Free market != markets with no government, no rule of law, etc.
A very common argument is "there is no such thing as a free market", that we're only arguing about "whether" to "regulate" the market, only "how much."
This is a straw man argument on several levels. A free market philosophy assumes that there is a government, that there are laws, and that there is rule of law. So, for example, it is one thing to have "preemptive" regulations, that prescribe exactly how things should be done in order to even begin to operate in the market, and quite another to have laws against fraud and theft or perhaps hiring yourself out as a freelance assassin. Free market advocates are in favor of laws that make fraud and theft illegal. In fact, they're in favor of all laws that serve to protect private property.
What free market advocates argue against are the former, the preemptive regulations that, however reasonable in appearance, often get in the way of starting a business or developing new product lines. We can cede the fact that there is no way to eliminate all such regulations: it's a natural tendency of people and governments to write laws like that. What we don't cede is the notion that not all such regulations actually serve the good that they purport to serve, and often do more harm. That harm is mostly invisible, in terms of opportunity costs, such as lost jobs, lower economic growth and so on.
It isn't a matter of "how much" regulation, therefore, so much as "what kind."