3 ms·
I think we're engaged in argument around semantics. I think we both think that the action is immoral, is or ought to be illegal, and would properly be the subj
by duncan_bayne 11y ago
I think we're engaged in argument around semantics. I think we both think that the action is immoral, is or ought to be illegal, and would properly be the subject of legislation.
It does look like all we are disagreeing on is whether or not an individual incapable of giving informed consent can be said to be participating in a market or not.
- ThomPete 11y agoAs far as I understand the victim of this story haven't had the right to make agreements taken away from her which means she is legally allowed to participate in the market and they are legally allowed to screw her.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoSure. I don't think either of us thinks that's a good thing, though.
- ThomPete 11y agoThats besides the point. The market isn't distinguishing between whether the person is capable of making informed decisions or not. It assumes they are and therein is one of it's flaws which is then exemplified in this example.
- duncan_bayne 11y agoOf course not; that's not what markets are for. The purpose of a market is to determine prices and facilitate exchange, nothing more. There are (or at least should be) laws atop that to determine who is eligible to participate (e.g. minors, the mentally impaired, etc.).