> Regulating freely consented exchanges _you_ don't like
I believe the argument they are trying to make is not about whether they like the transaction, but what constitutes "freely consented".
If someone's alternative is, for example, going hungry or sleeping on the streets or having their children go hungry, can we really say they are giving their consent freely?
Should we be concerned about other forms of coercion in addition to direct physical violence?
I believe the argument they are trying to make is not about whether they like the transaction, but what constitutes "freely consented".
If someone's alternative is, for example, going hungry or sleeping on the streets or having their children go hungry, can we really say they are giving their consent freely?
Should we be concerned about other forms of coercion in addition to direct physical violence?