When we use terms like “human rights” we get things like, right to health care, right to a minimum wage, right to safe spaces, right to not be offended...
None of these are “individual rights.”

They uphold the laws, which are increasingly collectivist. It seems to me that courts are NOT my friend in the USA now.

Labels. Explain in detail "collectivist utilitarianism." Without some guidelines, bribery, establishing monopolies and trusts, shutting out new entrepreneurs to the detriment of real competition, and you're OK with that?

They typically do uphold human rights. They often have a big problem with individual rights. Human rights are much more progressively fluid.

Not what I said, on both your points in the first sentence. Strawman argument.

It would be nice if the courts actually uphelld human rights. They go along with the “rules” set forth by collectivists in this country, so they have become my enemy in many ways

The government requires being limited to the protection of the rights of the individual under objective law. Courts interpret and enforce the law defining rights. They cannot operate subjectively in a vacuum.

Private property is not "monopoly" and must not be banned. They are different concepts. You own your own home; you don't "monopolize" it. A dominant market share cannot be maintained without force. No one can prevent competing activity without force.

I like the idea of a black market actually. The need for a free market (black market) is rooted in rules which people dont like.

I dont agree in principle that force is required to maintain a monopoly. I think it can be maintained IF all the possible preferences of the customers are provided for. Its VERY expensive to do that of course, which is why is hardly ever occurs. But, it CAN be done through very hard work !!

It is VERY difficult to maintain a Monopoly, especially in a market populated by consumers who have different tastes. Over time, the market is fragmented by groups of consumers who want different things. A monopoly would have to offer all the options in order to keep competition out, and that is difficult. My little company has this problem. We used to make one 6 foot led lighted whip for off road use, but now we offer 2,3,4,5,6 and 8 foot lighted whips in three different brightnesses for example. Business is split up among the offerings by the preference of the customers.

Look at Mc Donalds- in the beginning it was cheeseburgers, fries, and shakes. Now, check out their menu, and in spite of that Burger King, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, Taco Bell, Del Taco, etc., etc.

And None of them have a monopoly

Absolutely !! I am the customer from HELL, and simply walk away from companies that dont offer what I am looking for.

government has no competition and is therefore a very poor regulator. Consumer protection through competition is our best defense against unscrupulous trading.

Would not the courts be sufficiently effective at settling disputes as to the rights of seller or buyer in the event of a trade. What else is there requiring "limiting"

Regulation by anything other than the free will decision making by the customers just doesnt work. It would require someone or group to "decide" what was OK and what wasnt. But, there is nothing that would correct any mistakes or hidden agendas they had.

If I dont like what facebook does, which I dont, I can just abstain from using it. Same with TV and news media. I do this all the time. I am the customer from HELL, who makes up his own mind (for better or worse). If everyone else did that, the marketplace would serve the people better.

There are natural rules that govern a free market. If you violate them, they will enforce themselves.

Absolutely! A much freer one.

“A monopoly cannot be maintained without force.”
Sometimes something comes to market that is unique. That business may start out as a monopoly. A monopoly that could be maintained as long as the completion can not duplicate a similar product at a similar value.
No force needed during this stage.

but we can have a freer one than we have now....

and then a freer one...and then a freer one.....

No one can prevent competing activity without force.

Collectivist utilitarianism is not the moral standard and is ultimately incoherent. Protection of the rights of the individual and private property rights are "rules the same for everyone". No government coercion in the name of creating a so-called ideal market is justified.

It depends on the market. People aren't always secure in holding market share, and if a big company guarantees not to shut out a smaller one if it agrees to price fixing, inventory control, or some other market control strategy, there's a danger in breaking away. There's a dark side to competition, and it isn't frequently in favor of an honest operator or the consumer.

Seems the only "rule" required would be the given that your rights end where mine begin.

A free market like a free anything creates its own laws that are unbreakable because otherwise, they don't work. Take supply and demand. You can try to cheat it all you want, but it won't do you an iota of good. The problem is humans need to give up being greedy and using coercion. If the use of force was wiped out of human culture there'd be no need for books of laws and their use. Unfortunately, we haven't advanced that far.-- yet.

So you think free markets should have some anti-trust rules. Do you think that three or more separate companies can continue to act as one, and that one of them will not break away and do what is best for its own self interest?