> I think true free marketers are about fair competition, and few would argue that legislation is necessary.

Exactly. Without legislation, the market is for sale.

> Allowing one company to benefit by illegal behaviour distorts the market and thus goes against the principles of free markets.

You've noticed the tautology at the heart of the ideology.

Really? "Fair" is not at all a free market concept.

I don't know why you got downvoted for that.

Fair competition is the ideal state for a market to be in, but a free market is about unrestricted competition and that can easily turn into monopolies or cabals.

Ok then, highlight all the times where a market has resulted in a monopoly with out underling government regulations limiting the ability of new entrants to the market.

I do believe government intervention has many unintended consequences but I'll take a stab at this. How about google search?

That was the obvious rebuttable, and to be honest I have a hard time countering that however the obvious statement is search really a market since it is a "free" product. One has to ask what is the actual market, is it the search engine or the advertising that pays for the search? Google while dominate is not a monopoly for Online Ads, so while they command a 90-95% market share in "online searches" that is not the product they sell so traditional market dynamics are not at play so I am hard pressed to call online search a "free market" given nothing it being sold, what is being sold is the ad space on google search.

It's the very definition of a free market concept. The price the market determines for something is the fair price, to charge more or less would be unfair to someone else

Ridiculous. You are conflating usage of the term 'fair'.

Fair market value is a reference to what the market will bear, not what is or is not fair.