> "a free market", by the definition of "no or minimal regulations" There is no such thing. A free market is a market in which all transactions are voluntary.

> "a free market", by the definition of "no or minimal regulations" There is no such thing. A free market is a market in which all transactions are voluntary. That means the market is regulated by the voluntary choices of all of its participants. And since people won't voluntarily choose to make a trade that doesn't benefit them, a free market will be dominated by win-win, positive sum trades. That's how wealth is created. It's true that a market can also be regulated by a government. Any such regulation will either force people to make trades they wouldn't otherwise choose to make--which means they are worse off--or will prevent people from making trades they otherwise would choose to make--which means they are worse off. > far too many self-proclaimed libertarians think that any regulations that "encumber" the market take it farther away from being "free" No, libertarians think that regulations that come from anything other than the voluntary choices of market participants make us worse off. The logic is simple: I just gave it above. > there are regulations that help and regulations that harm Please give a specific example of a government regulation that has helped, as compared with a free market regulated by the voluntary choices of all of its participants.