I think it is understood that the regulations are in place to mitigate risk for the most vulnerable. Whether this has been the right implementation (income vs some other means) is what I think OP was getting at.
>>If you want to argue about the details that's great, but any discussion has to start with the reality that an unregulated market leads to really unwanted outcomes here.
Are you saying that the discussion has to start from the premise that on the balance, the outcome of unregulated markets is less desirable than that of a regulated market? Because I would strongly contest that premise.
Then it's a good thing nobody here, least of all me, asked for "unregulated markets". Literally your entire post is either responding to points I didn't make, or makes arguments I already addressed, making this exchange a complete waste of time for both of us.
These laws came about from very real and serious experiences that were, in fact, catastrophic for many communities. It's a real live problem, and it goes back a long way.
If you want to argue about the details that's great, but any discussion has to start with the reality that an unregulated market leads to really unwanted outcomes here.
You can also do the "who cares if people want to get swindled let them" approach, but recognize that you've been outvoted on this topic, we've decided to protect people like we try to protect people from unsafe food, consumer products scams, and many other situations.