That's interesting, since I haven't compared government to a market at all. I've simply noted it is used as a tool by some -in a market- to restrict otherwise legal freedom of contract by others via regulatory capture, using baseless "public safety" claims to justify their monopolistic tendencies.

This doesn't require libertarian philosophy, just Econ 101 and basic reasoning skills. You've yet to come up with a "fact" that contradicts my reasoning, my examples of an alternate non-exclusive minimalist regulatory structure which addresses every "public safety" claim advanced, -nor- the extant situation on the ground in all of the other cities where these low barriers to entry into what was previously a graft-created protected pond have been allowed.

The default in our system of government, regardless of political persuasion, has always been individual freedom; the burden is always on those wishing to restrict those freedoms to provide actual evidence of need and ability.