Abstract

The article considers six standard arguments in favour of an unfettered free market: (1) the freedom to consume; (2) the freedom of the seller; (3) the freedom of the producer; (4) freedom from government interference; (5) lower costs; (6) promotion of democracy. It demonstrates that each of these arguments turns out to be incoherent on closer examination. The ground of this incoherence it is shown, is the market doctrine's systematic omission of non-business costs and benefits from its analysis, a methodological blindness which can only be overcome by a wider-lensed comprehension of economic value.