Two people engaging in consensual trade would be better off by the definition of trade.
The judges are keeping them unhappy in the name of “fairness”, but is it fair that this exchange among willing individuals is forbidden?
This can be reduced to an argument against free trade, because scarcity makes things unfair to those who can’t engage in the trade, which in my opinion is absurd.
The judges are keeping them unhappy in the name of “fairness”, but is it fair that this exchange among willing individuals is forbidden?
This can be reduced to an argument against free trade, because scarcity makes things unfair to those who can’t engage in the trade, which in my opinion is absurd.