No single other system has ever generated so much wealth, so quickly, for so many people in the history of any civilization ever. "

You did not actually address the issue. Yes, the free market produces more wealth than any other system.

The free market ALSO produces the greatest income inequality, and produces poor and alienated people.

Case in point: the deregulation seen in this country over the past few decades has contributed to a massive increase in GDP.

Over the past 20-30 years, although GDP has grown, real median income (adjusted for inflation) has decreased.

How is this possible?

All of the economic increase has gone to an increasingly small group of people.

It is not merely a question of does it work. Why is it a goal to maximize economic growth, if the vast majority of people do not get to share in its benefits?

"This is an evolutionary principle." Altruism (self-sacrifice for the sake of another) can be found through out nature. Besides for which, human beings have the capacity to overrule genetic imperatives.

In a comment above I distinguished between ecognoramuses and bad economists. I would say that someone who believes the minimum wage helps the poor, while never considering its effects on supply and demand, is ecognorant. On the other hand, there are economists like Card and Krueger, who do understand supply and demand, and believe the MW helps the poor. But they fail to understand that the MW theory is counterfactual: a MW will cause more unemployment than otherwise. Hence, any data will illustrate this theory. Their use of empirical analysis is just bad economics.

People who don't know economic reasoning and support the MW are ecognorant. People who misunderstand economic reasoning and support the MW are bad economists.

But credentials have no bearing on the actual arguments, which is what we are concerned with. If someone with the credentials of Paul Krugman makes a bad argument, it's still a bad argument.

They do.  Look: I have specialized knowledge that brings me insight to some of the idiotic things that people say about matters of which they are manifestly ignorant.  Many people do.  What's important about economics is that someone who runs their yap about, say, aviation can do so pretty innocently, without putting their hand to a general disaster.  Almost everybody speaking popularly about economics is an epistemic arsonist, now, in the middle of a conflagration.

That does deserve special condemnation.

Initially, I won't defend much of anything Krugman has ever written in the NYT, I'll disagree with him on almost everything regarding economics.  This does not earn Krugman the title of a "bad economist".  A bad economist is someone who misapplies methodologies, who backs claims with bad/incomplete/misleading data et cetera. 

I'll second the comment above, many of the things on the list are not economic 'fallacies' in fact, that's a misapplicaiton of the word fallacy (making you ignorant of logic, and if you'd like to invent a term for that, go ahead).  You may disagree with protectionists, keyensians, et cetera, but that doesnt make people who agree with these pespectives ignorant.  There's a long list of important contemporary economists (whose combined credentials dwarf the author of this blog, who, from what i can find is a 'freelance writer' somewhere in canada?) who would classify themselves as neo-keyensians.  

Look, as an economist I often shudder when I listen to uninformed pontification about economics, but we are not alone.  Ill-informed people hold opinions on a wide variety of subjects, religion, ethics, sociology (esp. culture, race and gender studies), the natural sciences, history, et cetera.  Don't be so arrogant as to assert that people who don't know anything about economics (much less, anarcho-capitalist economics, a relatively understudied branch of the discipline) deserve a special pejorative.

Another reason is that people experience economic activity all the time, e.g. buying and selling, working, etc., so they feel they can speak authoritatively about economics. Yes, this is true, but they are still clueless with regards to economic reasoning.

Regarding the term "ecognorances" (noun) to designate a person who is ecognorant, I think "ecognoramus" is better.

This is worse because these people think they know some economics and feel free to speak about it.