Our system is not a totally free market, we have consumer protection and antitrust regulations to avoid some of the possible negative outcomes there.

I don't really buy that consumer protection and antitrust regulations actually result in a better free market. I think the market is better off doing it's thing rather than a bunch of politicians trying to make it more efficient.

What do you mean by "better free market?" Are you using terms like "efficient" and "free market" in their technical sense or are you just saying that you don't like regulations?

Definitionally regulations are a divergence from an ideal free market. Provably, under some conditions (which don't exist in the real world) a market will converge to some definition of efficiency. Practically, no politician cares about this.

Politicians aren't trying to make the market more efficient with regulations -- good politicians are trying to protect their constituents, bad ones are mostly trying to protect their donors.

Do you want a single megacorp ruling the world? Because this is how you get a single megacorp ruling the world.

Depends. Is it a worker cooperative that employs everyone?

Well then, hopefully you dont want IP laws either.

The funny thing is IP laws are by definition monopolies protected by government. Every one of the big tech "quasi-monopolies" are sitting on a mountain of it.

Be careful, IP is a hodgepodge of things, like copyrights, patents, trademarks, and trade secrets.

To pick one: trade secrets are not a monopoly. If you figure out the secret ingredient in Coca Cola (by legal means), you are free to use that knowledge and even publish it.

Similarly, I have my reservations about whether patents are a good idea; but I don't mind trademarks nearly as much.

That might be true, but wouldn't matter in a legal sense, if there are anti-trust laws on the book.

This is anti trust because it’s probably in violation of the sherman act and price fixing.

The anti trust laws are designed to prevent monopolies and promote competition… as Amazon is acting as the market here and simultaneously fixing prices and discouraging competition with them thats a no-no

They raised the price of his goods so that they could sell their own product for cheaper.

They did bought the goods from him beforehand. And he agreed to sell. He should have considered the possibility that Amazon has option to later sell the items as a higher price. Isn't that obvious to any seller?

Amazon does not buy and keep a stock, they charge you for the privilege of selling in their marketplace:

> Sellers then bore the risk of having their products not sell in a timely manner, or at all, while still paying Amazon for things like storage fees of their enrolled products

It's about the consumer, price fixing removes the competition and consumer have to pay more than they would in a competitive market. It's sort of a cartel.