[nobodyandproud]

Why does it require it? To what aim does this serve the market?

A check against fraud and protection of property rights can be achieved through force and violence and the threat of violence, so that answer seems inadequate.

Likewise, supply and demand is definitely affected by government policies. The supply of labor, for example, by allowing or disallowing near shore or off-shore work with steep penalties. Or allowing/disallowing gambling.

So that also flies in the face of evidence.

It’s a self-serving, faith-based belief that that desires to put “market forces” beyond the reach of voters. It’s also a colossal delusion.

[WalterBright]

> Why does it require it?

The idea is that transactions then become mutually beneficial.

You cannot vote away the Law of Supply and Demand any more than you can legislate pi=3.00

[nobodyandproud]

Who said anything about “voting away”?

It’s a strange blindspot you have where you understand there is clearly some government role to have a free market, yet can’t see that this also means the government can influence—not eliminate, you’re the one making this claim not me—supply and demand.

The government clearly has levers to influence supply, but I’m failing to make it clear it seems.

As for making transactions beneficial between two parties: Which two parties?

Why does this belief not extend to workers and businesses?

Why doesn’t the lobbying by firms to support H1Bs and off-shore prove that government policies clearly impacts labor supply?