Talk:Free market

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Could this be true ?[edit]

"Adam Smith discarded subjective value theory and ...". Adam Smith died in 1790 and AFAIK Subjective theory of value began with Carl Menger circa 1871. This needs a citation badly. The tone of the rest of the article has far too much political spin. The length of coverage of "Socialist economics" seems badly out of place here. 107.10.0.181 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The socialist stuff on wikipedia almost always undermines validity and is poorly sourced. (we should remember Noam Chomsky is a linguist and books are better sources than youtube videos) But it's a nightmare to try and make valid because there's always a political war going on with some editors using a page to push a personal point rather than describing an idea accurately (regardless of if they agree with it)! If you look at the recent edits on libertarianism there's now an entire post on something called "Marxist Libertarianism". I know socialist libertarianism is valid, but my understanding is that libertarian socialism was the anti-marxist part of the socialist political debate. And people will censor any attempts to add classical liberal history to the liberalism page AND the classical liberal philosophy to the classical liberalism page! But if they make it impossible to be valid at least we can make their point pushing valid. e.g. I don't think that the meaning of "free" market actually is controversial in modern use (unless someone can source that the meaning is controversial?). But if socialist editors want to introduce the political point that "free" market is ambiguous I thought the best thing was to describe the historical developments in economic thought like Adam Smiths monopoly theory, Marx' exploitation labour value theory, and Menger's redevelopment of praxeology. It's wrong to make wiki articles a political war but we can't act like owners and just delete the whole thing about "ambiguous meaning of free" even if it is point pushing. I think we should give them room but make sure that the information accurately explains the debate and is well sourced without any editor attempting to conclude the debate themselves on the wiki page. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The term "free market" did not originally mean a market free from government, as if this were even possible. To classical economists like Adam Smith a free market was a market free of economic rent or unearned income. They wanted to free industrial capitalism from the vestiges of fuedalism, freeing markets from unearned income (income due to privilege not work) bringing prices in line with production costs and increasing international competitiveness. They used the LTV to isolate economic rent in order to eliminate where possible and tax where it was not, thus freeing markets from overhead. Vilhelmo (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

that is the opposite of how the term was originally defined

Suggesting a review of the edits made by Rothbardanswer[edit]

Specifically, for WP:NPOV, like undue weight, bad research, lack of impartial tone and loaded language.

I understand that it is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, but I urge the editors of this article to review the contributions by Rothbardanswer, who has a history (documented on user talk page) of pushing POV, right up to edit wars and borderline vandalism, to basically spam heterodox economics and 'anarcho-capitalist' dogma as some undisputed gospel of universally-accepted truth, everywhere there's a tiny little hope of a crevice to cram it into. It's honestly testing my patience to keep the article on market anarchism from becoming a brochure for Murray Rothbard, so maybe someone more familiar with Wikipedia policy knows how to proceed when someone uses the site to narrate one's own political views in the third person. I'm tired of picking scare quotes out of a salad of unsourced and unsubstantiated, wildly distorted claims, and pleading that we just use the talk page instead of the undo button. Finx (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

1). Finx, I'm not going to get in a political argument with you. Whatever you assume my politics to be is irrelevant. Our only job as editors is to accurately describe and source the most relevant information on whatever the article is about. A free market is a technical issue of economic science. Every edit I've ever made to this page has been given citation to the most relevant and eminent economists. The only edits I've EVER made to the "free market anarchism" page was the lead. That entire article that takes you through De Molinari to Rothbard was written by multiple contributers of which I am not one. You know this, because on the talk page you're harasing multiple editors saying that they should delete their contributions because they conflict with your own personal idea of what anarchism means. But our ideas aren't what's at issue. The fact is that these people, movements, writers and philosophies did or do exists. If you hate Molinari's idea of defence then the proper course is to have a your own refutation published and hope it garners popularity. Even then I think Molinari would still have a place as a historical figure. These articles are about non-neutral subjects. But we ourselves are supposed to be neutral about them. I don't go onto Marxist pages and start arguing about how defunct and evil their ideas are. It isn't relevant to the article. Badgering multiple people on the talk page with your political opinions isn't on. "Free market anarchism" is a well written and cited article.

The main bone of contention you seemed to have with MY EDIT was when I corrected your definition of the individualist anarchists. This was my main source [1], that you deleted without explanation. The point I made was that the individualists had a bifurcation between political philosophy and some idiosyncratic economic theories. Politically they were what you may call "right-libertarians". As individualists they were defined by their moral belief in private property and the labour theory of property (Lockean homesteading) (not to bee confused with the Marxian labour theory of value). But in terms of economics each one had quasi-socialist ideas. What the text I sourced brings out is that these inconsistencies were actually just errors in economic theory. If they had pursued all their political philosophies markets would have worked differently.

I've just looked at the tyrade you posted at me on the "free market anarchism" page and I have to say again I'm not arguing political philosophy with you.

2). My recent edit read: A free market is an economic system in which the supply and demand of a good or service, wage rates, interest rates, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods is coordinated entirely by market values (price) rather than by governmental regulation or bureaucratic mandate and dictate.

Spylab (I don't know if that name means he monitors editors he may disagree with) changed this too: free market is an economic system in which the costs and distribution of goods and services, wage rates, interest rates — along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods — are coordinated by supply and demand and market values rather than by governments or bureaucracies.

I don't know why this edit was made. This is beginning to become an edit war but 'm really only concerned with validity I don't see why the emphasis has to be on the Marxist phrase "means of production". That's just another word for capital goods. but also the edit actually makes the sentence nonsensical. As I said in an earlier edit wages and interest rates ARE prices. The sentence structure is confused to make out that supply and demand and prices are disparate forces coordinating an economy. But you have to ask; the supply and demand of what?. The supply and demand of labour is determined by wage rates (just another name for prices). The supply and demand of loans and savings is coordinated by the interest rate (the price of borrowing). The stucture of capital and consumer goods is determined by commodity prices. I honestly don't understand why this edit keeps being made. I'm going to correct the lead so that it actually makes sense. If anyone has objection please message back. Rothbardanswer (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not the talk page to discuss "free-market anarchism". That article's talk page (which I have politely but in vain asked you to use to explain your edits) can be found here. I am not interested in editing this article, however, so I won't turn this talk page into any more of a forum or soapbox. It was a word of caution to this article's editors about what, at a glance, looked like yet more POV pushing, which those who've done the research on this topic may or may not want to examine. In the meantime, you have been doing yet more POV pushing everywhere, considering you have been warned again for edit warring and blocked from editing a prominent article to spam mises.org (yet again). Finx (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't need to be told this isn't the place. If you weren't pursuing me across wikipedia we wouldn't be talking about this here. You can take more than a glance next time :) I've only been drawn into edit wars because I don't know how to defend validity when people just delete sources and cited materials. (I've never made more than minor edits to the free market anarchism page. I tried to correct and add citation to your edits) I have represented the works of authors you dislike on their appropriate pages. The pages are about things you also dislike so you've tried to change definitions. Unlike me you have no sources. Look at the lead to free market anarchism now and compare it to older versions... THAT'S POV pushing! Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The language of the content posted by Rothbardanswer is indeed very loaded and referenced by a primary source by Frédéric Bastiat. I have changed the language of the current lede to a more neutral and factual tone. -Battlecry 07:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced edits and warring[edit]

Any Other Models are Marxist ? where is the source for this ?

Also knowing your enemy helps please learn to differentiate between Socialism (French) & Communism (Marx) . Is that not taught at "hard On for Self prosperity" Institute ?

I seriously cant fathom the mind that thought any criticism/alternatives to Free Markets is Marxist ?

Generalizing this Page lacks any structure at best seems like its composed by a 10year ole fanboy with a Freedman Textbook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.182.107 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


After discussion a recent edit was made here: [[2]]. It should be remembered that a free market is a technical issue of economic science NOT a political point. Any edits should ideally make reference to economic text books or treatises.

This is plain wrong to separate economics from politics as they were tied together at the time the term "free market" was first in the corn law arguments.Sigiheri (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
This is plain wrong. Richard Cantillon pre-dates Cobden and they were already isolating economic market processes as distinct from the state back then. "political economy" is a British invention. It's quite hypocritical of you to take umbridge with my hard stance on science when you're doing the same thing for something that's wrong. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


I'm will to consider an alternative view. Please explain Cantillion in the sense that his economics is separate from politics as I am unfamiliar with this view. Thank you in advance.Sigiheri (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do I need to explain economic science to you? Is this what the physics talk pages are like? Is it full of scientists explaining each aspect of positivism so that they can change the lead and say the earth goes round the sun and not the other way around? We don't matter. What matters is the economic writings. I've already made the appropriate edits with all the citations you need. If you are affirmed to change it back you need to read economics. Read Karl Popper's The Poverty of Historicism if you're interested. (I've already devoted far to much time to protecting the truth here) Rothbardanswer (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

These last edits completely undermine the validity of the article and aren't supported by the source. The phrasing is incorrect and incoherant now. "Setting of prices" means nothing. Prices are qualitatie psychic data that becomes cardinal data through action. A free market can determine an approxomate democratic aggregate but it is never at equilibrium. It certainly isn't "set" by anyone. Unexplained deletion of "Free market anarchism" and sources by User: Battlecry. I looked on his user page and he's openly socialist so this may be political POV pushing.

Ad hominem attacks are NOT appropriate. Who are you to call others names?Sigiheri (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
His name is BATTLECRY, and he has a banner saying he's a socialist, and he's editing on the free market page! All his edits are simply deletions of sources and properly structured sentences. I haven't even accused him of anything other than deleting my contributions in what seems a malicious way.
Calling Battlecry names is an ad hominem attack and inappropriate for Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem_attackSigiheri (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to edit the text so it is correct and I'll give multiple citations to the relevant sources.

Notes: 1). Supply and demand doesn't mean anything without reference. e.g. the supply and demand of labour, savings, goods, services, skills. 2). Supply and demand and the structure and hierarchy of capital and consumer good are coordinated by prices (value) 3). A price is psychic. (subjective value theory). To say that a price is "distorted" by mandate and dictate is not loaded language. it is a technical issue of economic science without any political bias to say that a price is undistorted on a free market. 4). A free market is not a structure. A free market is existence in the absence of state regulation.

What does it mean: "free market is existence..."Sigiheri (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Quite frankly I've said this too many times and it is finally wearing my patience: I shouldn't have to explain economics to you. Period. What do you think a free market is? Poverty isn't imposed. Economics is the study of human action. A free market is just existnce without a state. It doesn't preclude any of the features of any specific market. Just the absence of the state. I'm not here to defend economic science. I'm here to contribute without getting drawn into defensive edit wars.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Rothdardanswer is standing by his post that "a free market is existence in the absence of state regulation". Parsing the sentence, "a free market is existence". How does this make any sense? When questioned, Rothardanswer replies, the question, is, "finally wearing my patience: I shouldn't have to explain economics to you" Then on his own page Rothardanswer says that he is always very polite to people. I feel he is hurting the editing of this free market page, not helping. Sigiheri (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to explain economic science to you! Read Cantillon, or Mises. That's either the earliest or one of the latest economists and both understand that the market exists independent of the state. How on earth is it my job to defend economic science. If I add multiple eminent sources and write it well isn't that enough? Surely it's your job to read up if you want to undoo my edits? Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
What exactly should I read of Cantillon or Mises. I have several books by Von Mises, so please point me to the book and passage. You do need to explain and defend your assertions to others on Wikipedia if you want to contribute.Sigiheri (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Read Epistemological Problems of Economics Or Theory and History. Your historicist approach isn't economic science. The free market (the subject of the article) IS. What I'm doing now is teaching anyone reading the nature of economic law in order to give the correct definition of a free market. Ok. Well I have one question. How on earth do you think you're neutral. I assume if you don't know physics you don't edit pages on quantum mechanics and then demand to be taught about it? I've already done my part! I've written the correct definition as I see it and started a talk section (which no one used they just started edit warring) and given all the best links. It isn't POV pushing or violation of neutrality because I'm intimating economic science OTHERS have developed. Your historicist opinions don't get to censor my contribution. It could take hours to teach you basic econ. The burden is on you to source and cite your edits.
I disagree that the free market IS economic science. I don't even believe that economics as it stands is a science in the sense that its theories are testable, fyi. And what is "economic law". Is that just the law? Sigiheri (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

5). "Monopolies" is a politically loaded and ambiguous term. A price can't be monopolised on a free market in the absence of government violence, threat or legality. See: [[3]] Rothbardanswer (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to support an economic argument with a youtube video, walking away from the article now is the least unhappy of the possible outcomes for you, and I would strongly recommend that course of action. bobrayner (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't cited a youtube video in the article. The article now has multiple citations to economic textbooks.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


This page is getting worse not better. Can we stop using Dictionary.com as a source. We have the internet and can easily determine the origin of the term "free market". For example, http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/richard-cobden-creator-of-the-free-market#axzz2H8IUL6IE

This article shows that the term "free market" was around well before neo-classical economics and the idea that supply and demand set price. Thus, I would argue that "free market" should be discussed in terms of its historical significance in politics (i.e., the corn laws). Also, it should be discussed in terms of classical economics, not neo-classical economics.Sigiheri (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Thus, I would argue that "free market" should be discussed in terms of its historical significance in politics" How is anything I've ever said arrogant and this isn't? WHY should we make give this concept of economic theory a historicist bureaucratic analysis? Historicism was the position that there is no economic law. From the standpoint of economic theory history is in the strict sense irrelevant. You're advocating a hard erroneous position without even knowing it! Is this why you were offended that I would suggest we use economic textbooks to describe an economic concept? Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The free market is an economic concept more than a political one. If you go to the article on gravity you won't find a classical definition from Copernicus in the lead. Have you looked at my edit? [[4]] They've just deleted citation and damaged sentence structure. I don't see how my edit made the page worse and not better?

Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I take issue with your analogy on the grounds that gravity is discovered (presumably by Newton) and a free market is invented by people. I believe that the free market simply means, no regulations. Repealing the corn laws in England made the market more "free."Sigiheri (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes well this is my point and this is why I stress the nature of economic science. A free market isn't invented by people any more than value and action are. They have universal existence and laws. Humans have their own values and purposes but we don't create value itself or action or thought themselves any more than we can imagine new colours or change our bodies by thinking. This is the point; we are economies, we don't create economy. You lot are implicitly taking the historicist approach that there is no such thing as economic law. (I can't believe I'm explaining all this!) I think if you lot haven't read economics it isn't authoritative or arrogant to say you shouldn't delete sources and edits because they conflict with your intuition. Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion that we should use economics textbooks only is preposterous, imo. The term and concept of a "free market", simply meaning without regulation, arose before the neo-classical economic theories.Sigiheri (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This article should reference the Manchester school, imo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_capitalismSigiheri (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't contribute dictionary.com. Cobden is a GREAT source but why do you think the classical economists are better than the more advanced so called "Austrians"? seems silly.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Once again with the inappropriate remark that my post is "silly". But you are always "polite" aren't you? The reason is that the term "free market" arose prior to neo-classical economics and way before the Austrian school.Sigiheri (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to put all this aggitation aside (but from first to last comment you've been condescending to me and it's all spiralled into LAYERS of demonstrable hypocrisy) but who cares, back to the article! :) I don't think we should use the originator of the phrase as gospel. Why does a historical source trump contemporary sources? Better yet why not have both? They don't conflict.

Rothbardanswer (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that providing the historical perspective would be useful. The neoclassical economics theories assumes a "free market" to get there results. But I would argue that economics is orthogonal to the free market as a free market can exist without economic theories. In a nutshell, I disagree that we should tie the article on "free market" exclusively to neo-classical economics. At the same time, I think the article should explain how economists claim that a free market economy affects supply and demand.Sigiheri (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you put your position clearly and stopped insulting me. (I wish you had just done this immediately and not took umbridge with what you thought was arrogance when I defended the scientific position). You're wrong about this. Historicism isn't the method of economic science. You're right to say economy exists without scientific study. Physics exists without positivism. But if we want to write wikipedia articles about what a proton is we give the logical positivist info. The articles on physics aren't full of creationists arguing in the talk section and reverting well cited edits. Economy doesn't exist because of economists. Economic theory can't change economy. Economic theory is the study of economy. What economic theory CAN do is let me write a well sourced lead to this article where I describe a free market acording to the WRITINGS of economists. The whole problem here seems to be you've made the mistake of thinking economists design freedom differently now. They've never been in the business of designing anything. (I shouldn't of had to explain this to you because we're only supposed to intimate economic writings we're supposed to be neutral!). Rothbardanswer (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)(talk) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
The "free market" exists independent of economic theory. Whether the economic theory is accurate is an empirical question that no one has answered to my knowledge. Vernon Smith showed it in an experiment, but no one has show that people act according to theory in a real world setting. Thus, we should describe free market not in terms of economic theory but in terms of law and society. Then discuss the neo classical economic theory that was developed later, in the late 1800s. The point is that if free market exists without economic theory, describe free market first, then discuss economic theory.Sigiheri (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No it actually isn't an empirical theory. If A squared plus B squared doesn't = C squared on a flat plane right angle triangle you haven't discovered a new shape, you've drawn the triangle incorrectly. I'm sure it isn't my job as edditor to explain the epistemological foundation of economic science to you. If you lot don't know economics the least you could do is stop editing my contributions. PEOPLE DON'T ACT ACCORDING TO A THEORY. We're talking about the study of human action. That's what economics is! What you're saying is backwards. We can't describe protons without using positivism. The free market is just a name we've given something using economic theory AND FOR WHAT I HOPE IS THE LAST TIME HERE IT IS:
You're saying that the conclusions of neo-classical economic theory is fact such that empirical test are unnecessary. And you're also saying that economics is the "study of human action." I would hope that anyone reading treat your edits accordingly.Sigiheri (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A free market is an economic system in which the supply and demand of labour, savings, investment, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, services, and profits are coordinated entirely by individual market values (prices, interest rates, wage rates) rather than by governmental regulation, or bureaucratic mandate and dictate.[1][2][3][4][5] A free market contrasts with a controlled market or regulated market, in which supply or demand are distorted by regulation or direct control by government. An economy composed entirely of free markets is referred to as a free-market economy or free-market anarchism.

OKEYDOKEY?

I think that paragraph is not suitable as a lead in for the article. Free markets can exist independent of capitalism or economic theory and the lead in should reflect this. I wrote on the talk page about this (at the top), fyi.Sigiheri (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the material about market socialism emerging as a response to Mises' argument because that does not belong in the lead and is blatant PoV pushing. Criticism of the subject being discussed in the article generally does not belong in the lead, and the language used was loaded (implying that the free-market forms of socialism discussed in the book were "socialist bureaucracies" organized as markets). Bockman's book, which is cited for the inclusion of the socialist tradition of free markets, was not about the Lange-Lerner model and the simulation of markets, it discussed how free-markets have been promoted by early socialists including Pierre-Joseph Prodhoun and later by neoclassical economists such as Jaroslav Vanek and Branko Horvat (who proposed a free market form of socialism, not the Lange model). These forms of socialism were not formed in response to the argument put forth by Mises, and some of these socialist philosophies existed before Mises wrote about socialism.
Rothbardanswer is pushing the same PoV in the market economy article and is gradually transforming the Template:Capitalism sidebar into a sidebar on Austrian school philosophy and methodology.-Battlecry 01:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for discussing controversial subjects as per WP:NOTAFORUM. The term "intervene" or "intervention" is more neutral than "distortion" because economists have differing views on the nature of interventions - some view it as a means to correct market failures, such as internalizing externalities or improving access to information for market participants to make more informed choices; while others view interventions as distortions rather than corrective measures. The fact is, regardless of what position one may take, a free market is simply defined as a market structure absent from interventions in the formation of prices. Furthermore, free-markets are more of a political and prescriptive concept rather than a technical economic concept. The "technical" economic concept you are referring to is competitive markets or a state of perfect competition, which economists generally agree is pareto efficient and an optimal state for an economy. But again, economists disagree on how this technical optimal state is to be achieved - some believe interventions are necessary in order to move closer toward this optimum state, while others argue that the unhindered "free" market will approximate this state on its own. Advocating for free markets as a means to this end is prescriptive and therefore political in nature.-Battlecry 09:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Markets cannot exist without government. Money, private property & property rights, corporations & other forms of ownership, contact enforcement and the rule of law are all creatures of government. Without a legal & regulatory system to enforce contracts and punish cheaters, trust cannot exist. And without trust markets break down. Not only can't markets exist without government, human society can't either. All human groups have some form of government. Vilhelmo (talk)

In the hunter gatherer societies in which humans have spent the majority of our existence in, markets did not exist. Vilhelmo (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

History & Meaning of the term "free market"[edit]

To classical economists a "free market" was a market free of economic rent. They sought to free markets from unearned income – the “free lunch” of land rent by Europe’s hereditary aristocracies, and from monopoly rents administered by the royal trading corporations created by European governments to pay off their war debts. Classical economics was the political program of industrial capitalism seeking to free society from the rentier interests as the last vestiges of Feudalism. This history must be reinserted. Vilhelmo (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this? -Battlecry 23:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A "Free Market" cannot exist without government[edit]

Money, private property & property rights, corporations & other forms of ownership, contact enforcement and the rule of law are all creatures of government. Vilhelmo (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Definition - Criticism & Suggestions[edit]

The definition is incredibly vague. What government actions, law (rule/regulation) making, intervention, enforcement, institution making, functions is a "free market" free from? Is it free off all government or just some government? What are the criteria used to separate the government interventions a "free market" is free from from those that it is not free off? The inclusion of furthur details would greatly improve the article 24.36.14.161 (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


From the article:

A free market is a market system... in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

The laissez-faire principle expresses a preference for an absence of non-market pressures on prices and wages, such as those from government taxes, subsidies, tariffs, regulation (other than protection from coercion and theft), or government-granted or coercive monopolies

These definitions clearly imply that a "free market" must be free of both Government Money (a Government Monopoly) & Private Property (a Government-Granted Monopoly).

Vilhelmo De Okcidento (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ [5] Economics in One Lesson. Henry Hazlitt.
  2. ^ [6] Foundation of the Market Price System. Milton M. Shapiro.
  3. ^ [7] Economic Harmonies. Bastiat.
  4. ^ [8] Basic Economics. Thomas Sowell.
  5. ^ [9]. Dictionary.com