[BrenBarn]

> Having a free society implies the freedom to exchange with each other with minimal restrictions.

I don't think that it implies "with minimal restrictions", any more than it implies the freedom to do anything else with minimal restrictions. In any case, a free society also implies a lot of other freedoms, and insofar as wealth accumulation interferes with those other freedoms, it's not adding to net freedom. An abstract "freedom from market restriction" is not useful if you don't have things like the freedom to eat or the freedom to sleep peacefully.

> Not allowing people to do so runs opposite to the ideals of the stated intention.

Not necessarily. Not allowing anyone to engage in market activity probably does; allowing everyone to engage without restrictions also does. The point is that markets don't have some magical special status as a component of freedom.

> But the outright banning of markets is equivalent to the banning of hammers, just because hammers are sometimes used to bludgeon people to death.

I'm not suggesting banning markets, I'm just saying that the mirror image of your position is also true: elevating markets to some mythical status and insisting that they are the ultimate litmus test of freedom is like saying that because hammers can be used to build houses, everyone must be allowed to use hammers however they please. Markets (just like everything else) are okay when controlled and regulated within their bounded role as a component of society.