Hmmm......so in your free country, the free people can't have norms, standards and any laws???
Hmmm, I think you are smart enough to understand that laws and freedom are not mutually exclusive. That's to say that we can have laws and still have freedom - anarchy is not a prerequisite for freedom.
Let's jump to another famous exchange to explore your question; this from an 1880's discussion on the prohibition of alcohol...
“Is not this a free country?”
“Have not I a right to swing my arm?”
“Yes, but your right to swing your arm leaves off where my right not to have my nose struck begins.”
Here civil government comes in to prevent bloodshed, adjust rights, and settle disputes.
The point of that oration is the role of government is to protect the rights of others, not pass laws taking rights from some while granting those rights to a different class.
The role of government for those that believe in freedom is not to impose it's "norms [and] standards" on anybody, but to protect the right of each to have their own norms and standards.
One easy example is adult-oriented businesses. We, as a society, have decided that AOBs in certain neighborhoods would be counter to our societal desires, so they are prohibited in some areas. What we don't do is grant one person the right to open an AOB in a certain area while not granting another person that same right. The role of the government is not to pick winners and losers... that's why we shouldn't issue a government-sponsored marriage license to a man and woman but refuse it to a woman and woman.
Another example is private property rights. You can listen to music all you want on your property, but the second the sound travels across your fence and prevents your neighbor from the quiet enjoyment of his own property, you've violated his rights and it can be unlawful.
Let's use wildlife laws as a final example, the reason a free society can regulate hunting is because if one person was allowed to shoot too many animals, it would prevent everybody else from their equal opportunity to take animals as well. The rights of the poacher end where the rights of the legal hunter begin.
Back to the OP, the government shouldn't be picking which car designs win and lose. It's up to those individuals in a free society to buy whichever they choose and the other manufacturer can adjust or fail.
The 'freedom to fail' is part of the deal, but that needs to be a freedom... not a government mandate.
No freedom loving person should ever vote to take freedoms away from another just because they disagree. I promise you I'll never marry a man, but I'm certainly not going to tell another person whom they can or cannot marry.
The point of the Constitution is to limit government, not allow it to get bigger and bigger and take more and more rights by popular demand or public clamor. That wouldn't be freedom at all.