If you are doing a deep redesign on the concept of "free markets," you need to get that revision into your posts. Otherwise you will be responsible for our reading them as defenses of the "free market" in the commons sense of use. I think the term is deeply misleading because "free market" is something that requires design and control. It does not happen by getting government out of the economy.
You are arguing with the wrong people if you think Progressives oppose the vibrant free market outside the Commons. It is the battle for the ownership of the Commons that defines the ideological differences between "Free Market" ideologues and economic realists who support a strong state hand on the economy to insure fairness and social responsibility. Your references to the "nanny state" reflect an ideology about government that I find deeply unhealthy and polemical. Those who warn about "nanny states" are too ready to provide the "bully state" to keep people in line when the economic austerity kicks in.
The idea that we don't need any infrastructure of prosperity and security to help us in our economic and political lives, you know, all those things governments do with our taxes, is what I oppose as ideological dogma. Economies are social reality zones, and ideologues of individualized "freedom" do not recognize social reality sufficiently to get the interdependence. Free education and healthcare are just the investments we could make in collective prosperity; but we choose to do it the ineffective individualized way. The results are that others are moving ahead of us because they are being realistic and we are not.