Obviously it is not infallible or perfect. However it is the most moral system of exchange.
Keep in mind that the failure of an enterprise is not a
market failure, it is actually a successful correction of a bad investment.
People taking chances, businesses that turn out not to be profitable, is a sign of a healthy economy. People have confidence and savings to spend on trying new things.
A "bust" however is a symptom of a problem. Many people all making large malinvestments at the same time means that something was wrong with the market signals of price, savings, interest, etc. That's why when the Federal Reserve makes a move, huge numbers of people are effected, and while some get rich most end up liquidating the malinvestments.
So booms and busts are not "market failures" at all. They are the results of intervention, even well meaning intervention.
Because I believe that in a free market there will still be the ability for some people to acquire the means to have excessive differential advantage against others trying to enter any particular market.
Define "excessive"? That's an opinion, which is different between different people. So who gets to decide what is or is not "excessive"?
Does the fact that Donald Trump has lots of money and I don't mean that the market has to be corrected? Does the fact that Bill Gates made a huge fortune selling shoddy software mean that the market has to be corrected?
No, because in both cases no coercion was ever used. Donald Trump and Bill Gates made deals with others voluntarily that both parties believed they benefitted by. That's all. They did it far better than I, so they have made far more wealth than I in doing so.
Trying to correct for "excessive" success or "excessive" power will have only one result: Everyone will be worse off.
The consequence being that new inventions and ideas will be suppressed (by the market leader's advantage) in order for the status quo of that particular market to retain its advantage for the sake of extended profits. (ie. Withholding the true state of technology in order to sell minor upgrades over a long period of time.)
Albeit, in a free market this advantage wouldn't hold nearly as long as it does with a coercive monopoly.
Exactly. All interventions do is raise the costs of competition thereby protecting the established, vested interests. Licensing, zoning, taxation, incorporation, copyright, patent, all make it harder for a newcomer to enter a field, or undercut the established providers, preventing competition and allowing those already established to charge higher prices for lower quality products.
Some say that they deserve to reap the profits. I question the ethics of that matter.
So when is it ethical to initiate force?
I have a total monopoly over my own output. If I am the only person who can perform a particular operation and save lives, is it ethical to put a gun to my head and force me to perform that operation?
Is it ethical to require me to perform the operation at a lower price than I would choose to charge?
Ah, but is it ethical for me to use coercion over others to prevent competition, if someone else figures out how to do that same operation? That is the reasoning behind copyright/patent, after all, the most widely supported market interventions there are.
I will posit that it is
coercion that is unethical, not profits.