Clinton opened up the markets in the 1992, he removed a lot of regulation and believed that with less or no regulation the market would operate more efficentley, he argued also that due to the nature of captalisim and our understanding of how humans operate (based on John Nash's approach applied from Game Theory and Adam Smiths 'Invisible Hand' notion) that if everyone went around surving their best interest society would flourish.

I should have perhaps clarified this more so, my apologies.

This is true. I do however think that we are disagreeing because we are thinking of "the free market" as two different things. The current system we are and have been operating under is what is called a mixed economy. This means that for the most part business is free to do what it wants but the government is responsible for playing the role of traffic cop to make sure everyone plays fair. Also, in extraordinary circumstances (like the great depression or WW2) they can step in and institute price controls, rationing, or nationalization of businesses or necessary functions so that average folks can still afford to buy the basics like bread and milk and continue to go about their lives. Also, under a mixed economy the government is able to  impose tarriffs on imports (to help out local businesses in the domestic economy) or if foreign businesses do come into the country they can stipulate and enforce that a pre-determined percentage of that businesses profits must stay in the local economy.

The last 50 years of economic ideology referring to the free market however is very different indeed. The policies of Milton Friedman (for whom I have a great deal of respect although I disagree with vehemently) say that the only way we can have a truly free market is if the government steps out altogether.

The underlying premise is that the economy is similar to a force of nature and any meddling in it (such as the hand of a government looking out for it's people) is seen as a disturbance that throws it out of whack. So, today the term "free market" actually means this:

1) No more government regulation or oversight. All businesses become 'self-policing' which means that we run on the honour system. This has far-reaching consequences. Can anyone say Enron??? Under this system foreign investors (or local business, Haliburton just moved their headquarters to Dubai) can move all their money in or out of the country as they see fit. This leads to an economy that is like standing in the shower and blasting oneself with scalding hot water then two seconds later switching to ice cold water. The result is usually what we call a 'failed' state!

2) Cut taxes to the bone. In order to do this, most government programs have to go, and a basic very minimal 'flat' tax is imposed on everyone. Essentially the only purpose of the government becomes to protect the property rights of owners and maintain social order (basically the military, police, and justice system) Social security, medicare, the education system, roads and bridges, ALL of it must be in private hands. Because this is usually very unpopular with most average joes there tends to be a lot of civil unrest, which has been illustrated in several countries that have tried to adopt Friedman's vision of a free market.

There's plenty!

Chile is a great example. The military dictator Augusto Pinochet orchestrated a coup (sanctioned and aided by the CIA, although that is another story) in which the leftist president Salvador Allende was killed. Allende's policies were very popular with most folks at the time- he instituted price controls so that average people could afford staple food stuffs and utilities, and he nationalized the major cash cow industries (like tin and copper mining I believe) to pay for these programs. There were also many stringent laws for foreign business- he passed legislation that ensured that big foreign business could only take so much profit out of the country and would have to reinvest a certain percentage, either through taxes or other initiatives.

While these measures were popular for the average Chilean, they were very unpopular with businesses State-side- why? Because companies like Ford and Dupont had invested almost 1 billion in the country and reaped over 5 billion in profit from that investment. Allende's measures threatened to reduce this ongoing profit markedly, which is a sin in the eyes of free market proponents.

When Pinochet took power, he removed all price controls. He laxed laws governing foreign business, giving them massive tax breaks. He allowed money to come and go as businesses pleased, and relaxed government regulation and oversight of the stock market.

These measures were wildly unpopular with the average Chilean. Within a couple of years, the price of bread, milk and cooking oil accounted for almost 25 - 50% of the average monthly income (no more price controls). Jobs were created and lost overnight as foreign businesses came in, bought up a bunch of industries and companies and then spun them off to make a quick buck. The stock market had a near implosion as with lax government oversight a group of investors who came to be known as "the piranhas" nearly bankrupted the nation through massive speculation and derivatives trading. And lets not forget the near elimination of social security, medical care and education as most of that was privatized and therefore could only be afforded by a small percentage of the population.

Because these measures were so unpopular, the only way for Pinochet to pass these laws and cut social spending was to keep an iron grip on the country. His troops turned a local stadium into a mass interrogation center where thousands of civillians (most of whom were leftists or labor leaders) were rounded up, questionned and then never seen from again. Such notable supposed 'communist' agitators were people like folk musician Victor Jarra (spelling?) who was tortured, then had his fingers broken so he could never play guitar again Using military intimidation, he kept the populace so terrified that he was able to pass political and economic measures that he otherwise would have never been able to do.

An entire battalion of infantry was sent to Ford's main factory to provide 'security' from supposed communist sabotage (even though there was no strong communist presence in the country, as was illustrated by the fact that the police and military took over the country in one day with no resistance) where they promptly rounded up any union leaders, many of whom were never seen again.

Ford thanked Chile for dealing with it's pesky union problem by donating a large number of green Falcons to the government free of charge. They were used almost exclusively by the Chilean Secret Police (who also terrified the populace by pulling people from their homes without warrant or warning, also many who were never seen again) so much so that whenever someone would spot a green Ford Falcon cruising around it spread panic as folks assumed the secret police were in the area and they were gonna nab someone! 

This is not an isolated incident- Similar situations have occured in Columbia, Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, the Congo, Venezuela, Indonesia, the Phillipinnes, etc