The articles analyzes the relation that exists between the hegemonic juridical culture in antitrust, technocracy, and populism. Firstly, I analyze the chilean interpretative canon in antitrust law and conclude that it follows the international trend of ignoring written law and instead of that imposing diverse ideas of how to maximize some kind of efficiency. Secondly, I make the argument that this phenomenon is of technocratic character, and that although does who participate in it consider themselves contrary to populism, they are actually quite similar to the populist in the sense that they harm political deliberation. Thirdly, I make the argument that to both stances underlies a commodified versión of politics in which people just defend merely subjective interests as if they were in the market. Fourthly, I make the argument that this technocratic status quo is unstable and has legitimacy problems.En este artículo abordo la relación que existe entre la cultura jurídica hegemónica en libre competencia, la tecnocracia y el populismo. Primero, analizo la cultura jurídica de libre competencia en Chile y concluyo que continúa la tendencia global de ignorar el tenor literal y, en vez de ello, sigue lineamientos respecto de cómo maximizar algún tipo de eficiencia. Segundo, argumento que este fenómeno tecnocrático, si bien se considera a sí mismo contrario al populismo, se asemeja a él pues en ambos casos se dificulta la deliberación política. Tercero, argumento que el statu quo tecnocrático es inestable y tiene problemas de legitimidad.