[Accecyncphory]

I understand your argument ... on one level it makes sense but from an overall perspective I do not agree.

One flaw of the Capitalist/Laisse Faire model is that while it provides for it 5 conditions tot be met (lack of collusion among these) for a free market to exist, it does not provide a governance mechanism to police these conditions. Most economists rationalize this by pointing out that Capitalism is a model, and social, political and economic models never exist in ther purest forms in the real world. And here is where we can have the debate. There is no dobut that there needs to be a governance process to protect market place rules and to ensure a fair playing field. People like me will suggest that that is where government needs to step in, i.e. to ensure the basic fundamental assumptions of a capitalist market are adhered to.

To illustrate this, without governance, how would we protect the public from collusion amongst healthcare providers who hypothetically move to discontinue care for cancer treatment or to raise prices to exorbitant levels. BEFORE EVERYONE GOES NUTS, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS LEGISLATION ALLOWS THAT. I am merely pointing out that governance is required to assure free-market principles and price equilibruim dynamics are adhered to and to protect consumers from supply-side collusion and predatory practices

So I understand your point, and I think it is well thought out, but I do not agree that a free market naturally implies an absence of regulation.