. And more specifically what you just mentioned 

contracts and liability are essentially the most important factor to regulate the so called "Free Market".

free market = might is right

good luck

More importantly, Lawyers eliminate power abuses and the typical "might is right" crap you see in Eurotrash nations.

I like what you're saying in general, government bad, banks bad.

But how do you propose we protect the hard-working-self-made-rugged-individualist-entrepreneur?

Like in the classic 1971 movie "McCabe and Mrs. Miller"?

That's very true, which is why a constitutional right granting the freedom to associate without government restrictions is vital.

Taxes are fine. Free trade works as long as the taxes are fair, like sales tax. 

What are your preferred parameters for "free trade" and what enforcement mechanisms do you imagine would be ideal?

The existing parameters in the USA are fine. The only part that needs repealing is the Commerce Clause in the Constitution and have it rewritten as it was intended to prevent states from imposing state tariffs and state restrictions on interstate trade.

Spiritual{ morals }, State{ regulation }, Free Market{ rape and pillage Earth }.

1} Spiritual { morals } recognizses we live on a finite planet with a finite set of resources and that if we donot  respect planets ecological systems, we all perish in our toxic waste and wasted resources.

2} State { regulations aka governor } recognizes spirit-of-need for reasonable standard-of-living and  spirit-of-freedom as the initiative-the-individual,

3} Free Market { rape and pillage of Earth } initiative of the individual with no morals  and unregulated.

Trump stated to colleges students, if you see a concrete wal in front of  you to go over or around it.

Drug cartels { dark-free-market } individual-initiative choose digging tunnels under the concrete wall, under USA highways, railroad tracks, airports etc to be the best approach.

The problem is Capitalism, not 'the free market' (really, just 'markets').

Most of the smoke and mirrors happens because of a muddying of the definitions during the Cold War. The reason that people are against capitalism on a visceral level is because the term capitalism was historically coined to describe the conditions during the onset of the industrial revolution in many English-speaking countries, whereby the control of capital accumulated into a few hands. The huge influence that these people then wielded was used to corrupt every facet of society and cripple the majority of the people living in the country (who had recently been evicted from their families land after the Reformation caused the collapse of feudalism). Markets, of course, had existed for centuries in some form or another, and not many people have a principled loathing for them. But they existed in a context of ownership/access which made the market work for the common welfare of most people. Under the feudal system, a family didn't own their land, but they could not be evicted from it either, it was guaranteed to remain in the family. This system was backed up by the church, who also stymied the formation of large, centralized banking institutions by heavily penalizing usury. Then a lot of stuff happened involving mercenary companies, bankers, and standing armies, and a few ambitious princes took advantage of potential reformers in the Church to break away from the rest of Europe.

Immediately, they started breaking all of the 'rules' that the church had established. Banking exploded, and a process known as 'enclosure' started in Britain. The feudal lords who had supported Henry were rewarded by huge swathes of formerly monastic land. This immediately gave them a huge jump ahead in power, and they realized that they could earn a lot more money on 'their' land if, instead of having peasants pay them a portion of their produce in rent, they just combined all the land and farmed it as a business. The problem is that under feudalism, it wasn't 'their' land in the capitalist sense but in the feudal sense. Often, generations and generations of men had made improvements to that land because the system under which they lived guaranteed that their ancestors would have their lives improved through access to those improvements. If you ever see the jaw-dropping display of a sweeping hillside vineyard terraced in stone when travelling through Europe, that is the system under which such improvements developed, slowly, generation by generation. So what the Lords of England did was basically tell the peasants 'this is our land now, get off' and combined it into the English 'manor house' system.

The same newly rich men often began to take advantage of technological advancements. Contrary to how history books would summarize it, most of the technological developments which lead to advancements in productivity predated industrialism as a system. This newly minted powerful and rich clique had two conditions at play: new advances in machinery, and a newly homeless mass of people desperate for any means to survive. So they founded the first big businesses, and exploited the former peasants whom they had essentially robbed of their land. This is what originally drove urbanization, and the squalor and horror which accompanied it in Dickensian Britain. When you read the anti-Capitalist writers from the following century, the most popular and effective ones are not anti-market or anti-property. In fact, the equation of 'Capitalism' to 'markets' would seem utterly unintelligible to them; that redefining of the word took place in the context of the Cold War and makes sense in no other context, including our current age. They supported the extension of property to the men who had been robbed of it en masse. Their question was 'why is it okay for the rich to declare land which we lived on, which we improved, which we cared for for centuries? If we are suddenly to end feudalism and have property, why does all of the property start off in one man's hand?'

These people made a good point. Under feudalism, there was no proletariat class. The land was the means of production, and it was widely distributed in a way which gave every man access to the means for his survival. The proletariat class came into place through massive, inherently violent dispossession which has never been rectified. The creation of this class created the preconditions for the rise of socialist and communist movements. Any modern defender of Capitalism who refuses to see this root problem as a problem will never change society for the better. His every argument in favor of markets will just be kindling piled on his own pyre. What he says about big business corrupting regulatory agencies is very true. What he says about the disasters brought about by demand economies is very true. The arguments that he makes about collusion and monopoly are very true. But just adopting 'the free market' will not fix the economic structural problems that exist. At this point, with the means of production concentrated in a few powerful individual hands, allowing 'the market to take its course' would likely lead to a full-on communist revolt. A market only functions as a market when people can play on an equal playing field. That means a redistribution of land. It means that corporations do not exist. It means an equal access to existing intellectual capital (in the medieval system this was managed through a guild system which adopted apprentices to train). Because, ultimately, the class struggle doesn't result from socialist propaganda, or 'evil', or envy, it results from the existence of a proletariat class. The only way to end socialism is to end the proletariat class, and the only way to defend property is to make sure that every person has access to it. If those conditions were in place, no sane person would object to the market, and the insane persons who did would not be listened to.