In this example you have one semi-private organization (by which I mean non-governmental not publically traded) making a deal with a private entity (by which I mean a corporation, not a government, non-profit, or quasi-governmental organization). Both are allowed to do busiiness in any way they see fit as long as it isn’t illegal. That’s one of the main premises of the so-called “free market”, right?

So if they want to enter into no-bid contracts, isn’t that the free market working at its best? I mean, its the “free” market, not the “fair” market, right?

But if one sees this as a problem, what’s the rememdy? Regulation? Supposedly that’s NOT a part of the so-called free market. Market punishment through devaluing the stock? What if a party doesn’t have publically-traded stock? Like say ICANN. Or Bechtel.

It’s a conundrum to be sure.

Personally I don’t think the free market is truly free. It’s a regulated market based on rules that society (or more accurately, the most powerful elements of society) has dictated. Some markets are more regulated than others. Some markets socialize more costs than others.

But if you want people to conform to some idea of how the markets should act, then you’ll have to find a way to regulate their actions within it, by law or other means. But it will never be “free” no matter how large the necessary Libertarian majority in Congress might grow.

IMHO, of course.