It is unlikely that a market can be entirely free, as aggression and wrongdoing will always exist and will affect choices in some way. However, voluntary exchanges that take place outside systems of institutionalized aggression (outside of political class control via the state) deserve to be called a free market.

What a great point. You’re never going to escape people using force; any society will have some of that, and that force will restrict others’ choices to some degree. To that degree, the market is not “free”.

I agree with you, therefore, that the persistent problem is not force / aggression / coercion as a second-order, countervailing dynamic against the otherwise voluntary and spontaneous market, but institutionalized force / aggression / coercion that need not compete at all.

Maybe we should call what we propose “the non-institutional market” or “the counterinstitutional market” because of how important it is that the market realize these spontaneous interests which reflect actual, present needs and not just perpetuated agendas of abstract organizations. That’s anti-state and anti-corporate; indeed, the biggest subsidy corporations get, in my book, is entity status.