Monopolies have historically shit all over the notion that supply and demand is a good model to use for the market.
Much like most economic models, there are underlying assumptions about it that make it bad at actually predicting the real world. Things like perfectly competitive markets (haha), prices being adjustable (haha) and the forces that act on supply/demand being rational (extra hahaha).
There are lots and lots of cases where it fails, like the housing bubble, administered prices and wages.
Still, it might as well be a religion. Afterall, people can say it is close to a most fundamental law about markets with a straight face (despite it failling all the time).
What I would counter is that it that we can see that free markets work preferably to monopolised ones, or any of the other ones you've provided where selfish intervention of one kind or another has interfered with supply or demand.
All those cases I mentioned came arose under one of the most (maybe the most?) free market of modernity.
No. I don't believe you're trying to create a straw man intentionally but if you're going to jump from black to white, and a large jump at that, then it produces the same outcome all the same.
this false dichotomy between monopoly and its precursor is non sequitur.
Ignoring the fallacious teleological argument, I'm happy to rely on Wikipedia for this as this is basic knowledge:
> In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by buyers and sellers negotiating in an open market without market coercions.
What are market coercions?
> Examples of such prohibited market coercions include: economic privilege, *monopolies*, and artificial scarcities.
Aside from their lack of empathy and the ignoring of the distortion of the supply of labour happening that makes the "non-problem" an actual problem, what is incorrect about pointing out that supply and demand are, if not the most fundamental factor then close to it, in a market?