>>23
The problem with a "true free market" is that, by its nature, it won't stay such for long. Crushing competition and dominating the market will always be a logical course of action.
Just because there are good firms doesn't make the market any less "free". Todays system makes is HARDER for new firms to compete because they are forced to have a great sum of money to pay off to even get that firm off the ground( more-so than in a true free market).
People can already decide whether or not a company succeeds. Refusing to buy a product or from a company is already a possibility that many people ignore. The average consumer will continue to purchase even from "unfaithful" companies because they want the product they're producing. You vastly underestimate the apathy and ignorance of the majority of consumers. They simply don't care. None of this will change in a "true free market" system and may actually get worse because when you combine the apathy and ignorance with the inevitable business goal of market domination, you get a bunch of people that want something with only one place to get it and who are too short-sighted to pay more in the short run so that a competitor can arise. This gives the dominating company many options for exploiting the consumer.
Basing your conclusions on an assertion that people will be ignorant is ignorant in itself. How much you want to bet that McDonald's lost A TON of business after that whole "health" fiasco? I know in truth the whole thing was mostly a smear campaign but still the rep lost from MCds cost them dearly, if they weren't as big as they were and wouldn't have had ties to the government then they would have probably gone under...
I think you severely underestimate the consumer and think each one is a dumb idiot who cant make their own fucking choice in life and that you should be there to tell him otherwise.
The money from today would not be regarded as valuable in theory for the free market so the "already rich" firms would have to build their wealth again.
And why do you suppose it would be any different in your scenario? Nothing would stop them from throwing money around until whatever they want has been gotten. Yeah, it would go against the spirit of the true free market, so what? Things like that happen already and hardly anyone is lifting a finger to stop it.
It probably wont be but at least it doesn't swell their power and make it harder for others to compete with them.