I think most of the people here lean towards libertarianism, which include minimum regulations and free market. I have the following thoughts on free market.

When there is a competition there are two ways to gain advantage. The first and desirable way is to make your product or service better for the consumer. This may mean cheaper, of higher quality, better functionality etc. The second way is to impede your competitors. One way to do that is of course to work with the regulators to make regulations that are more damaging to your competition than to you. But this is not the only way. There are many ways in which you can legally harm your competition in a way that is net negative for everybody. Examples of this may be building an ecosystem that traps users in (here the winner is Apple, but almost all large companies are trying to do that now), using scale as leverage to sign contracts that suppliers won't supply their competitors, and the classic using size to sell product below its production price until the competitors go bankrupt (this works well when barriers to entry are relatively high).

What I see is that when a niche is new and there is a lot of room for improvement, companies tend to prefer the first way. But as soon as the room for improvement is exhausted, the industry starts doing things in the second categories.

What do you think?