There are discussions about freeconomics, triggered by the publication of Chris Anderson's book. I have already written quite a few times about why its economic logic is flawed. See them here.
I cannot help asking this question. Do advocates of freeconomics think that free is the most economically effective price, or that free is the most morally right price?
I hope the former is the case. But price being determined by supply and demand, they seem arguing too passionately for for the only ultimate price. If they believe strongly that it is morally (or socially or by any viewpoint) right to price at free, they can say so. But it's different from saying 'free' is inevitable because of economic forces.
Let me step back a bit. You can be excited to find a truth that confirms your philosophical or religious beliefs. In those cases, however, you should be especially careful not to be too confident with insufficient logic and evidence.