But there you go again. This time choosing your own definition of anarchy (as without morals, customs and traditions). I'm guessing you're as frustrated in trying to get anywhere in communicating as I am in trying to communicate with you. We have to agree on basic meanings of words or else communication is lost. You don't want to accept agreed upon definitions, and I get that frustration. I also get that you have to get over that if you want to communicate.
Why not just try, as a thought experiment to re-imagining your original post with a tacit acquiescence to the prevalent definitions of "free market" and "anarchy"? See what you'd end up with. See what you're really wishing to discuss aside from the nomenclature you've got your panties in a wad about. No harm, right? It might skip you off to the ideas you're actually grappling with or trying to convince about.
The Daily Paul is a community website with no official affiliation with Ron Paul. The content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul