The IMF is a lender of last resort. Governments aren't forced to utilize them, and evidence shows that currency devaluation is often a better strategy.

Having unfavorable terms, as you've described, makes the bitter pill of devaluation look a little sweeter.

But in response to your question, I'm not sure how it's not free market. Can you describe specifically what doesn't get covered from the "it's not forced lending" argument?

One government overspends, gets bailed out by a quasi-government entity that is funded by other governments. This is government intervention in currency in debt markets, by definition not laissez faire.

It seems like you have an issue with government-level intervention in general. Is that the case?