It is a free market though? Sellers in a free market are free to sell what they choose, which includes not selling things they don't want to sell. If the government were to step in and _force_ public companies to sell stock they don't want to sell, that would be the opposite of a free market, by every definition I've heard of.
> One important role of government is to set and maintain standards for listing on markets, so that customers are protected. An example of such a rule would be that all publicly traded companies have equal voting rights across all share classes: one share, one vote.
That is exactly what you argued for. Your rule would force public companies to offer up for sale shares with equal voting rights, whereas today many do not want to do so.
I'm not saying it's bad. Perhaps it's a good rule. It's just that you said you want a free market, and then proposed rules that in fact detract from a free market.
