You may have discussed some of these principles with someone on this forum. It was not me.
I see it exactly the opposite way from you: The regulations you believe are necessary for a free market (ironic, if you think about it) are always and everywhere used to subvert market forces, and give preference to whichever entity has the most political control over the 'regulators'.
Yeah, sorry, it must have been in some other thread.
The "free" in capitalism's "free market" does not mean "free from regulations", but rather that "suppliers and customers can freely choose each other, and new suppliers and customers can freely enter the market if it seems advantageous to them". Thus, even a highly regulated market can be free as long the regulations do not prevent the entry of competitors. Theory says that such a free market will tend to achieve a fair price -- cost plus a small percentage of proft -- that makes it as profitable as any other market.
However, a strong government and proper regulation is necessary to keep a market free; because otherwise the leading suppliers will use their position to keep competition away, e.g. by dumping, controlling the supply of raw materials, false advertising, lobbying for exclusive laws, etc.. Without adequate antitrust and consumer protection laws, every market quickly becomes a monopoly or oligopoly, that converges to a price that will maximize the suppliers' net revenue -- usually much higher than the fair price of a free market.