Some arguments of this line of thinking have merit in my opinion, especially when they suggest market discipline for failed players in capitalism, and instead government applies “socialism for the rich”, as in the recent bailout.

I also agree that an unfettered market is the most productive way to organize economic relations between players of equal power. By that I mean parties who are similarly compelled to trade, not necessarily parties of similar size or wealth.

But there I think the laissez-faire approach fails. In most situations parties are not equally compelled to trade, and then an unfettered market ensures that the party who is most compelled (because they are least able to cover their basic needs if they don’t trade) trades at a disadvantage. A positive feedback loop results that amplifies inequality.

This is an instance of Myth 5: Free trade is fair trade. It is if both parties trade to feed their children, or if they both trade to make shareholders happier. If one party needs to feed their children and the other trades to make shareholders happier, in the absence of any protectionist factors, the parent is screwed by the business.

Fair trade under these conditions is survival of the fittest, except that physical violence is taken off the table (or, more accurately, waiting around the edges of the table and handled by professionals) so that on the table the rule is economic violence. This ideology is desirable only for people who are economically strong and who like prevailing over others.