It’s a very interesting read, at the same time, there were a couple of issues with it:

1. The cancer babies and free market — that is an oversimplification. Treatment of babies with with cancer can not only produce additional productive members of society, therefore a free market society would be interested within its’ collective self-interest to receive the fruits of their added-value when they become part of the workforce, but also is an ethical, moral POV. Secular morality is completely independent from economic models, and it does not require a Lenin-Trotzky-Dzerzhynsky-loving society for it to have morality, hence still save the babies. Also, one must note as well that in the absence of a governmental actor, free market provides tools from the accumulators of capital to supplement this, since, again, morality is economy-agnostic.
2. Over the course of the article you do not consider the government and subsequent policy makers as unaccountable monopolistic service providers which, historically, have a horrifyingly bad trackrecord on almost anything — from economic policy, to saving cancer babies, especially if they are, for example, black. Moreover, they have monopolized, over the course of the last decades, more and more services, closing down actual economic markets for the benefit of sustaining their own system. As an example from Berlin — the government defines the 1) cost of a taxi ride, 2) defines which operators are allowed 3) defines the look and feel of a taxi and its’ model, 4) defines the cost of the taxi medallion, 5) defines the regulations of the taxi union, 6) defines the geographical reach of operators , 7) defines the regulations that have to be followed by the driver (and how to report him, an impossibly byzantine bureaucratic procedure unavailable for most)— ergo, the consumer cannot a) make a purchasing decision, b) opt for a better quality of service, c) allow for third-party providers, offering a better service, to get into a market. This overregulation scenario, which governments opt-in to go for can be called in your parlance as a “no market”. To extrapolate my point even further — multiple governmental and taxpayer funded government services still, for some unknown reason have a governmental fee. E.g. getting your passport renewed, or getting a foreign passport (e.g. CIS countries). Essentially there is, for a large amount of day-to-day services offered no alternative to state-owned profit centers (e.g. consulate services even), which are protected from any competition simply based on the fact that they are representatives of a system to which certain aspects and services were delegated to, at some point in history. The problem with that is, of course, the fact that, like any system, it strives for self-preservation and replication, expanding its influence into new service areas and destroying any potential markets that could have existed there. Point is: I am not 100% why such behavior is rewarded by you, with the proposal of additional delegation of control to the government. Even if you look at a macro scale, governments in developed countries have been increasing their economic presence extensively in the last 40 years, and have now achieved majority stakes in economies that they, in theory, should only regulate, rather than be economic actors in.
3. At the end of the day, although the idea of fake markets is interesting, what I don’t fully understand is why you do not consider the competition between these fake markets themselves as competition. One could argue that actually it’s not the products sold on these markets are competing, and that is not the end-game of the companies you are looking at, instead — the concept of a market is in itself a product. If that is so, then we need to, instead of viewing the competition between the sellers on Amazon and Amazon itself, view the competition between Amazon, Ebay, Craigslist and Etsy (and that new one coming out soon) as the actual free market that we are striving to achieve, no?

Anyway, thanks for the article :)