By definition the market requires failure
Voluntary exchange requires failure?
A market is simply people exchanging goods that they value less for goods (and or services of course in both) that they value more. That\’s it, tout court.
Thus, as long as such exchanges are voluntary, there are no losers and no failures in markets. Everybody is better off than they would be without the market and the exchanges.
Now we can go a little further and state that markets \”fail\” sometimes, in the sense that we can do better than markets. And indeed this is true, sometimes we can. But that does not mean that a market is worth less than the absence of that market. Merely that we can do better than that market.
We can even go further and point out that we do sometimes see failure in markets. A company goes bust, an individual cannot earn a living. But these again are not requirements of markets. All that is happening is that said market is uncovering the fact that the company is not adding value, the individual does not have the skills or opportunities to make a living.
In that latter case of course I agree there should be a safety net.
But it\’s a very long way from markets provide the information that there are failures to claiming that markets require failure. A very long and wrong way indeed.