Many defenses of this document are evasive (or respond to the weakest criticisms). The problem with the entry is that it contains several large factual errors. Among them: * Hayek did not argue that capitalism requires all markets to be unregulated in order to exist/optimally function; in the book cited here, he endorsed many forms of regulation. * The Hayekian concept of a "spontaneous order" is not a synonym for an equilibrium. And an economic equilibrium does not imply perfect efficiency. (You can find more on this point here: These errors are unfortunate, since the entry does a good job of succinctly summarizing many other strains of thought about capitalism. In any case, philosophers are quite capable of accurately summarizing these concepts. They should not denigrate their profession by suggesting it is incapable of digesting technical ideas from other parts of the academy (or faithfully representing disfavored ideological views).