Recognizing that free markets will not supply law enforcement well does not imply that free markets should be cast aside in other instances.
OK, However, I don’t think the “real” Katness would make this statement.
Free markets are generally good, when they are really free. But when a small group of very large corporations fix the prices of everything we buy as high as possible, and the price they will pay for labor as low as possible (along with buying their labor in third world countries like Bangladesh), the markets are not free. The consumer products market is an oligopoly (a few competitors who are big enough to agree to fix prices), and the labor market is an oligopsony (a few large employers hiring a limited number of workers, far less than the supply of people seeking work).
But even a truly free market cannot deliver PUBLIC goods, that is, publicly shared infrastructure such as roads, public institutions such as police, courts (Judge Judy and her competitors only affect a tiny sampling of court cases, none of them involving criminal prosecution or really large amounts of money), prisons, and public education. Not in any manner that would be considered equitable by common sense.
And here lies the problem—common sense seems to have taken a hike.