Look at how the entity trusted on the market justify naked shorting

I am far from needing this to know that the SEC is a joke but look at what they publicly show as their reasoning for allowing naked shorting (selling shares without really delivering them):

"Naked short selling is not necessarily a violation of the federal securities laws or the Commission's rules. Indeed, in certain circumstances, naked short selling contributes to market liquidity. For example, broker-dealers that make a market in a security⁴ generally stand ready to buy and sell the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or sellers. Thus, market makers must sell a security to a buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that security available in the market. This may occur, for example, if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time. Because it may take a market maker considerable time to purchase or arrange to borrow the security, a market maker engaged in bona fide market making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares. This is especially true for market makers in thinly traded, illiquid stocks such as securities quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board,⁵ as there may be few shares available to purchase or borrow at a given time."

http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm

Based on that reasoning it would be a good thing if I also open a store that sells things that it does not actually carry in order to help liquidity in the related market. But ,no, unless the seller declares to the buyer that he is only selling him a promise to deliver the sold item later it is hard to see how that seller would not be liable for the legal consequences of that action. Yes, someone may honestly and without any negligence thinks that he is selling something but circumstances and accidents change that and he becomes unable to deliver the sold thing.  But these situations are generally clear and very far from being justified on the bases of someone "stand ready to buy and sell" something. So what should a market maker do when he cannot find shares to sell? The something anyone in the world outside the stock market would do, simply not sell what he doesn't have. 

Treating things in the stock market this differently from the rules of sound reasoning in the real world is much more a cause for messing and corrupting the stock market than correcting it.

Insist on allowing market makers to sell what the don't have? Then let the buyer know that he is being offered a promise or expectation for the shares offered to him not the actual shares yet. Anything less than that is clearly wrong.

Anyway, it is hard for me to see such reasoning being made with true interest in justice and fairness to begin with.