Instead of having a totally free market, Texas law requires electric providers to lease access to their electric infrastructure (delivery grid). That means that new electric companies don't have to build entirely new lines to people's homes, dramatically lowering the cost-of-entry, leading to an explosion of new electric providers. All that competition helped keep cost of electricity low relative to the rest of the country.
Europe does the same for internet (called "local-loop unbundling" laws). They require the existing ISPs to lease access to their network to new ISPs, which means lower cost of entry, giving some Europeans up to 15 ISPs to choose from. Whereas we are lucky if we get 3 (most Americans only have at&t and cable to choose from). That's because new providers (for example, Google Fiber) are forced to build entirely new infrastructure to each neighborhood. That means there is a substantial up-front cost to break into the market, which few are willing to do.
Also, Singapore (libertarian wet dream) has a system of subsidies, price controls, forced savings (medisave), and regulation to keep healthcare costs low. Instead of a completely free market.
Thoughts?
Read more: Regulated market > free market?
