It's not exactly a "free market," if you're panicked or pressured into action.

The notion of a consumer going to the store to buy "widgets" might be the standard example used in economic textbooks, which is very effective at conveying the message that "free markets" are good for both consumer and producer. If you don't want widgets at that price, don't buy them! The price will drop to a level that producers and consumers alike will find to be fair.

But when you try to find real-life examples of widgets, you find that very little of the money we spend falls into that category. Because, you see, there's a fatal flaw in the foundation of free-market economics, a tragic oversight - most of the money we spend these days is not on discretionary items like shoes or cups of coffee or iPhones - widgets, if you will. No, most of the money we spend is on necessities such as housing, education, health care. Can you say no to renting an apartment? Yeah, if you want to be homeless. Can you really say no to the price of a college education? Yeah, if you want to have zero job prospects. Can you really say no to health care? Yeah, if you want to play Russian roulette with your life.

So, if you can't really say "no" to any of these things, is it still really a free market, or does the producer/provider actually have the upper hand? If so, the price level for all these modern-day necessities will end up being higher than the average consumer can logically afford. Which is on its face unfair. Wrong, even. Something that should be corrected by force of law.