Recommend the book Narconomics for an in-depth look at the «free-market» ideas that drug organizations use in South America.

Gang tattoos to limit the mobility of their labor, duopolies to minimize conflict but maintain most of the benefits of a monopoly, squeezing upstream suppliers by playing them off each other, geographically-differentiated pricing and much more.

The violence is obviously the biggest difference, but even the rest serves as a warning not to drop regulation entirely.

What makes you think that? Free market capitalism is premised on the existence of a “market.” A “market” is not something that exists in the state of nature. In particular, you need some sort of property rights. If you can kill people and take their stuff, as in the state of nature, or use violence to coerce labor, then you don’t have “markets.”

You don’t need a government necessarily to enforce those rights, but free exchange of goods and labor cannot exist if violence is possible to coerce those exchanges.