[...]
They are no-win situations for competition. You are a loser in those situations. Just face it. In competition, someone has to win and someone has to lose. In a competitive world, in order for someone to live, someone else has to die.
This is completely false for the free market. A trade in the free market is always a win-win. It is the definition of the free market. If a trade is not win-win, it will not be completed.
You sound like those creationists that try to disprove evolution by quoting the Second Law of Thermodynamics about Entropy. What they overlook is that these laws only occur in a closed Universe of experimental conditions. You think that a Free Market exists everywhere and exerts itself like natural law. That is not science. Your hypothesis is easily falsified under conditions of monopoly. You are simply
Begging the Question.
You think that a free market can not exist. Fair enough. I happen to think that it
can exist. The monopolies, in my world view, are always conducted by violence, directly or by proxy. You could read Henry Ford about monopolies, and what would happen if you tried to get a monopoly in the free market, by underselling your competition until they are gone, then raise prices. It is not possible. All monopolies are kept by violence, that is, by government.
Good companies can have a high market share, but only in a limited part of the market, and if they have, it is by merit.
To accept his basic premise you have to believe that all people are predatory and immoral at their base and the only thing that can protect us from ourselves is government intervention.