> whose income also finances violence and corruption
I find this concept problematic. Does violence or corruption require funding? What sort of violence or corruption? Isn't the point of violence or corruption often to make money, rather than the other way around?
This argument is often made about drug sales but I'm not sure it holds up. It seems to me that making money is often the end-goal of such an operation.
> But if you buy these illicitly you should know that you’ve likely financially contributed to despicable acts abroad.
Even if this is true, is that the moral responsibility of the buyer? If the government decided to ban carrots tomorrow and a black market sprung up around vegetables, whose fault would any collateral social damage be?
I find this concept problematic. Does violence or corruption require funding? What sort of violence or corruption? Isn't the point of violence or corruption often to make money, rather than the other way around?
This argument is often made about drug sales but I'm not sure it holds up. It seems to me that making money is often the end-goal of such an operation.
> But if you buy these illicitly you should know that you’ve likely financially contributed to despicable acts abroad.
Even if this is true, is that the moral responsibility of the buyer? If the government decided to ban carrots tomorrow and a black market sprung up around vegetables, whose fault would any collateral social damage be?