**TL;DR - Overall, the free market system doesn't necessarily lead to freedom in every case, and its activities could end up being a total disaster.** Not all activity within a free market is associated with the amount of freedom people have. This depends on what specific activity we are talking about. If we use the word freedom as in economic freedom, which include rights such as private ownership and "freedom of contract," these are associated market liberties and can increase a country's political freedoms. However, free-market systems don't always achieve other types of freedoms; Singapore and Hong Kong, for example, have very few political freedoms but have plenty of economic ones and have solid financial institutions. Free markets are also not required for economic or GDP growth, which is most visibly demonstrated by the rise of China [1]. A very free market can also generate many issues that may do the opposite of increasing your freedom. Consider The 2007/08 financial crisis was a consequence of freeing the economy through unlimited financial speculation. To put it very shortly, the trans-economics of speculation were argued to be exacerbated to the point of parody, and hence the bubble bursts. Although unlimited financial speculation doesn't directly affect freedom, the effects of recession do by limiting purchasing power, increasing unemployment, and so on [2]. [1] Economic Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_freedom [2] Baudrillard and Neoliberalism https://baudrillardstudies.ubishops.ca/baudrillard-and-neoliberalism/

Libertarians, for instance,, are often concerned about political tyranny, but completely gloss over corporate tyranny. So it would depend on your definition of a free market. Mercenaries are a free market. Selling weapons to two parties and then starting a war between them is free market. Private prisons thrive on demand, so they will seek to imprison as many people as possible for as long as possible. Hardly free. The Atlantic slave trade formed because of no ethical or political regulations against the practice. I could make an argument about healthcare, but healthcare is not a free market. The provider holds 100% of the cards. So it does not qualify in arguments about a free market.

Depends on what you mean by "free". If you mean "free" as in "the absence of government intervention", then yes. But if there's only one snippet of my comment you remember, remember this: *Capitalism works because competition.* Monopolies are bad for consumers, and empowering the government with socializing something is functionally just giving the state a monopoly, meaning you're paying for it whether you want to or not. Therefore, the role of government in economic markets should optimally be focused on positive-reinforcement methods of incentivizing competition between businesses. E.g: previous administration enacted legislation that allowed small business-owners to effectively act as one entity for business insurance, effectively allowing them to pool resources together with members of their community they trusted to produce societal value. In the African-American community, small-business ownership spiked a ridiculous ~400% in response to this legislation, as it helped reduce barriers to entry while simultaneously drumming up additional business for insurers. Whether by accident or by design, however, many of these newfound businesses we killed either by market pressure or by statist governments forcefully shutting them down in response to Covid-19 "safety" measures.

I’d say a free market encourages freedom. But if it becomes a market free of morality, then it can turn into oppression. The game Bioshock illustrates this super well.