> You're wilfully ignoring the substance of the comment you're replying to which makes me think you're acting in bad faith. I'm not. > There is an argument to

> You're wilfully ignoring the substance of the comment you're replying to which makes me think you're acting in bad faith. I'm not. > There is an argument to be made that the US' economic system is fair. I myself wouldn't agree that the US economic system is totally fair - there are cheaters/liars/coercion/exploitation everywhere. There are lots of things that are unfair, but choosing to work for minimum wage is not one of those things. An entrepreneur making 10000 more than someone else in the chain is also not one of those things, in my opinion. > But your argument simply "proves too much". Your definition of "agreement", for example, includes a hostage agreeing to pay the ransom. It would also cover child labor, any form of discrimination, selling yourself into slavery, the abolishment of all labor standards including safety laws, shrink-wrap TOCs, non-compete clauses, forced arbitration for all disputes etc. etc I'm deliberately excluding situations like this where actors are being coerced, so my examples do not include hostages, child labor, slavery, etc. Those are crimes for a reason and excluded here. See my original comment for where I omitted acts of coercion.