And even these economies are structured around monopolistic and oligopolistic actors.
They are as related to “free market” as northern European countries welfare state is related to Communism.
Like there's a whole zoo of healthcare provision approaches, for example. Single payer can work fine (ala Norway), but so can Bismarck (ala Switzerland). The latter is a technological architecture that _enables_ similar or better outcomes, while being closer to a fully market-based approach.
Also, if you call regulations “technologies” (which I don't disagree with) then “free market” means technology-free.
Also, I'm not sure a free market is technology-free per se. What you're talking about is specifically ancap-like, but most free market frameworks involve a state actor that should (among other things) not allow for itself to be weaponized against other market participants.
Like the paradox of tolerance, you can't tolerate a free market for bribing your way to benefit from the state's monopoly on violence. I don't think the existence of this paradox destroys the value of free markets or tolerance.
I'm sorry to tell you we don't build spaceports on top of mountain, for a reason.