A free market requires the protection of the rights of the individual. That is not what rules in sports are. In a free country one is free to take any action except that which is explicitly prohibited as a violation of rights. Sports rules dictate procedures within a highly delimited realm of physical competition that is not based on trade as exchanging value for value. The sports rules metaphor is more like the regulatory state and unrelated to a free market, which is why it is promoted as a metaphor by statists.

Yes, rules are necessary. But they don't have to be imposed by government; just as governments don't make the rules for playing football or baseball. Rules of cooperation and reciprocity are hardwired into the human brain. We are social animals, are largely cooperative and prone to exchange goods fairly. Caveat emptor of course, since there is always a small percentage of nefarious sociopaths who will try to game any system. But government can't rid the world of those. In fact, government is made up of a preponderance of immoral, petty dictators. That is the LAST place we should be looking for rules of how we trade goods.

You are making an error here. "Free Market" does not mean no 'rules". but the only "rules" needed are those to protect individual rights. Thus, no trader can be allowed to infringe on the rights of others. Every trade becomes a win/win.
Governments role is to protect our rights.

The customers provide the guidelines in the free market and the producers must follow them or lose customers.

but we can have a freer one than we have now....

and then a freer one...and then a freer one.....

As soon as the decision is made to 'limit' free markets you invite all the despots large and small to begin forcing (using violence) the market to benefit those who use force; i.e. the lawmakers. The only rules that need apply are for prevention of crime against others rights, not perceived ethereal rights that are used to describe a perceived wrong because someone used the wrong pronoun.

Regulation by anything other than the free will decision making by the customers just doesnt work. It would require someone or group to "decide" what was OK and what wasnt. But, there is nothing that would correct any mistakes or hidden agendas they had.

If I dont like what facebook does, which I dont, I can just abstain from using it. Same with TV and news media. I do this all the time. I am the customer from HELL, who makes up his own mind (for better or worse). If everyone else did that, the marketplace would serve the people better.

A free market with rules...is not a free market. The only place for rules is to protect life and property from crime, fraud and the breaking of contracts

A free market like a free anything creates its own laws that are unbreakable because otherwise, they don't work. Take supply and demand. You can try to cheat it all you want, but it won't do you an iota of good. The problem is humans need to give up being greedy and using coercion. If the use of force was wiped out of human culture there'd be no need for books of laws and their use. Unfortunately, we haven't advanced that far.-- yet.

Mankind has been trading for all of its existence...long before "government" stepped in. This just shows that it doesn't require a government to ensure fair trading between honest people.

A rules-free market allows monopolies and trusts to form, which can stifle the element most important to trade, competition. Adam Smith's concept of a free market assumes a degree of consumer power, by favoring the sellers with the best product for a reasonable price. Once trusts and the accompanying price fixing are allowed to be formed, the only power the consumer has is to stop buying the products.

Monopolies favor only the seller, who has no incentive for product improvement. Some of us are old enough to remember the Bell telephone monopoly, and how the breakup of that monopoly helped create the dynamic, competitive environment for communication services we experience today.

At a minimum, there should be rules that prohibit the formation of monopolies and trusts. In medieval Europe, the rules were established among merchant societies and craftsman guilds, who could take violators before courts, with often unsatisfactory outcomes. That alone points to a need for a common enforceable set of rules, with sufficient authority to force participants to abide by them. That almost inevitably puts enforcement in the hands of government. The question then becomes at what level of government the rules are to be enforced.

Part of the problem with health care, as one glaring example, is that we've allowed the constitutional restriction on inhibiting interstate commerce to be violated by states. Each state sets the rules for health care, including what any health insurance has to cover. creating wild variances in the cost of health care from state to state, and inhibiting trade in medical goods and services between states. That would indicate that the rules of commerce in the U.S. should be set at the highest level in order for the efficient free flow of goods and services

There are natural rules that govern a free market. If you violate them, they will enforce themselves.

Seems the only "rule" required would be the given that your rights end where mine begin.

And what exactly are the rules of a free market? I think it can be summed up pretty easily: act the way you want others to act. You want your rights and privileges protected and respected, so do the same towards others. Be honest. Play by those rules and I don't see a whole lot of problems.

The problems come when people decide that they need to make rules for other people because they don't respect others. This is usually those in government seeking power. That's when you start getting favorable treatment towards some groups, cronyism, etc.

I would suggest a market without rules/laws is a black market.