Broadly speaking yes.

what about in degrees

An unsafe product would be analogous to a persons speech preventing another person from from exercising their free speech.

this assuming in a case where there's regulations and protections in place

because an unsafe product would be deemed unsafe for failing particular standards

enforced by external agencies

@system11 That's untrue you need to look how law makers and regulators work with establishment business work hand in hand.

Yes but the agency would have oversight from government, and government is elected by the people, who broadly speaking are the market.

same in the case for someones speech too

This Regulationism is Neo Liberal/Neo Con nonsense.

if it wasnt for regulation... we would all be using internet explorer right now

Better than Google tbh

Um no not really Orionstar. It's a concept that has existed for thousands of years. It has emerged in almost every politically and technologically advanced society.

depends on if they bothered to improve it since ie5

You need to look into the regulation and government subsidies that made that corporation that powerful in the first place.

Hmm interesting isn't it, for free markets to exist there needs to be a regulations in place, but whats the point when corporations can dictate to have it benefit them.

Human error and corruption affects everything orionstar, you need to look at the principle in its entirety not just focus on the worst aspects of it.

it needs protective regulation... like the constitution

the principle doesn't matter because its operated upon by people who're prone to like you say human error and corruption

we're talking about regulation to protect a free and open market

thats all thats needed

Yes the same regulations that corporations benefit from for their advantage right? Cos we do have anti trust laws

and yet they exist

how could you benefit from a regulation that keeps a free market (i/e just makes sure that consumers can always have the freedom to choose)

depends on how you define that regulation

because that will define the freedom of the market

My point is corruption and human error would equally affect a market with no regulation so it's not a valid criticism.

Im saying the free market should have regulations to protect it and youre saying it might benefit big corps... well .. if their product is good it will....
its like me saying "we should have laws to protect free speech" .. and youre saying, but what if they make a law to restrict speech...??

so regulation or not, corruption will exist and find a way.

so if their products is good and they become larger, they will hinder the principles of free markets by killing competition

More importantly it's far easier to exploit a market with no regs. How would you solve problem like a cabal of energy companies charging extortionate prices, whilst they are also buying up all their prospective competitors without regulation, or would we all simply be expected to have to pay insanely high prices for gas water and electricity?

no they wont fault... as long as the customers can still find other products just as easy

and if they don't or wont want to

if their product is bad, then yeah.. it will be clear

if businesses are hindering access, then it wont be clear

no im saying they don't want any other products and are happy with it despite it killing competition

so in an unregulated market, bad products will stay around longer, because they think their product is good, but its just not getting access to people to test it.

so your basis for the principle here is that as long as it's tested by other people it clears the definiton for the free market principle

in a free market they will know that consumers have made an informed decision to go with another company

why do you think people would make informed choices?

some people just buy products because of the packaging