Free country, free to exchange goods and services, and free to engage in known workplace risks for such, yadda yadda yadda.
Not even hard-core neoliberal economists believe this tripe.
There are many categories of market that capitalist democracies prohibit universally and unconditionally, such as selling your children, burial remains (but I dug them up on my property!), endangered-species penis powders (as in "made from" rather than "made for"), consumer products under a severe-hazard safety recall, and Oscar statuettes.
I added that last one just to get your bile up, but before you do, take heed that it's the only one on my short list imposed by the market itself, rather than government fiat.
Why Academy Award Winners Can't Sell Their Oscars
Seriously, raise your game. All you're managing to do is give respectable libertarians a bad reputation.
Whether sexual service constitutes a valid marketplace has been hotly contested in nearly every society known.
Clay Shirky: "Little Rice" | Talks At Google
Around 51m11 Shirky talks about duplicity on the part of the Chinese government in allowing corporate VPNs to bypass the firewall, but not personal firewalls. Somewhere else in that talk, he talks about the (large) category of activities which are "illegal, yet allowed" (until further notice—which will arrive abruptly, if it arrives at all).
Most societies "allow" the dopamine trade (sex, drugs, alcohol) but make substantial efforts to push it to the dark margins. (This compromise vastly predates neoliberal ideology, which hasn't changed a damn thing about how this part of the economy works.)
The one dopamine trade, fructose/sucrose, that historically escaped the heavy thumb, having recently been identified as such (the American metabolic syndrome epidemic is impossible not to notice in the healthcare spending balloon) has actually gone mano a mano in public debate in the way you seem to think this whole sphere operates.
Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule
What this rule amounts to is not having more than half a liter of dangerously sweet liquid show up on your receipt as a single line item (no-one is stopping anyone from ordering a six-pack of 12-ouncers, all for personal consumption; I don't even think the rules prevented McSodaCorp from offering three for the price of two).
Because homo economicus is a giant myth, the inability of McSodaCorp to list the 50-ounce portion on their display menu changes the purchasing behaviour of people who never in their wildest dreams would have purchased a 50-ounce portion (this effect is known as the framing effect). The putative "cap" doesn't stop you from arriving in the same place, supposing you were choosing on such a rational basis in the first place (which most people are not, in small affairs).
I'm legitimately torn and I see both sides. On this issue, I think either path is viable. A society might choose more nudge or less nudge, and then experience different pros and cons (please note when adding up the utilitarian total that the prematurely dead fail to exercise much big-f Freedom during the imprudently excised portion of their otherwise naturally allotted span).
Society also regulates alcohol portion size, but this rarely prevents anyone determined to do so from getting entirely slozzled. Fructose eventually kills through one of the same metabolic pathways by which excess alcohol consumption leads to fatty liver disease. Both chemicals lead to dependency loops, but only one causes people to slur their words. There's even a perspective that alcohol is ultimately less dangerous for many people, because you can only get shit-faced once per evening, rather than three BBQ-sauce and salad-dressing rich meals wedged between eight sugary snacks per day.
You see, there's no such thing as a $20 bill lying on the sidewalk (someone would have already picked it up) and there's no such thing as a bad decision, because the only acceptable metric to determine such a thing is expressed preference.
[*] Turns out all those YouTube "fail" compilations are simply failing to take into account—er, ironically falling short of overtly applauding—the wide, wonderful world of different strokes.
I don't know whether you noticed, but if your brother comes down with hemorrhagic fever, you can't bury him—and his loose piles—in your back yard, while also heaping his splattered effects in loose piles. A certain degree of personal carelessness spills over in unacceptable ways, ideology notwithstanding. (This is also part of the present discussion concerning the quasi-legality of the sex trade.)
In Canada, so far as I've known, my only government photographs are on my passport & driver's license. If I chose not to have a driver's license or a passport (and, lately, also choose to stay indoors a lot), I could have refused my consent to provide the government with any current photograph.
Try finding a young person these days who, forced into this specific ultimatum, would give up Facebook to retain his/her driver's license.
Some putative choices suck ass.
Back in the Old West, we used to enjoy a true civil society. If Wild Bill slapped you on the back as you filed into church on Sunday morning, and asked you in front of everyone if your "date" last night was a "good ride", every man with a backbone in the entire town would be loose-holstered for the entire week to come.
Under the old morality, Facebook's present behaviour would have had it pushing daisies in short, short order.