Hi, Rick, and welcome to Steem! Quick question for you. You first acknowledge "Capitalism" to be "the voluntary decentralized free market," but later you say

In capitalism, [...] the supposedly regulated parties quickly become the ones setting the rules for use of force for its own benefit and to suppress competition, destroying any idea of a future free market.

This seems to me inconsistent. On the one hand, capitalism is the free market. On the other hand, capitalism destroys the free market. Are you arguing that capitalism is an impossible scenario which cannot exist for extended periods of time?

To me, pure capitalism (anarcho-capitalism) precludes the use of any force, including regulations backed by violence, but your analysis that capitalism yields regulatory capture which destroys the free market assumes the existence of forceful regulation, which in turn is not capitalism. It appears that your argument is really that capitalism-with-force (which is not actually capitalism) yields regulatory capture, but does not address pure capitalism.

It could be argued that pure capitalism cannot exist since there will always be bad actors, and while that is true, the issue of regulatory capture is not the use of force (for which there are defenses) but the perception of force as legitimate and moral. Without the institutionalization of forceful regulation, any attempts at regulatory monopoly would be rapidly quelled in the course of self-defense.