Comment: Are you really asking an

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: My question is... (see in situ)

Are you really asking an

Are you really asking an etymological question about the term "free market"?

Our language evolves and doesn't stay pristine and results in what can be counter intuitive verbiage. Like negative numbers. There's never a negative oranges, for example. Once you get to zero oranges, you're done counting oranges. The "negative" term is about direction and perspective we apply to objects or ideas.

The same is true of "free." Free, as a word, arose to define an absence of bondage or coercion from something. When the term "free market" arose, it was speaking of a freedom from top-down control (i.e. whatever sort of rule from without was attempting control). It had nothing to do with freedom from the mechanisms of trust between people or morality or anything else from within the market.

Just think about how you're trying to define free. You're just asserting that free means the ability to defy custom, morality, law and ethics. But you aren't asserting, you're free to defy gravity or the arrow of time. Even in your, in my opinion ill-conceived, notion of free markets, you admit rules. Your rules are supplied by physics. I'm just pointing out that the common usage of the phrase "free markets," takes your rules of physics and adds the rules that the people doing business in the marketplace have established.