Without fail, I hear “markets” or “free markets” defined by terms revolving around money, usually profit, property rights and/or buyers and sellers. Such definitions, I argue, leave out a key part of what constitute markets, and thus make it more difficult than it should be to sell the vision of a free society.

When discussing the topic, I begin my description of a free market as being private, voluntary exchanges between individuals and organizations. Such a definition allows me to immediately cite a host of mediating institutions that work to ameliorate a societal condition, ensure public safety and so forth.

For example, I follow up the above definition by referring to nonprofit entities such as the Red Cross, Rotary Clubs, The United Way, Underwriters Laboratory, Consumers Report and the like, and volunteering for one’s pet cause. I then add for-profit enterprises to the list, including those like (Paul) Newman’s Own or Fifty50, which give all their profits or substantial portions of them to charitable endeavors. (Newman's Own Foundation give to charites worldwide; half of Fifty50’s profits go to diabetes research.)

I do reference property rights and organizations existing to make profits for the benefit of shareholders. However, by starting with those and related terms, we make it harder on ourselves to paint the picture of a free society, the foundation of which is free markets. However, markets are not simply about profits; a keystone of markets is: private, voluntary exchanges between individuals and organizations.