> A government that has been purchased by banks, insurance companies, drug companies, and defense companies cannot act in the market fairly and therefore should

> A government that has been purchased by banks, insurance companies, drug companies, and defense companies cannot act in the market fairly and therefore should not act at all. Yeah but this is a problem in any system except anarcho-capitalism, which Milton Friedman did not believe in like most functioning adults. The point is precisely that Friedman is such a small-government proponent, much more in fact than the neocons who touted his rhetoric, and despite that he still didn’t think you could get a stable system without government intervention solely to make the markets freer. AFAIK he’s spent a great deal of time on market failures, which he knew were very real. A real world example would be the EU which in many respects is substantially more free market in practice than the US corporatocracy. Despite all the shit it gets (some well-deserved), they do actually enforce their rules predictably, and companies just align and move on with their day. Of course, it depends on how you define freedom, but the point with a free market is competition – that everyone can play, higher connectivity and strong signaling mechanisms, price transparency you get outrageous efficiency. In many EU markets, you have a ridiculous amount of consumer choice and real competition. For instance telecom used to be quite garbage and now it’s light years ahead of the us, no matter if you go with low cost or premium offerings.