I didn't suppose you were arguing for libertarianism; why would you suppose I was arguing for a "nanny state ruled by a philosopher king"? I would say that the

I didn't suppose you were arguing for libertarianism; why would you suppose I was arguing for a "nanny state ruled by a philosopher king"? I would say that the story of Tom and Kate (taken together with millions of similar, if less extreme stories, as well as, e.g., many other different types of exploitation described in Shiller's book) _does_ stand as an argument against unrestrained, laissez faire capitalism. The fact is that unrestrained capitalism breeds opportunities for businesses that tend to exploit people's natural foibles. There are ways to prevent this (e.g., intelligent regulation) within the capitalist system. See, e.g., Shiller's book.