>I'm arguing for a free market economy with regulations [...]
Stop right there. You're arguing for a contradiction. By definition, a regulated market is not a free market - unless you're referring to *self-regulation*, which doesn't appear to be the case.
The objectives you cite for regulation of the economy, insofar as they are legitimate, can all be met by the allocation mechanism of the market itself: that, of course, is the basic claim of anarcho-capitalism.
Or if you're afraid of too much freedom, a minimalist will argue that tort law or criminal law, administered by a greatly reduced "government", will take care of fraud, theft and the like, with no need to intrude into the workings of the market itself.
The bottom line is: freedom and coercion don't mix. A "little" regulation turns a free market into a managed market, with all the attendant problems.
>You, however, deflected my question rather than answer it.
I wasn't the one you asked the question of, but I'll be glad to give you my answer:
>To repeat; are you in favor of corporate welfare or not, and, in either
In a word: no. I don't believe in any sort of "government"-provided "welfare". Why? Because it's based on coercion of some to benefit others.
I don't think Mike was supporting corporate welfare either; he was merely pointing out that a lot of what gets confusedly called "corporate welfare" is nothing of the sort, merely a reduction in the amount extorted from a company, analogously to personal tax deductions.