I am very late to this post but what a great read.

If I offer an exchange, you are free to accept, decline, or negotiate. This is mutual respect for the other's right to consent. There is nothing inherently coercive.

There is nothing inherently coercive in free trade if you base your assumptions on both parties being on an equal power balance and abundance of supply. If take this to an extreme example: If there are only a few water suppliers in the world who control most of the supply and they want to charge you 10$ for a water bottle, what options do you have? It might not be coercive per se (use of force) but you are forced into a decision.

Only political protection sustains the modern mega-corporation model. This is also why corporate lobbyists are such a significant factor in government. These businesses are creatures of politics, not the market.

I agree with the view of @valued-customer, there is no possibility of free markets existing without a government that protects the interest of those participating in exchanges. It is a difficult problem to solve, when power taints politics and hence skews the markets. That is something that we saw very clearly in 2008, when big banks who went bankrupt were bailed out by governments. However, individuals who couldnt pay their mortages were kicked out from their homes. Basically business bankruptcy was protected but not individual bankruptcy.

There is much to talk about this topic. I hope I can write a blog post soon and have some debate about if "free markets" could trully free. I agree with your conclusion that markets are corrupt by politics. The problem is that politics are corrupt by markets as well, its a never-ending cycle where only a few benefit. I still see governments as necessary because we will never have a free-market where the basic assumptions are met and inbalances in power are not created. This is a very idylic view which in a practical view can probably never be met.