Comment by ablob

As far as I understand the conditions of a free market are not met in this case:

According to the english Wikipedia: * A capitalist free-market economy is an economic system where prices for goods and services are set freely by the forces of supply and demand [...]

Here one can argue that the available services (i.e. maintaining a train) are not set freely by the forces of supply and demand, but by the constructor of the train; at least to some extend.

You said that "[a] real competitive free market will always require the government to prohibit companies from forming artificial mottes around their monopolies". I partially agree in this case. A free market that contains competitors that are able to fully satiate it will always require a government that hinders it from working towards a controlled market. By a controlled market I mean monopoles, oligopoles, cartels, or otherwise controlled environments(1). So if there's no competitor I can walk to in case I am unhappy with my trading partner the market isn't free by definition. I can hardly think of bakeries in town requiring governmental intervention (unless they form a cartel, that is).

Not every market should be free, however. I guess you've just met too many hard-liners arguing for shady business practices in the name of the free market. I'd argue that a shady business will cease to exist in a free market due to the customers running away.

PS: Funny enough, I am fully onboard with stronger anti-trust enforcement (legislation only if that proves to be insufficient), only that I am doing it as a proponent to regain market freedom.

(1) Intentionally left broad as I can't be bothered to come up with a definition that fits what I have in mind.