Which of the following is not generally regarded as a legitimate reason for gov't to intervene in a market?
a. to promote efficiency
b. to promote equity
c. to enforce property rights
d. to protect an industry from foreign competition

C. To enforce property rights

Explanation:

Government intervention in market can be non materistically via regulation , materistically via taxes & subsidy.

Although the second materislistic way of tax, subsidy comes under the perview of 'Government Budget' .

Government budget is anual financial statement showing economy's expected revenue & expenditure .

Economic growth & stability by reallocation of resources , reducing income inequalities - reflect 'efficiency' & 'equity' as valid reasons .

Foreign protection is also not invalid depending upon the initial budding stage of a developing economy & its global stand. Eg - India 1950 to 1990 .

However all these are progressive legitimate reason for govt. Intervention .

But , enforcing property rights is a feature of 'socialistic (communistic) economy - which has its own demerits like loss of consumers soveireignity , lack of postive competitive efficiency , govt overburden.

answer: yo mama

explanation: yo mama

answer; ///i believe the correct answer is (c) laissez-faire;