Feels a lot like 'Real free markets have never been tried!' which we all know from its standard form on the left. If, at this point in history, real free markets have been unable to sustain themselves in the areas of the economy that people depend on the most (healthcare as a major example) then perhaps we ought to consider whether they're able to sustain themselves at all. I believe free markets and meritocracy are two systems commonly pointed to today that may be 'ideal' in one sense or another but which in practice cannot help but sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Markets exist by virtue of laws created by governments - property law being the primary example - expecting actors in a free market who aggregate enough wealth to affect those governments not to just strikes me as unrealistic. It reminds me a bit of gaming. Everyone agrees that in a competitive game the most fun part is early on before a 'meta' can be established. But of course that meta will always end up established and it's basically dumb to be mad at people for metagaming or to otherwise expect them not to.
Markets exist by virtue of laws created by governments - property law being the primary example - expecting actors in a free market who aggregate enough wealth to affect those governments not to just strikes me as unrealistic. It reminds me a bit of gaming. Everyone agrees that in a competitive game the most fun part is early on before a 'meta' can be established. But of course that meta will always end up established and it's basically dumb to be mad at people for metagaming or to otherwise expect them not to.