Mankind has been trading for all of its existence...long before "government" stepped in. This just shows that it doesn't require a government to ensure fair trading between honest people.

And Black markets thrive because.... there is a market for those goods and services, without the rules attached.

A free market with rules...is not a free market. The only place for rules is to protect life and property from crime, fraud and the breaking of contracts

Privately owning nukes being illegal is simply part of protecting rights (same would apply to biologic or chemical weapons). These things have no role for the individual like self defense (as a firearm does).

An "efficient free flow" of goods and services is one that creates the best opportunity for the individual seller and consumer. The rules are the same for everyone, so talent, creativity, and an understanding of the market are the elements of success.

It isn't necessary to use force to create and maintain a monopoly. Control of intellectual property can make it difficult for a competitor. Buying out potential competitors (Microsoft method) creates a very strong hold on a market that can be difficult to break.

Trusts can create an "impenetrable" market. The big three auto manufacturers collectively bought all the excess steel to attempt to prevent new competition. They hadn't counted on Henry J. Kaiser, who built his own steel mill to produce the Kaiser and Fraser autos. However, unless a similarly wealthy individual or corporation can fight a trust, it pretty well closes out competition. No force required.

What is the difference between the black market and the free market?
Black markets just circumvent the rules which make any market un-free.

Still falls under the category of protecting our rights.

anyone owning slaves is NOT an example of free market

So there are rules, and traders respecting individual rights is one of them. I agree, but also add that one of the other proper roles of government is to prevent people, both foreign and domestic, from seriously endangering a nation. So something like a suitcase nuke would not be generally allowed for trade

You are making an error here. "Free Market" does not mean no 'rules". but the only "rules" needed are those to protect individual rights. Thus, no trader can be allowed to infringe on the rights of others. Every trade becomes a win/win.
Governments role is to protect our rights.

I disagree with the first sentence only.

Please don't lecture us on "if you are interested in learning more about human nature" with vague "studies have been done". We know what human nature is and it does not include innate ideas. We are not "wired" to behave. Behavior depends on the ideas that people hold, not "genetic inheritance" or "cultural conditions" determining thought and action. A code of morality is required to guide our choices and actions; political philosophy is required to identify and define the proper role of government. The importance of ideas and the choice to think are central to Atlas Shrugged.

A monopoly cannot be maintained without force. The justification of a free market is the rights of the individual, especially private property rights, not a collectivist utilitarian "efficient free flow". Subjectively outlawing "monopolies" is a violation of rights. So were the medieval guilds, guild socialism, and syndicalism.

Studies have been done of very young children indicating that even in infancy they exhibit a sense of reciprocity and have a sense of fairness. To understand human behavior we must look as much to our genetic inheritance as to the cultural conditions which shape us. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
I heartily recommend a reading of Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" if you are interested in learning more about our human nature, and how we are wired to behave.

Protecting the rights of the individual is not the subjectivist "act the way you want others to act".

As far as I can tell there are basically two ways to obtain and keep a monopoly. One is to keep producing the best value of quality products and services that the customers want. Two is using force to favor the monopoly and/or to keep away competition. With Bell telephone it was method two, helped by big government.

A rules-free market allows monopolies and trusts to form, which can stifle the element most important to trade, competition. Adam Smith's concept of a free market assumes a degree of consumer power, by favoring the sellers with the best product for a reasonable price. Once trusts and the accompanying price fixing are allowed to be formed, the only power the consumer has is to stop buying the products.

Monopolies favor only the seller, who has no incentive for product improvement. Some of us are old enough to remember the Bell telephone monopoly, and how the breakup of that monopoly helped create the dynamic, competitive environment for communication services we experience today.

At a minimum, there should be rules that prohibit the formation of monopolies and trusts. In medieval Europe, the rules were established among merchant societies and craftsman guilds, who could take violators before courts, with often unsatisfactory outcomes. That alone points to a need for a common enforceable set of rules, with sufficient authority to force participants to abide by them. That almost inevitably puts enforcement in the hands of government. The question then becomes at what level of government the rules are to be enforced.

Part of the problem with health care, as one glaring example, is that we've allowed the constitutional restriction on inhibiting interstate commerce to be violated by states. Each state sets the rules for health care, including what any health insurance has to cover. creating wild variances in the cost of health care from state to state, and inhibiting trade in medical goods and services between states. That would indicate that the rules of commerce in the U.S. should be set at the highest level in order for the efficient free flow of goods and services

And what exactly are the rules of a free market? I think it can be summed up pretty easily: act the way you want others to act. You want your rights and privileges protected and respected, so do the same towards others. Be honest. Play by those rules and I don't see a whole lot of problems.

The problems come when people decide that they need to make rules for other people because they don't respect others. This is usually those in government seeking power. That's when you start getting favorable treatment towards some groups, cronyism, etc.

As soon as the decision is made to 'limit' free markets you invite all the despots large and small to begin forcing (using violence) the market to benefit those who use force; i.e. the lawmakers. The only rules that need apply are for prevention of crime against others rights, not perceived ethereal rights that are used to describe a perceived wrong because someone used the wrong pronoun.

I would suggest a market without rules/laws is a black market.

Good answer!

No ideas are "hardwired into the human brain". "Rules" protecting the rights of the individual must be enforced by government, which in turn requires understanding the philosophical basis of individualism in reason required for a proper government. Your post sounds like a plea for anarchism.

A free market requires the protection of the rights of the individual. That is not what rules in sports are. In a free country one is free to take any action except that which is explicitly prohibited as a violation of rights. Sports rules dictate procedures within a highly delimited realm of physical competition that is not based on trade as exchanging value for value. The sports rules metaphor is more like the regulatory state and unrelated to a free market, which is why it is promoted as a metaphor by statists.

Yes, rules are necessary. But they don't have to be imposed by government; just as governments don't make the rules for playing football or baseball. Rules of cooperation and reciprocity are hardwired into the human brain. We are social animals, are largely cooperative and prone to exchange goods fairly. Caveat emptor of course, since there is always a small percentage of nefarious sociopaths who will try to game any system. But government can't rid the world of those. In fact, government is made up of a preponderance of immoral, petty dictators. That is the LAST place we should be looking for rules of how we trade goods.