Trade can happen with any two or more people who have different things (and the things need not even be physical).
Stable markets, on the other hand, require a stable government of some sort to maintain them. And that's what you really need for the economic side of what we would think of as civilization.
Trade cannot happen without the threat of violent attack against those who would otherwise freely use particular land or possessions, aka rules, aka law enforcement, aka government.
Also, what's your basis for claiming that "government" is the only way to protect people/possessions from violent attack?
We have archaeological evidence that trading networks (and over fairly long distances, at that) existed long before anything we'd recognize as formal contract law was around, and certainly long before anything like international laws and regulations.
Likewise, one of the first things that develops when a government collapses (or, conversely, becomes overly restrictive) is a robust black market.
Contracts can be (and are) made in the absence of government-enforced contract law all the time. The parties to the contract simply develop their own mechanisms for enforcement (which can range from social pressure to outright violence).
Surely you're not trying to argue that drug dealers are likely to sue each other in court when one of them breaks the deal?
Agreed, but monopolies are also not uncommon under such conditions. Drug dealers have "turf", for example.
Markets only exist in the first place because of "government help": without government creating and enforcing property law contract law, and numerous other laws, there would be no markets.
So, like most of what Milton Friedman said, it's a dumb, wrong, and misleading statement.
And of course, monopolies exist quite happily in the libertarian fantasy of version of a free market, because economies of scale and network effects exist.