Daniel, this is an interesting article, thanks for sharing.
I am assuming that like many of my own, it is intended as exploratory, for discussion, rather than as a statement of fact.
A free market defines value, we probably agree there.
But a captive market cannot define value, it has to buy at whatever price the seller dictates.
A captive market is one buying necessities from monopolistic suppliers, for example.
The practice of goods intentionally purchased in quantity at a price established by a free market, to sell later at a higher price dictated to a captive market can surely never be described as fair.
I hope you would agree that type of exploitation is morally wrong, gross misuse of capital, and seems to be at the heart of much “Business”, and our obvious societal problem of increasingly unfair distribution of wealth.
The Danish example was an exception, assuming the sellers intention was to try to prevent exploitation, rather than to exploit.
Control of markets has to be handed over, from suppliers to consumers, to ensure that all markets remain free.
The challenge for ethical capitalists (if there can be such a thing), seems to be how to achieve that without government intervention (found to be unsustainable anyway).
To achieve without government intervention, the market has to have effectively infinite buying power, to never become captive. That means it has to have infinite wealth, with no possibility transfer of that wealth to business, as we see happening.
That doesn’t sound so impossible if we consider maybe a cryptocurrency enabled, solar powered, free market of consumers, trading with conventional business, perhaps?