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