I think it is because people confuse "free market" with freedom

Never had such experience, at least from second group of people :-)

As for first one I think they confuse it with fairy talks from some books.

Clearly, corporations (which are a-moral by their very nature as imaginary legal entities) need to be governed and regulated intelligently. Healthy competition benefits consumers; unhealthy competition leads to "winner take all" monopolies or cartels that will exploit the situation to the maximum.

Governed by whom exactly and how?

As simple observation shows that all anti monopoly saws and corresponding government bodies sleep like dead. And it is good reason for this.

Okay, I'll jump up on my soap box for a couple of minutes.

I'm just a one-man band creative services guy (video, web, design, etc...) and conservative libertarian who believes the best way to foster economic opportunity and growth is through the capitalist system. That said, I am not naive to the point that I think it's a level playing field in the open market. Favoritism, politics, monopolies, collusion and other factors can make it hard to compete, but I think we wouldn't be discussing the amazing technological developments of the last century were it not for the ability of both the common Joe and large firms to create, innovate and potentially profit.

There are many examples of rags-to-riches stories under capitalism, which all serve to inspire and provide incentive for the little guys like me to push forward and continue to think outside the box. Steve Jobs was dude not unlike many of us who, with a buddy, started building a new kind of computer out of a small garage. Colonel Sanders didn't start KFC until is was an old man, but profited greatly with his vision of a better chicken recipe nonetheless. (Maybe he had to wait for his 11 herbs and spices to ferment, who knows?!?)

I'm not at all convinced that economic policies and directives from any other form of government would result in the same kind of innovation and technological advances. When it exists in its purist form, I believe free market competition provides drive and motivation to create better mousetraps and gives the market choices that otherwise wouldn't exist. I understand the problematic concept of planned obsolescence and holding back innovation for future profits, but it's all part of the competitive risk-taking landscape. (If I'm a large company waiting to launch my new breakthrough camera technology, I run the risk of my competition launching before me.) I also know that there are many examples of unfair trade practices, but that's why laws and the legal process exists. As an aside, it seems clear that much of Blackmagic's strategy is to announce new cameras and technology without any foreseeable release date or production schedule simply to freeze their potential customers from buying competitor's goods today. This, of course, could backfire on them.

There is no perfect economic system, but I believe one where individuals and companies are able to thrive in a more open market environment is the healthiest and provides more creative potential and profitable market opportunities. Regarding protectionism, both individuals and large corporations certainly benefit from patent and trademark protection. It took him a long while, but Robert Kearns was finally awarded many millions of dollars from the auto industry who infringed on his intermittent wiper patents.

It's easy to decry the enormous cash reserves of Apple and Amazon, but it is up to the market to determine whether each company's innovations are worth the price. Evidently they are, at least for the time being.

In 1900, the average life expectancy was something close to 45 years of age. Now it's closer to 80. While there are always exceptions, I would argue that our improved quality of life correlates to advances provided by the free market.

Parenthetically, part of my libertarian philosophical leanings stem from my own personal experiences. In 1969 the government (through eminent domain) confiscated our 200-acre family farm and paid my grandparents "fair market value." In the end, much of this compensation was confiscated by capital gains taxes. As a result, we ended up in a mobile home until my mother died a few years later.

I, too, may die a pauper, but I'd rather be free to explore a variety of market opportunities than be pigeon-holed into a more centrally-planned and rigid economic model that penalizes success, stifles market opportunities and inefficiently redistributes the resources generated through personal risk-taking in a competitive environment. I would take self-sufficiency over government dependency any day of the week.

In 1900, the average life expectancy was something close to 45 years of age. Now it's closer to 80. While there are always exceptions, I would argue that our improved quality of life correlates to advances provided by the free market.

Glad that I sat during reading this :-)

As if you open any professional medicine journal on the subject you will find that it is progress in state medicine and free state sponsored vaccines that made it all work. And communist countries had lead on this and had most progress in life length.

I thank "god" every day that I live north of the USA - where most people are only one bad illness away from bankruptcy due to the "free market" for medical care. If you get bitten by a rattlesnake, you should throw yourself off the nearest cliff to save your family from ruin (estimated cost of a full series of anti-venom $210,000).

I know of a young family with company provided medical insurance. They had a baby. Insurance company said deductible is $2000. Per person. Times THREE! It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

It would also be free in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, UK, most of Europe (all?)

And, in the USA for ex-military and other federal workers. Of course these beneficiaries are highly protective of their privileged health care status, so as long as a political party protects those rights they will vote for just about any clown.

@EspenB

No, free means that society uses existing resources and providing them to members are they are required.

As I live in Norway the general taxation percentage is between 50 and 70 per cent after every tax is paid.

Norway could eliminate all taxes, if not their gaz/oil funds that send to finance prosperity US and EU.

So you live in simple exhibition like colony, with lot of resources (that come slowly to an end).

@Vitaliy_Kiselev

The nowegian gaz/oil funds are all needed to pay for the future pensions for people employed by the governement.