“Free market” usually excludes the use of violence. Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence and will arrest you for violating land use restrictions.

An average free market supporter would say this isn’t the free market working.

> Land use restrictions are backed by the government, which has the monopoly on legal violence

No, free markets aren’t equivalent to anarchy and every state action isn’t tantamount to violence.

This is an ambiguity in the concept of free markets, which is why we’re having a linguistic versus conceptual discussion.

> “Free market” usually excludes the use of violence

How can contracts be enforced without coercive force if one party decides not to follow the agreement?

Property rights themselves are backed by the state’s monopoly on violence. So no, the free market doesn’t exclude violence, it requires it. (I’m not saying that capitalism uniquely requires violence in order to function, but libertarians like to pretend that it’s an exception.)