Free market capitalism

So, what is the free market and why do I support it? Well in short, the free market is a system based on private property, and where goods and services are distributed according to the voluntary interactions made by individuals. So for example, barter would be part of the free market, as would purchase, gifts, gambling, charity etc. Whether I buy a burger from McDonald's, donate to habitat for humanity, buy my little sister a doll or trade you my dishwasher for your fridge i'm participating in the free market. But stealing, committing fraud or assaulting others is not part of the free market. So that's what the free market is. Now, why do I support it? Well, for one thing it's voluntary. Now why does it matter if it's voluntary? It's important in part because lets say I have a pen and you have a pair of sunglasses. I want the sunglasses more than the pen, you want the pen more than the sunglasses, so we trade. Who loses in that exchange? Nobody. Now ex post you might regret trading for the pen, but the principle remains the same. Trade is win-win by definition. Lets take this in the context of an employer-employee contract. Lets say that I'm a lazy bastard and I want somebody to mow my lawn. So I offer to hire you for $5.00 every hour you mow. You agree. What can be deduced from this? Did I exploit you? Did you exploit me? Did we exploit each other? Well the fact is, that if I didn't think my $5.00 was worth you mowing my lawn, and you valued your free time more than the $5.00 you received from mowing my lawn, then this interaction would not have taken place. So the basic principle of trade is that it is win win, and this is essential for the free market. So if trade is win win, what is the opposite of trade? The opposite of trade is force. Force is win-lose. Force is when a mugger comes up to an old lady and grabs her purse, or when somebody shoots another person etc. Another example of force is when the government enforces certain laws and regulations. Now catching murderers is one thing, in that scenario the use of force is justified. However, in a case where an individual is being payed below the federal minimum wage force is not justified because the contract was between consenting adults. Lets expand on that example I gave earlier involving you mowing my lawn. Suppose in that case there was a man named Fred who was listening in on our conversation about our contract. Fred, either out of malice for me or a sense of caring about you feels that I should be paying you $9.00/hr rather than 5. So, one day he decides to break into my house, beats me up and threaten to lock me in a cage if I don't pay you more. I think the general response would be outrage. People would think that Fred was just another thug. But let's say that instead of Fred, it was the state. Let's suppose The government passes a law stating that employees must be payed a minimum of $9.00/hr. Since me and you are adults relatively speaking, we decide to disregard the law and continue doing business as we see fit. The government finds out, and they issue a penalty of some sort, be it a fine ( a fancy word for taking your money for doing something they dislike) or perhaps even jail time. And in this situation what's the general response by your average person? They don't have an issue with this. They think that I was simply exploiting you. They think that it was just that the state did what it did, when all I did was replace Fred with the state. Ultimately all the free market consists of is people voluntarily trading their justly acquired property without coercion. By arguing against this, at what point does it become justified to initiate force against non-violent actors? These are simply some initial thoughts, I hope to expand more in the succeeding rounds. Good luck sir.