The consumer in the regulated market is in a position epistemologically similar to that of a patient whose doctor will not tolerate any seeking of second opinions. Rationally, such a patient—or consumer—should regard such intolerance as a sign of danger, as an indication that the doctor's or regulator's opinions may not withstand open examination.

Although no enforced authority attempts to dictate what is best for all consumers in a free market, exchanges based on fraud (defined on p. 4.5:10) are prohibited. The seller of a good is legally barred from trades based on deluding buyers as to what they are buying. The seller is not, however, legally obligated to help buyers determine how the product will fit into their own plans for consumption or production, or otherwise to attempt to guide them toward their objectively best choices. (Although there are doubtless borderline cases, the distinction here is clear in principle.) Furthermore, sales resulting in coercive criminal damage to property or to manslaughter are legally prohibited in the free market. Crusoe cannot, for instance, sell Friday coconuts that (unbeknown to Friday) are laced with poison.     Next page

Previous pagePrevious Open Review window