Please don't pretend you're a serious, rational debater when you say things like this. You keep inventing things I must be and insulting them. You should be addressing the points made instead.
The topic of this conversation is two things. Free markets, and your background in relation to your opinion on free markets. If predictions I make about your character are wrong then just say it's wrong and tell me why.
Instead one of the first things you did was deflect. I said you were well off, you said when you were a kid you were not well off. I stayed on course and said that your past has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You are currently well off and that's why you have such opinions about the free market.
I highly doubt you'd support the free market policies you do now when you were poor. Likely you never thought about these policies until you became rich. That is my point. The whole point is that your wrong about the free market and evidence is that your foundations for supporting such a thing have more to do with your circumstance than it does with reality.
Defeating your argument involves getting personal because personal reasons are the foundations of your argument.
If I'm wrong it's easy to point out that I'm wrong. All you gotta do is tell me exactly the inflection point in which you developed this free market logic. Was it when you were poor or when you were rich? I'm simply saying they came about when you were rich.
Please don't pretend you're a serious, rational debater when you say things like this. You keep inventing things I must be and insulting them. You should be addressing the points made instead.