> Replace "free market" with "competitive market"—what most people actually want when they talk about free markets

I wish this was recognized more widely. I feel like the public versus private thing is kind of a red herring; the real issue is competition and cultivating it. Sometimes this means the public intervening in various ways (to support individuals in their skill development and ability to take risks, or break up monopolies, offer a competitive alternative in a public service, etc.) and sometimes it means the public stepping out (as when public regulations stifle true competition or a public service exerts too much control over pricing and services).

The problem with competitive market ideals is that money is a positive feedback loop. The more money you have, the more you set the rules, the more money you get, ad finitum until eventual money singularity.

Capitalism is useful, like fire is useful. You just need to be careful to keep your fire under control and doing useful things.

Yes and part of it being a _free_ market is that you don't have to trade with these people.

I also note that the examples of regulations you give are all regularly agreed upon voluntarily without some higher (i.e. state) power telling them to.

Financial markets have conventions, for example, because they're useful, not just because some lawyer in an agency says jump.

Yes, everyone has their own agenda. The idea of the thing is pretty straightforward though; Companies succeed or fail on the merits of their product. The government shouldn't seek to give undue advantage except insofar as to incentivize things we as a society care about (eg. carbon taxes). Prices are the arbiter of resource allocation, and should almost never be controlled or subsidised.

That people seek to use an idea to garner support for their agenda without embodying that idea is nothing new. Just see current American politics.