Funny, it’s easy for some people to accept that artistic freedom is good for art, but they still have trouble accepting that economic freedom is good for the economy.
It is funny; my assumptions about the ends of that analogy are the exact opposite. I tend to think economic freedom is better for society (not just for the economy), but it seems to me that the key to good art is the right restrictions. Shakespeare wrote some of the finest drama in English while he was being forced to satisfy all strata of the Elizabethan class system; keep to merciless deadlines; collaborate with the actors, directors, and investors in the King's Men; work in appearances by popular characters; and kiss the occasional royal ass. On the other hand, art removed from all restrictions seems to rapidly become so self-indulgent that it loses all value to anybody who isn't a member of the art community.
I suppose there's a distinction to be made between "freedom" from legal constraints and "freedom" from practical ones. Economic freedom doesn't mean businesspeople don't have to satisfy their customers, after all.