>>Except that's not what these markets are. Often this isn't a pair of equals trading assets, but an entity with excess resources and knowledge trading with an

>>Except that's not what these markets are. Often this isn't a pair of equals trading assets, but an entity with excess resources and knowledge trading with an individual whose resources are far more limited. I don't want you to forcibly prevent large coalitions of people, like companies, from making any offer they want to me. By doing so, you are violating my right to free association, and assuming you know better than me what's best for me. I am not a child. I am able to draw upon the knowledge of millions of people, not least of all the companies that are the competitors of the soliciting company, and have just as much resources with which to counter-act any disinformation the soliciting company may publish, so I am not at any disadvantage versus any particular company. Public knowledge, like Wikipedia, or the reputations attached to particular products or companies, is a product of millions of minds, finding and filtering out information to produce an accurate picture of the world that can easily be digested by a typical person. It's a spontaneous bottom-up process that trumps anything that could be created by centralized committee. That's why Apple, despite being worth $2.8 trillion, is only able to convince individuals to buy its products by providing a product that is superior in quality. Individuals can draw upon the collective wisdom of society, and get a reliable indication of the real quality of Apple products. Massive companies, when they began floundering in delivering quality, have lost market share, for the same reason. See the rise of Japanese automakers versus American ones. >> Indeed, that's why the concept of "age of consent" exists for sexual interaction. Age of consent has nothing to do with "power/information differences". It has to do with the ability to provide genuine consent, which children, psychologically undeveloped as they are, are generally incapable of. The ability to consent is why we allow adults to vote, and have sex, for and with whoever they want, respectively. By your logic, adults would need guardians in elections, filtering their candidate choice, to protect them from political entities with "excess resources and knowledge" manipulating them. What you're advocating is a total rejection of a core principle of liberal democracy, which is that an individual is capable of making their own choices for their interests.