I have a problem with the question about a "truly free market must have regulations" which inherently and automatically means it is not a truley/purely whatever wording market, and the question about one party systems doing away with the bickering of a two party system, which is a valid statement because there is no two party bickering if there is a one party state but that doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea.
It may be worded a little ambiguously, but we have to remember that nothing is really, truly "free" of some sort of rule -- or outcome. I'm free to step off the cliff, but after having done so, I'm not "free" to hover 100 feet off the ground. Gravity will impose that on me.
Likewise, I consider myself to be a "free" individual, and yet I must follow at least a few rules, or face some consequences. For example, I'm not permitted to take other people's property from them without their permission, or to do them physical harm. These restrictions do not make me feel less free.
In the same way, markets require a few rules. Things like blatantly false advertising, for instance, or selling stolen goods. Some companies sell products made in dangerous conditions at near slave wages in some parts of the world -- but as a person who reads labels, I am free not to buy them. And I don't.
