There’s no point to objecting to advocacy for free markets by
pointing out there is no pure free market, free of any coercive
influence. We can compare more-free markets to less free markets, and
decide which ones we like. If we like more-free markets, then we
advocate for free markets, all the while realizing that the people who
like less free markets will prevent us from having a completely free
Russ points toward an old post of mine about the claim of free markets. My point is that… we are dealing with fictions and fantasies when we talk about ‘free markets’ and ‘free-er markets’. Most things people(and note, i was not not addressing the specific definitions of economists, which may be more or less problematic depending on whether you think their formal models and definitions approximate anything beyond themselves) call markets are not markets, but regulated exchanges, regulated by too many factors to even approximate an ideal market, or even an ideal transaction situation. I think it would behove most people to go back and actually read Adam Smith’s thoughts on markets and specifically on the theory of moral sentiments in relation to markets, as I think that his work is closest to my position.