That’s what I thought you meant, and I think that’s a mischaracterisation of the group in question and of those more generally who say they’re advocates of free markets. Are any of them not against slavery on the basis it’s unfree? (based on your definition)

Small or limited government is usually the given position, vague as that may be, not zero government.

It's not a mischaracterization. Free market proponents believe that markets will reach an equilibrium on their own if left alone, and they believe that monopolies are caused by regulation (regulatory capture). This line of thinking is often (but not always) rooted in the Austrian school of economics.

If someone is telling you that they support free markets and they also support government regulation, they don't understand what they're saying.

Then you're arguing against your original point because they don't support free markets, they just think they do.

For example, Paul Joseph Watson in this tweet[1] says he's for free markets, limited government, and against monopolies. I'm pretty sure a quick search will show similar results for the others.

[1] https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/1012108095286317058

>Then you're arguing against your original point because they don't support free markets, they just think they do.

That doesn't contradict my original point.

>says he's for free markets, limited government, and against monopolies.

Yes, free market advocates are against monopolies, but believe that they're caused by government regulation. Moreover, when libertarians and free market advocates support limited government, they typically mean a government which only provides a few very basic services, such as military, police, etc. It has nothing to do with regulation.

> free market advocates are against monopolies, but believe that they're caused by government regulation

These free market advocates don't believe that, clearly. I'm wondering why you get to draw these lines rather than the people themselves.

Replying here one last time due to max comment depth.

>I'm wondering why you get to draw these lines rather than the people themselves.

Yes, let's both agree to follow the guidelines and not be snarky.

You made a comment about my character/emotional/mental state (if you're offended), I asked what makes you the authority on a matter of fact.

Yours was snarky because it's personal, mine's a rebuttal in the form of a question. Quite different.

I believe it's best if we leave it there but feel free to respond, I will read it.

You are free to define yourself however you wish. You can call yourself a pro-free-market, anarcho-capitalist who believes in regulation and a strong communist government. You can mix up and confuse definitions all you want. That has no bearing on the validity of my point. Alex Jones is someone who rails against government interference in markets, and he is the type whom I'm referring to. Now people complain that he's being treated unjustly, when it's really just market forces that have dictated his fate. That is a specific example of what I'm saying.

If you're offended by my standard usage of the term "free market", then you can change my statement to "People who oppose government intervention..." I'm not interested in what you think the term "free market" means, because it's entirely irrelevant to my point.

> If you're offended by…

Please keep in mind the guidelines[1].

> Don't be snarky.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html