>"free" and "free of governmental interference" are not the same thing.

Since "free" in this context means absence of coercion against extant or would-be competitors, and since government regulatory efforts are a source of such anti-competitive coercion, unless one is concerned with firms sending hit squads against each other (which would more rightly be considered "crime"), the distinction isn't particularly useful.

Are you suggesting the only possible forms of anti-competitive coercion are government regulation or hit squads?

If it is voluntary it is not coercive. You can always not deal with your competition on unfair terms. In what circumstance could a 3rd party non-violent entity coerce you? The biggest one I can think of is "buying you out" but that is still either voluntary, in that the owners agree on the buyout, or it is a buyout of a publicly traded company, and I can't even get started on how non-free market the stock market is, but even then you elected to sell ownership in a public marketplace voluntarily and took that risk.

>In what circumstance could a 3rd party non-violent entity coerce you?

Predatory pricing. Buying up necessary capital. Paying other companies to not deal with you (Suppliers, Retailers, Advertisers etc.)

All completely voluntary, and these are just off the top of my head.

>Predatory pricing.

Offering a lower price to consumers than your competition is not coercion against a competitor.

>Buying up necessary capital.

Offering a higher price to suppliers than your competition is not coercion against a competitor.

>Paying other companies to not deal with you

Entering into exclusive deals with other firms is not coercion against a competitor.

> Offering a lower price to consumers than your competition is not coercion against a competitor.

It is if you are offering a price lower than your costs which you offset by cash from earlier deals, which the new upstart cannot do. When the new upstart is bankrupt you push the price higher, because now there's no competition anymore. That's the reason such stunts are forbidden (at least in civilized countries).

And when you go bankrupt because you're unable to run your business, you'd consider that completely voluntary?

How is it not voluntary? I started it. I knew upfront I could fail. Has anyone else forced me to fail?

Once you start the company, you are subject to market pressures, and when another company can manipulate those pressures, they can manipulate you.

Indeed, even your decision of whether to start the company is influenced by the same market pressures.

If you can't profit off an enterprise, then there is not enough demand to justify your existance. If the market leader is going to undercut you to drive you out of business to then jack up prices to exploit consumers, assuming no artificial barriers to entering the market occur (mostly legal exploitation) or the price to entry is not too high, then as soon as they up their rates they reopen territory for competitors to arise.

In the end, if the market leader is constantly crushing competitors through undercutting to maintain their position, they are not really exploiting their customers at a monopoly and its a market win. It is still competition - the leader just moves to eliminate competition (which would piss off shareholders or anyone in general with a long term outlook on the company) rather than compete against it. As long as they cannot stop competition (and in a voluntary fair system, they cannot) then they have to deal with it one way or another.