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

some will...

you're trying to generalise a subjective opinion into the market principle

as a means for testing it's value

is the government going to make better decisions on behalf of the people

markets bad, reintroduce palace economy

the government has no decision to make

the principle there is that since it's the people making that choice it should follow that

either people make the choice or government does

people delegate with their votes, now the mechanism and the operation is a different issue

really... so if the government says "we will not restrict your speech" .. thats the government telling you what to say?

if the government says we will not restrict your speech what do you think that means

if the gov says "we will protect your right to say whatever you want" .. thats the government making the decision on the words that will come out of your mouth?

do you want the right to say whatever you want?

the government doesnt make the decision... its making sure you can make it

The goverment provides the protection and the legislation for you to be able to do that

in theory at least

its not going to protect you when your speech gets you punched but it gives you the means to use your rights as is legislated to get the compensation in whatever form is provided

I think people are sometimes stupid but we should be free to make stupid choices, there's no such thing as benevolent tyranny

well technically there are other laws that are supposed to protect you from getting punched...

Good

depends how your stupid choices affect other people... like... people shouldnt be able to throw a bucket of tacs over a motorway

Yeah that'd be pretty fucking annoying

but thank god for governments

oh.. turkey announced ceasefire after erdogans visit with putin