“Some people falsely believe that advocates of the free market..."

“Some people falsely believe that advocates of the free market must be opponents of the environment.  We care only about economic efficiency, the argument goes, and have no regard for the consequences of pollution and other examples of environmental degradation.  But a true supporter of private property and personal responsibility cannot be indifferent to environmental damage, and should view it as a form of unjustified aggression that must be punished or enjoined, or dealt with in some other way that is mutually satisfactory to all parties.  Private business should not have the right to socialize its costs by burdening other people with the by-products of its operations.

Economist Martin Anderson puts it this way.  Dumping garbage on your neighbor’s lawn is wrong.  But pollution is really just another form of garbage.  For that reason, proposals to charge pollution fees, which get higher the greater the pollution, neglect demand for justice.  Anderson compares it to taxing thieves as a way of giving them an economic incentive not to burglarize your home.  If the practice is wrong, the law should treat it as such.  “If a firm creates pollution without first entering into an agreement, or if the parties cannot come to an agreement fixing the cost and degree of pollution, then the court system could be used to assess damages, “say economist Walter Block and Robert W. McGee. 

In fact, that’s how American law used to treat pollution. But a series of nineteenth-century nuisance cases changed that: the courts suddenly decided that a certain level of pollution could be allowed for the sake of the greater good.  The implication was that if, for example, a few farmers had their property destroyed by passing trains, that was just the price of progress.  (Easy for them to say!) These cases allowed private industry to invade the property rights of others and deprived those others of legal recourse.  I do not see this as a free-market outcome.* [*I do not claim that pollution consisting of a few undetectable particles must be prohibited, or that no airplanes would have the right to travel high above people’s homes.  These are legitimate matters for the courts, where such matters have been properly decided in the past.] “ -Pages 105 & 106 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"...government intervention into the economy cannot be...."

"...government intervention into the economy cannot be assumed to be good and welcome and just. 

But that is how it is portrayed in too many of our American history classrooms.  It is not unusual for American students to find their textbooks telling them that injustice was everywhere before the federal government, motivated by nothing but a deep commitment to the public good, intervened to save them from the wickedness of the free market.  Alleged "monopolies" dictated prices to hapless consumers.  Laborers were forced to accept every-lower wages.  And thanks to their superior economic position, giant corporations effortlessly parried the attempts of anyone foolish enough to try and compete with them.

Every single aspect of this story is false, though of course this version of our history continues to be peddled and believed.  I don't blame people for believing it - it's the only rendition of events they're told of, unless by some fluke they have learned where to look for the truth.  But there is an agenda behind this silly comic-book version of history: to make people terrified of the "unfettered" free market, and to condition them to accept the ever-growing burdens that the political class imposes on the private sector as an unchangeable aspect of life that exists for their own good." -Pages 92 & 93 of The Revolution, A Manifesto

"Just about everyone is unhappy with the health care system..."

"Just about everyone is unhappy with the health care system we now have, a system some people wrongly blame on the free market. To the contrary, our system is shot through with government intervention, regulation, mandates, and other distortions that have put us in this unenviable situation.

It is easy to forget that for decades the United States had a health care system that was the envy of the world. We had the finest doctors and hospitals, patients received high-quality, affordable medical care, and thousands of privately funded charities provided health services for the poor. I worked in an emergency room where nobody was turned away for lack of funds. People had insurance policies for serious health problems but paid cash for routine doctor visits. That makes sense: insurance is intended to protect against unforeseen and catastrophic events like fire, floods or grave illness. Insurance, in short, is suppose to measure risk. It has nothing to do with that now. Something has obviously gone wrong with the system when we need insurance for routine visits and checkups, which are entirely predictable parts of our lives. " -Page 86 of The Revolution, A Manifesto