Well; tautologically, if there is no goverment intervention, there is no state which can even succeed or fail.
The other truth would seem to be that it is in ones' self-interest to construct or persuade a government to provide benefits to onesself and to the exclusion of competitors. Which has been proven quite true and effective over the last however long -- evolution always finds a way.
I guess the real question that should concern people is: a matter of definition. If both corporations and governments can be bought and sold (merely one more explicitly than the other), then there's no such thing as controls; it's all one big market, and there are no rules.
Locally (i.e., within a given sub-market), one should expect difficulty (i.e., non-free markets), but is such a specific condition really what's being referred to with the concept of "free market"?
A direct evolutionary analogy: there is freedom for basically anything and everything to live on the planet. Somewhere. But you don't see tigers at the bottom of the sea, and you don't see slugs crawling the desert. Therefore, must one conclude that the world, in a state of absolute nature, is non-free? That seems counter to the meanings of the words, so I shouldn't think so. Yet, that seems to be what people refer to with it, so it sounds like a definition error to me.
Tim