This is only true if you're looking at the capital market. If you consider the labor market, I would argue it's freer if employees have more freedom to change jobs (i.e. there is some redistribution and social safety net).
Edit: Also, a market with redistribution is more democratic. More actors have money to provide market input (demand or investment) when resources are not highly concentrated.
Free market doesn't mean that actors can do whatever they want. It means that the market has the power to allocate resources. In the labor market, the labor market allocated that employee to a job, and allocated a penalty to changing jobs, that the government in then changing.
Also, even in the labor market, the scenario you're describing is punishing the labor buyer but rewarding the labor provider, so it's not just the capital market that's less free, it's the labor market too.
More actors being able to provide input is restricting the markets. The market allocated who gets to provide input in itself.
All I'm saying is, don't fetishize the market being free.
Free markets are not about just the power to allocate, but also transparent knowledge in a decision. The labor purchaser almost always has an advantage over the labor provider in their transaction and don't actually represent a free market.
Even in the tech industry this is true. People were shocked the other day when they found out that their income data was being reported and sold by the big credit companies in America. Google, Microsoft, Amazon, they all share their employees income data with one another through 3rd parties. They have so much more knowledge than you or I and it represents a huge advantage for them when hiring.
Free markets are supposed to transmit information as prices. Access to information has nothing to do with a market being free or not, and the fact that participants with an information advantage have an advantage is a big part of why people think markets should be free.
