The libertarian argument for free market isn't that all information is available. And their argument against cartels forming definitely isn't that secret contracts are necessary to defeat them.
I think you've read things a bit too hastily. I never said my example of inconsistent views came specifically or only from libertarians. (Or even the much larger group of people self-identifying that way.) The larger political group of "free-market cheerleaders" would be sufficient.
> [To #1] argument for free market isn't that all information is available.
That's not what I said. The selling-point is economic efficiency. Perfect-information is typically a required precondition within the models.
My complaint involves people who strut around boasting that they'll help usher in the conclusion while actually picking policies that sabotage the original requirement.
> [To #2] argument against cartels forming definitely isn't that secret contracts are necessary to defeat them.
"An effective-enough consideration that I can dismiss your worries about cartels as foolish" != "Absolutely necessary to end cartels"
No. That is what I was calling you out for. Perfect information is not a precondition. No libertarian I ever heard of not any economist ever argued that.
While I can't say it's the same individual people contradicting themselves, I've noticed a very similar conflict arising between:
1. "In the awesome free market, all deals and pricing information is public, making it extraordinarily efficient."
2. "In the awesome free market, everyone has the freedom to make secret contracts with hidden prices, which destabilizes cartels and makes them a non-problem."
Each boast involves a directly incompatible vision about what the "free market" actually means, yet proponents of either kind of free-ness go suspiciously silent when the other ones are talking.