There are good reasons for violating most rules. That's why we write laws; in order to make violating those rules more expensive, therefore not profitable. It'

There are good reasons for violating most rules. That's why we write laws; in order to make violating those rules more expensive, therefore not profitable. It's not exculpating for a burglar to claim that a burglary was a really good choice for them at the time. edit: > There's legitimate reasons to favor sellers that use your own logistics. Hard to see that as anti-competitive. These sentences bother me so much. The argument is about what is or is not legitimate, and you're not making an case, you're just giving a verdict. Why is it hard to see?