[afarrell]

What would the legal argument for invalidating the law be? There is no constitutional right to efficient markets that would lead the supreme court to strike down the law. I think the court would declare this a "political question" and refuse to grant cert thereby not ever hearing the case.

[kristopolous]

I was thinking it would have been from English Common law - you know, from like the 14th century or so.

I find the reasons presented for these types of laws to always be patently absurd when generally applied and it just seems like an obvious shoo-in that should have been there since like the hundred years war.

[afarrell]

Why would there have been anything about efficient markets back in the hundred years war? Adam Smith wasn't publishing until around the French and Indian war (AKA 7 years war) 300 years later.

Also, what leads you to believe that creating economic inefficiency to the benefit of some special interest is somehow against ancient and established traditions?