IMO, this is still a free market modulo the part with the city planning which is not about voluntary exchange of services or goods but a coertion by law. The d

IMO, this is still a free market modulo the part with the city planning which is not about voluntary exchange of services or goods but a coertion by law. The definition of free market is so much broader than the peculiarities you've mentioned. Couldn't there be a free market before the fiat money existed? In any case, in my original post I was talking about forces of free market, these forces might exist in partially free market where many things are not a free choice but consequence of one or the other type of social coercion. Free market force: all it means is that the specific exchange between the parties was done voluntarily as a manifestation of the parties preferences in face of all other alternatives they have. In this sense the parties came to a conclusion that this action maximizes their utility. I'm not arguing that free market forces are better than the alternative (you need to define what you mean by better), just saying in terms of resources allocation, free market forces maximize utility in face of other alternatives. You can argue that this is a prisoner dilemma situation etc... but that's a fallacy as well IMO (can discuss this if more details are desired)