alt Hacker NewsIt comes down to what’s “free”: most people want that to mean freedom of choice for buyers but sellers want that to mean freedom from restrictions. Trying to balance the two depends critically on regulation because it’s too easy for larger players to reduce the choices for everyone else.
One popular desire is common, but not universal, in both groups: the freedom to lie, cheat, swindle those party to a transaction without consequence. It may help to consider that ‘the consequences of one’s actions’, such as lying or cheating in the above case, are viewed by many as a violation of their personal freedom from persecution (e.g. “it’s not my fault you didn’t stop me from conning you”); that extends to their participation in trade as well.
I assume that the pools of either corporate entities and/or their leadership cogs have a much higher percentage of adherence to said belief than the general pool of either buyers and/or sellers excluding such, as the corporate implementation of liability shielding exists specifically to sate this need.