Does it ensure it, or is it simply a basic characteristic? I think of the market-driven economy as amoral, but largely effective -- certainly better than any other solution we've seen to date. But your use of the term "ensure" connotes intent, and intent implies moral cause.
I meant 'ensure' in the sense that the structure of laws and government are designed to have the least impact and/or influence possible while maintaining a reasonably fair and level playing field. I understand the point you make and agree. The only 'morality' involved is in basic natural law like penalties for theft, fraud, etc that almost any kind of remotely functional system would demand.
I don't disagree with the larger point here, but sometimes I think pro-market people slip into thinking that markets are positively moral, rather than simply fair through consistency (so long as laws are justly enforced). Markets are not immoral, which socialism is. Markets are baseline neutral, and allow for positive moral decisions because people can do what they wish with charitable or humanitarian use of private property.
Spot on, sir. Could not agree more.
It's very hard to convey detailed meaning & nuance across a wee bit of text on some internet discussion forum concerning deep and fundamental concepts and principles. Intents and viewpoints can be easily and honestly misinterpreted.
Forgive me if my phrasing and choices in necessary brevity caused any misunderstanding or confusion.