Alright, but let's think about the example that started this. So, we have these RAM manufacturers doing (or alleged to be doing) price fixing. Now, price fixing is considered to be antithetical to a free market system due to subverting both competition and supply and demand.
So let's say we have regulation meant to combat price fixing or perhaps a judgement from a court of law against parties engaging in price fixing, like what happened with DRAM manufacturers 20-ish years beforehand. Well, by the logic you presented, those are also detrimental to a free market. However this leads to a contradiction, as both regulating and not regulating is a detrimental choice. Either you don't regulate, in which case price fixing -- and also we of course have to take into account that a similar argument argument against regulations also works for (unregulated) monopolies, monopsonies, and other sundry cartel actions -- will negatively undermine the free market. On the other hand, regulating price fixing, monopolies, monopsonies etc. will also negatively undermine the free market.
So, we have a logical inconsistency here as presented. So we realistically have three possibilities:
a) the free market itself is logically contradictory. I mean, many socialists in particular have argued for this position, but I at least don't find this consequent very attractive. It _could_ be true, but let's look at the other two.
b) that price fixing is not detrimental to the free market. Well mayhaps, but that really doesn't seem to correspond to the consensus around price fixing and other similar anticompetitive practices. And as said, the same argument could be made for monopolies and such, so you'd basically have to argue that none of them are detrimental to the market either.
c) that regulation isn't necessarily detrimental to the free market. You kinda already conceded this point, as you said
> Sometimes there is an argument that conditions do not favor a free market and regulation is required to fix that defect, but that's rather situational.
And if we assume this, then the question is no longer whether regulation is always bad for the market, but where the line is between regulation that is bad for the market and which is either neutral or positive for the market. But then the words no longer mean what they should mean by surface analysis, and that's a travesty!
So where does that leave us? Well, for myself the answer seems obviously to be that regulation can be non-detrimental to the free market, etymology be damned! And so in this case, at least from where I'm sitting, a free market advocate should be for legislation against price fixing. But they might think differently, in which case they should justify their views.
So let's say we have regulation meant to combat price fixing or perhaps a judgement from a court of law against parties engaging in price fixing, like what happened with DRAM manufacturers 20-ish years beforehand. Well, by the logic you presented, those are also detrimental to a free market. However this leads to a contradiction, as both regulating and not regulating is a detrimental choice. Either you don't regulate, in which case price fixing -- and also we of course have to take into account that a similar argument argument against regulations also works for (unregulated) monopolies, monopsonies, and other sundry cartel actions -- will negatively undermine the free market. On the other hand, regulating price fixing, monopolies, monopsonies etc. will also negatively undermine the free market.
So, we have a logical inconsistency here as presented. So we realistically have three possibilities:
a) the free market itself is logically contradictory. I mean, many socialists in particular have argued for this position, but I at least don't find this consequent very attractive. It _could_ be true, but let's look at the other two.
b) that price fixing is not detrimental to the free market. Well mayhaps, but that really doesn't seem to correspond to the consensus around price fixing and other similar anticompetitive practices. And as said, the same argument could be made for monopolies and such, so you'd basically have to argue that none of them are detrimental to the market either.
c) that regulation isn't necessarily detrimental to the free market. You kinda already conceded this point, as you said
> Sometimes there is an argument that conditions do not favor a free market and regulation is required to fix that defect, but that's rather situational.
And if we assume this, then the question is no longer whether regulation is always bad for the market, but where the line is between regulation that is bad for the market and which is either neutral or positive for the market. But then the words no longer mean what they should mean by surface analysis, and that's a travesty!
So where does that leave us? Well, for myself the answer seems obviously to be that regulation can be non-detrimental to the free market, etymology be damned! And so in this case, at least from where I'm sitting, a free market advocate should be for legislation against price fixing. But they might think differently, in which case they should justify their views.