"That doesn’t make any sense. Freedom is your ability to do whatever it is you want, restrictions are, therefore, the opposite of freedom. One cannot find freedom in restrictions anymore than one can find white in black."

Freedom for whom? Restrictions on A can be essential to freedom for B. Restrictions on your privilege to kill me give me the freedom to live. There is nothing at all contradictory about that. A free market runs on competition. Monopolies squelch competition, so they make the market less free. Restrictions on monopolies enhance competition. This is not rocket science.

Anti-trust laws coordinate the plus-sum game called a barter economy. Friedman and Hayek both embraced the idea of government regulation of monopolies, but didn't like how it was done and, in Friedman's case, perhaps, didn't believe it could be done well enough to be worth doing. https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060889.pdf

https://professorgeradin.blogs.com/professor_geradins_weblog/2006/11/friedman_on_the.html (The others named are lightweight cult-leaders, in my opinion.)

There is no such thing as a "genuine" free market. If anything, the test is probing whether the taker thinks there is such a thing. OTOH, there may be an optimally free market, but people disagree on what "optimal" means, too. That disagreement, however, is about what is best de re and not about what the word means de dicto. (If that distinction is new to you, do look it up; it's an excellent window into the problems of interpreting things like constitutions.)