...

free markets don't work, and lead inevitably to monopoly, and therefore we ought to use governments monopolies on force to prevent

Where do I *ever* say we need 'government' monopolies. Not once, not ever.

No, I believe he said (meant) government's monopoly on force (i.e. regulation, not anarchism), not government monopolies.

I have said, and stand by it now, that what is needed is an *impartial* 3rd party. That does *NOT* equate to 'the government'.

Wow, I happen to agree, people need on objective framework in which to take their disputes. The only such framework though that need be a monopoly is one that deals with force as the dispute or where force is the end retribution (i.e. you cannot have regulatory arbitrage with force). The problem is the assumption that any such regulator could be impartial. The need for such arbiter needs to be minimized (hence minimal/limited government = laissez faire != anarcho-capitalism). Matt