These terms are not interchangeable. 'Pro-business' policies often protect incumbents through regulation, leading to cronyism and cartels. 'Pro-market' policies foster open competition, which is the best defense against corporate corruption and monopolies.

Counterintuitively, a genuinely free market is not a lawless one. It requires government restrictions to prevent predatory multinational corporations from creating monopolies. Without such regulations, monopolies would destroy the fair competition that is the basis of a free market.

Even markets seen as bastions of pure capitalism, like Wall Street, are heavily structured with rules like trading hours, circuit breakers, and insider trading laws. The field of "market design" shows that economies aren't natural phenomena but are intentionally structured, whether for kidneys, stocks, or raisins.

The idea that government should "stay out of" markets is a flawed model. The government is an inherent economic actor, and choosing deregulation or non-intervention is an active policy choice, not a neutral stance. This view acknowledges politics and government are inseparable from market outcomes.

The debate between liberals and conservatives over state intervention is based on a flawed premise. Both sides accept the idea of a pre-political market that sometimes "fails." The reality is that the market is always a product of political and legal decisions. The real question isn't *whether* to intervene, but who benefits from the current structure.

The debate over government's size can be framed using political philosophy. 'Negative freedom' is freedom *from* state interference (e.g., censorship). 'Positive freedom' is the capability to achieve one's potential, requiring state support for basics like education and health to enable true flourishing.

While government intervention has a role, new entrepreneurs are a better solution for dismantling monopolies. The grocery chain A&P dominated the market, resisting small government limits, but was ultimately unseated not by regulation, but by the next wave of innovators who created the modern supermarket.

The solution to corporate monopolies is not creating an equally powerful government monopoly. Governments uniquely possess the legitimate use of violence (police, military). History shows that when this power is consolidated, it is inevitably abused, making it a far greater threat to human life than any corporation.

To define government's role, one must first define government itself. Its only unique characteristic is the legal power to apply force. Therefore, its functions should be strictly limited to things society needs but individuals cannot accomplish voluntarily, such as national defense, border control, and some basic infrastructure.