Haiti wasn't a tyranny. In fact, it was a prime example of proprietarian capitalism run totally amok - a regime in which the state did not restrict individuals from, say, owning other humans and reaping large profits on them.
It does not include the right to harm others or enslave them. Enslaving people obviously prevents them from having the right to trade freely.
> Haiti wasn't a tyranny
Owning other people is tyrannical.
Except the numerous exceptions where that isn't true. I can't engage in insider trading. I can't get a child to give me his lunch money in exchange for a lollipop. I can't deal heroin. The point being that markets aren't absolutely free, they're free within the limits of what we deem to be culturally and politically acceptable. If you look at the logic surrounding the end of slavery in 19th century Europe, much of the debate was about the property rights of slaveholders and how they ought to be compensated for their lost property.
Trying to force equality means you've got to hammer people down, and that means take away the freedom.
Tyranny, such as Haiti, also produce inequality, but without the prosperity.