You seem to misunderstand many of our positions, and I believe willfully so.
You claim to be the “silent voice of the free market”, but you refuse to allow the real silent voice to be heard - the hundreds, thousands, and even millions of transactions that take place on a daily basis. The agreement to take an unpaid internship is merely one of those transactions. It is a transaction based on the perceived value earned by each individual in the agreement - the employer and the employee.
But you, instead, would substitute your own will and opinion for that of the actual participants. THAT is what makes your opinion collectivist.
At the companies I have worked at, both as a “co-op” engineer in college and as a professional, pay their interns. That is more the rule than the exception in engineering (I will assert this, but will also admit it is opinion - I have no statistical data to back it up). There are apparently some professions where unpaid interns are the norm.
But you would disallow free choice to enter into such a situation by fiat - because of your Randian need to measure all worth in only dollars and sense. Your equation of voluntary work arrangements for no pay with slavery are ludicrous - the slave has no choice, and the volunteer does not hand over the deed to him or herself when they agree to the unpaid internship.
The primary coin of the unpaid intern’s remuneration is knowledge. Apparently, you do not value this - not nearly as much as those who are willing to work for it without monetary reimbursement besides.
It appears to have the same worth in your eyes as free choice - none.
When I see so-called “free market” arguments against free choice, I see statism at work. The issue in your mind, apparently, is that you cannot see any situation where a person’s labor is worth no more than the experience and knowledge gained by performing that labor. Instead, the government should set an arbitrary compensation level.
That doesn’t sound all that Randian to me.
And that's where you are making an assumption. I want the free market to pay a monetary value to their work... and then pay them that value. Why you insist on thinking that means I want *MY* opinion as to their work value be their salary, I'll never know.
But then you go onto say:
But you would disallow free choice to enter into such a situation by fiat - because of your Randian need to measure all worth in only dollars and sense.
Which means you can view my 'Randian' ideas... as collectivist (as show in your first quote). That backs up my assertion that many 'conservatives' here have no clue what a free market is... nor do they care.