> That's just not borne out in looking at the many markets already functioning under various regulatory schemes for decades now.
If markets under all the regulatory schemes we have were actually "functioning", we would not have all the economic issues we have. For example, we would not have the supply chain issues that are currently making the news. We would not have had the crash of 2008, or the Great Depression for that matter. I could go on and on.
> there's no credible way to claim that there aren't any functioning markets these days.
I made no such claim. You're attacking a straw man.
No, I'm attacking the logical implication of your statement. It's a reductio ad absurdum.
You said for a market to work "at all" as a market, it must have voluntary transactions, and people must be able to engage in the transactions of their choice. But nearly all markets do not have those features. Ergo, nearly all markets are not able to work at all, under your premise.
Accepting that most markets do work to a substantial degree, your premise must be wrong.
If markets under all the regulatory schemes we have were actually "functioning", we would not have all the economic issues we have. For example, we would not have the supply chain issues that are currently making the news. We would not have had the crash of 2008, or the Great Depression for that matter. I could go on and on.
> there's no credible way to claim that there aren't any functioning markets these days.
I made no such claim. You're attacking a straw man.