Compared to what? As far as I can see, the only alternative to a free market is some kind of controlled market, and a controlled market requires some subset of the population to control it.
If you're a controller, then holding that much power is almost certainly going to lead to a corrosion of moral character -- the reason power corrupts is because it makes it too easy for an individual to get huge benefits (whether personal benefits or just service of their own personal view of the greater good) by doing (what look like) minor wrongs.
If you're not a controller, then it leads to a corrosion of moral character because your own interests will be best served by sucking up to the controllers, rather than by doing the right thing.
Of course, I haven't bothered to define what the hell "moral character" actually is, but I think the above will hold for most sensible definitions.
As far as I can see, the only alternative to a free market is some kind of controlled market, and a controlled market requires some subset of the population to control it.
Free markets do not create powerful people? I think if anything the supposed US/Soivet case studies (both of which are imperfect examples of the ideologies they were supposed to represent), is that both claimed to be removing excess power from single hands. Both did the opposite. Both ended up creating a power class.
In the case where powerful individuals are public as opposed to private people you can at least complain. With free markets, as long as their actions are legal, it's 'fair.' To create a framework for accountability, you need to create a legal framework, which of course makes the 'market' a little less 'free.'
A patent troll doesn't need to justify his actions in terms of public good. Nor does any other commercial entity. The free market theory as a moral theory might be summed up as: everyone do what's best for them. Between, supply & demand and game theory, we'll hit the best result for everyone.
They do only if someone is selling power, something that happens in non-free markets as well.
In a free market, willing participants make the deals that they want, pretty much without regard for what other people want. In other words, they're not affected by the powerful.
To me, the key point is not whether someone else has the money to pursue their dreams, it's whether I have the freedom to pursue mine. Non-free markets almost always place more restrictions on the little guy because rich guys buy exemptions.
If you're a controller, then holding that much power is almost certainly going to lead to a corrosion of moral character -- the reason power corrupts is because it makes it too easy for an individual to get huge benefits (whether personal benefits or just service of their own personal view of the greater good) by doing (what look like) minor wrongs.
If you're not a controller, then it leads to a corrosion of moral character because your own interests will be best served by sucking up to the controllers, rather than by doing the right thing.
Of course, I haven't bothered to define what the hell "moral character" actually is, but I think the above will hold for most sensible definitions.