No, I'm attacking the logical implication of your statement. It's a reductio ad absurdum. You said for a market to work "at all" as a market, it must have volu

No, I'm attacking the logical implication of your statement. It's a reductio ad absurdum. You said for a market to work "at all" as a market, it must have voluntary transactions, and people must be able to engage in the transactions of their choice. But nearly all markets do not have those features. Ergo, nearly all markets are not able to work at all, under your premise. Accepting that most markets do work to a substantial degree, your premise must be wrong.