> It’s not a fair market

Well, "fair" is whatever the market is willing to pay and whatever the environment is that it finds itself inside. And the market doesn't get to shape the entire world outside of the market to suite it.

The market exists inside of a society. Sometimes society meets needs that the market would otherwise provide. In those cases it's just kind of tough luck, if you don't like it go find another market. Is it "fair" that Open Source has made certain segments of software impossible to monetize using traditional means? I don't know, but it's reality. Is it "fair" that we as a society are unwilling to let people starve, and that gives them a sense of confidence about selecting jobs? Well, it's reality.

People voluntarily decide to form communities and societies. When businesses enter those communities and enter those societies, they consent to play by the democratic rules of those societies. If society decides that it wants a minimum wage or unemployment benefits, businesses are free to move elsewhere. In fact, they're much more free to move elsewhere than their workers. The average American citizen can not afford to move to another country, that takes money.

So I disagree quite strongly with the notion that giving those people who don't have the funds or ability to move more agency over whether they want to work is some kind of restriction of the market. Amazon could pull out of the US if it really needed to, Bezos is living here by choice. Most of its workers couldn't, most of its workers don't have the ability to consent to the system they find themselves in.

> So why should the be free for that person and not the provider?

Because businesses consented to living in a democratic society with rules, including social safety nets and standards based on whether the society at large is willing to let its citizens live in poverty.

In a lot of ways, the ultimate system of nature for humans is collectivism and government, there has never been a human society that hasn't eventually ended up setting up some system of standards for how far we're willing to let people fall and how much poverty we're willing to subject people to, and that collectivism and shared standard of living is no small part of why we are the dominant creatures on the planet. I disagree that it is "natural" for people who are out of work to starve to death, I think it's very natural for human beings to set up formal structures that prevent that from happening, it's one of the really big things that we do as a species.

----

I also want to point out that it's very selective to argue that "fairness" in nature means people having no leverage over whether or not to participate in a market. Even more than that, it's also very... questionable... to correlate "natural" with "fair." Even in a situation where a business didn't the create the problem, even in a situation where a business isn't holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work with threats of violence, a coerced contract is still coerced, and appealing to the natural state of that coercion doesn't really make it better.

If I find you bleeding to death and sell you a single bandage for a million dollars, you can argue that it's not my fault you're in that position. But that doesn't mean the sale isn't happening under duress, it doesn't mean it's suddenly a free transaction. Duress and coercion does not need to be actively created by the party that benefits from it.