the definition of a "free market" is one that evolves "naturally" without (or with only minimal) government controls (aka regulations), so in that sense it would indeed be a market; the ultimate free market is one without any external controls at all
Huh, regardless of the definition of "free" and whether the rest of the "free market" stuff is true or religion, I wasn't talking about "free." I was talking about whether there's a market. And a market with a sole provider isn't a market in my books, and is in fact kind of the antithesis of a market.
That's why we have anti-monopoly laws, so that we can have markets. In recent decades, the interpretation of anti-monopoly has transitioned a bit to focus more on consumerism rather than markets, and the definition of monopoly has shifted from "is there a sole provider" to "is the dominant market player causing consumer harm."
But originally, before that shift, anti-monopoly laws were in favor of markets.
Interesting. I wouldn't categorize a market that has N customers and 1 vendor, or 1 vendor per type of good (as in this case, since a market could have other types of goods and services not sold by a grocery store), as not a "market". It's not a "competitive market", but since a market is by definition, a place where buyers and sellers exchange goods for money (or goods for goods), then I think it still qualifies as such.
