Consumers have total control over what market players do, and the public has total control over whether market players generate any negative externalities, as i

Consumers have total control over what market players do, and the public has total control over whether market players generate any negative externalities, as it constructs the law enforcement and judicial system. A once-in-every-four-year election, involving millions of poorly informed and easily manipulated voters, provides far less accountability than individuals making decisions every day on how efficiently their dollars/euros are being spent. As for wealthy interests, whether it's billionaires, or massive blocs of highly paid unionized civil servants, where do you think the malevolent ones can do more damage: in a rules-based free market, where consumers control their own money, or in a government controlled market where controlling the consumer is only a matter of gaining political clout and dictating to private citizens how their wealth will be spent? In a rules-based free market, it's irrelevant that Apple is worth $1.5 trillion. It can't force me to buy Apple products. Once the free-market ruleset is undermined, then Apple can, through taxing authorities and regulatory gatekeepers and the armed government agents that enforce their taxes and restrictions, force me to buy its products. The free market ruleset protects our most basic rights, and is the most important institution for protecting the weak from the strong. That you believe otherwise is a deliberate outcome by those who want to abolish those safeguards.