You have yet to present a single example of a market without government supplied infrastructure. Standard economic theory says they can't exist, as well.
I do not care at all about what "standard economic theory" says. I care about arguments.
Of course, it is an argument that up to now there is no successful completely stateless society - and, therefore, there can be no such example, because, once there is some state, you can always claim that it supplied some infrastructure, even if this infrastructure is completely irrelevant.
But I have a reasonable explanation why large scale anarchistic societies have failed up to now. This is the problem that up to now there was no working reputational system for large groups of people. This problem restricted the viable anarchistic societies to small communities, and such small communities have no change against the military of a large state.
Fortunately, this restriction is no longer decisive, large scale reputational systems are possible with modern information technology, and, once possible, they will appear in near future.
So? No drug market exists without massive government infrastructure supporting it. Illegal drug marketers need the same infrastructure legal ones do - currency, roads and ports and navigation, banking systems, educated employees, accountability in exchange, communication with customers, the whole shootin' match.
Communication with customers needs no state support, currency they can use even one not supported by the state like bitcoin (I know you will tell me that bitcoin uses the internet and claim internet is governement-made, but it isn't - its international without any real support from international state-based organizations like the UN), roads and ports do not count, because they have also shown often enough that they can use their own roads and ports to cross state borders.
But, I know, these drug trafficers have all used government schools during their childhood (because those who have finished private schools usually do not have to become criminals to have a nice income).
Freedom of contract is not a light bulb, either on or off. It can be curbed and regulated.
Of course, you can take away only a small amount of freedom, and the loss of freedom and the harm it creates will be not that obvious, so that you can simply deny it. But this does not really change the point. If taking away a little bit of freedom is good, why not more? Why not all freedom? It should be much better, not?
And if it isn't, most people will suffer serious harm, including loss of many freedoms. We have dozens of examples of that, but the one ready to had was racial oppression in the US after the Civil War.
Of course, there are always a lot of examples to show that freedom harms people. Because freedom means freedom to make errors, and if you make errors in a free society, this is also connected with responsibility, thus, no taxpayer will take care of your bank if you err, it simply goes bankrupt. Really harmful for you.
But, of course, in a society without freedom those who give the orders also make errors, but they do not take any responsibility. So, even if you do not care about freedom, and prefer to be a slave, it is not really a good idea. Other people decide what you have to do, but if they err, you have to live with the consequences, not they. Nonetheless, they like to have the power, they like to tell you what to do, they like it even more if they don't have to take any responsibility for their errors. And they will not tell you about this possibility. In their propaganda, the state does not make errors, only you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself.
The rich disagree. Are they wrong?
No, you are wrong, because you have quoted completely out of context.
"Ad Hitlerum" is, of course, not about Hitler alone. But about comparisons with all those people where reasonable people would consider such a comparison as offensive. Given that I have some basic knowledge in economy, for me a comparison with Marx is not much better than a comparison with Hitler. Essentially, in his economic policies the fascist economic model is even more reasonable than the communist one, and it is, de facto, the economic model of the modern world.
Just an example of Marxist ideology and economic analysis, from you.
As much as 2+2=4 (Marx would not object) would be Marxist ideology. My point which you named Marxist - that ownership is important - is a point which is a triviality everybody accepts.
There's no shame in employing Marxist theory - all modern intelligent and educated people do, because Marx was right about some stuff and his insights have been incorporated into the basic modern worldview.
Not at all. Ok, some of his political polemics have had a point, but his economic theory was simply nonsense, and he was right only about one thing - not to publish part II and III of Das Kapital. He has probably understood, at least after understanding the profit rate, that the theory of part I based on Ricardos labor value is completely off. Engels was to stupid to understand this, so that he has published these parts after Marx' death.
Even less excuse for the misery of the American coal towns.
I see no reason at all to excuse them. It is interesting for me to understand, to explain such things. But I have no moral connection with this, thus, no base nor for accusations nor for excuses.
If the rich who own the landscape and industry have uncurbed freedom of contract, the society will not be free for the non-rich. That's kind of the point.
But this is simply wrong. If the poor have freedom of contract, they have alternatives. Without freedom of contract, they are slaves. In this case, the rich may be also obliged to be slaveholders - if they don't like a slave, they nonetheless would be obliged to hold him, until they find another guy ready to take him. But they will not really be disturbed about this. At least, much less than the slaves, who usually would prefer to be free.
Of course, and again, slavery is only the extremal case of no freedom of contract. But to understand the point, the simplest way is to consider the extremal cases of application of some proposed principles. I'm ready to accept the extremal case - absolute freedom of contract - and I'm ready to accept that in some, quite artificial, situations (everything owned by guys which hate you) one may not like the result of freedom of contract. But the cases where freedom of contract may become harmful are, first of all, quite artificial, and, second, there are other things which one can consider as the real problem - in this case the unjust distribution of ownership. Without this extremal case, there will be some people who don't hate you but own what you need, so that you can get what you need.
If we, instead, take your proposal - the limitation of freedom of contract - to the extreme, we have simply slavery. So, if we don't take it to the extreme, we have partial slavery. Not that problematic as complete slavery, but nonetheless bad.