It takes two to tango, or another fundamental flaw in the statist reasoning

Statists tend to view every economical interaction as, to some degree, a zero-sum game: one party wins, another party loses. Even in cases when both parties obviously win from the interaction, there is still a struggle between the parties over which party wins more. This is seen as undesirable, especially in light of the (questionable) idea that one party typically has a stronger bargaining position than the other party.

This view ignores the fact that the parties need each other and can only win by benefiting each other, otherwise they would not be interacting in the first place. But this is not what I would like to talk about here. There is another, darker side of this view and proposals it leads to: the idea that it is possible to curtail one party's freedoms without simultaneously curtailing the other party's freedoms.

Let us take the popular idea among "worker rights" advocates: the minimum wage laws. The argument goes as follows: since the employer has a stronger bargaining position and can afford to not hire the applicant, while the applicant cannot really afford not being hired for an extended period of time, the employer must be forced to pay a "decent" wage to the employee. This, of course, is seen as directly benefiting the employee: after all, the employee cannot be underpaid now, right?

There are many flaws in this argument, but the main flaw rarely is pointed out: it is that, while restricting freedoms of the employer, it simultaneously restricts freedoms of the employee. It takes two to tango; it takes two to sign a contract. The minimum wage laws not only deprive the employer from the ability to hire cheap labor, but they also deprive the job seekers from the ability to be hired as cheap labor. There is a multitude of reasons why someone might want to be hired as cheap labor, and taking away their freedom to negotiate such contracts obviously limits their opportunities.

If you look at various economical regulations aimed at protecting one group's interests from another group's control, you will see that in every single case the regulations actually limit freedoms of both groups equally. The freedom to sell marijuana, for example, cannot be taken away without taking away the freedom to buy marijuana. The freedom to not pay high corporate tax cannot be taken away without taking away the freedom to buy low-priced corporate products.

Why is it that the other side of the issue - restrictions of freedoms of the "beneficiary" of a given policy - is never addressed by its advocates? Why do they see many economical exchanges as fundamentally dictated by one of the parties, "forcing" the other party into accepting its terms, when in reality both parties actively negotiate the terms on their own behalf and can only sign a contract upon mutual agreement on the terms? It is not a very complicated idea that something cannot be accepted without it being offered.

I think we are dealing with some deep blunder in most people's understanding of economics, or even human interaction in general. This idea that in human interaction one party sets the terms of the interaction and the other party has little choice in the matter is so obviously wrong, it hardly warrants pointing out at all - yet somehow it slips under the radar more often than not. What do you think is its primary cause?