I began this book by pointing out that the close association in modern political thought between freedom and the market is both historically anomalous and, in some respects, morally troubling. To the extent that the defenders of market freedom are able to monopolize the language of freedom in public life, they are able to skew the terms of debate in a way that tends to exaggerate the merits of market-based solutions to matters of public concern. When we ask whether governments should use fiscal and monetary policy to try to stimulate the economy, or whether certain businesses are “too big to fail,” or whether individuals should be shielded from the consequences of bad economic decisions or bad economic conditions, or whether those who suffer at the hands of the market – the unemployed, the uninsured, the unlucky, the poor – should receive public assistance, there is a folk intuition that says that in a truly free society none of these things would happen: that economic growth would be promoted by private rather than public means, failing businesses would be allowed to fail, people would have to live with the consequences of their bad decisions or bad luck, those in need would be left to their own devices, and so on.