Which will make it non free. Free market requires mechanisms of preventing monopolies by its definition.
According to wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
"... are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."
The government is supposed to step in to block monopolies from controlling the market, but that implies that the government is intervening in the market. All I was pointing out is that there is no perfect system where politics, monopolies and private interests won't compete to control the market.
That's up to the society which wants to have a free market. For instance, anti-trust laws is one way of doing it.
> The government is supposed to step in to block monopolies from controlling the market, but that implies that the government is intervening in the market.
Someone should to step in here, whether it's government or not, is another question. But clearly, if market has no way of preventing a monopoly, it's not really free.
Actually, it is the central question, because without a feasible answer all you have is a fine-sounding principle that is utterly infeasible.
We do not live in a free society, we are not free to do whatever we want; for example, I don't think anyone says we should be 'free' to murder anyone we want.
I think the GP is more accurate with fair. I'd actually say, it's a guaranteed to be 'open market' we want; meaning everyone must play by the same rules. Of course the challenge is that whoever sets the rules, will end up protecting their own interests, and then we end up where we are anyway. Maybe we can turn to AI to be absolutely fair in creating rules to establish open markets... and then AI becomes the pure benevolent dictator, except for that pesky off by one error I left lurking in the code :/