to reject this line of reasoning, to make sure that daily corporate decision-making is seen as a morally neutral and not criminal in nature, some commentators make an argument positing that market calculations are natural, reflexive, and not to be second-guessed. they argue that if people are not willing to pay for safety, health, or a good environment, they must be deemed to have consented to lack of safety, ill-health, and pollution. (as if!) in other words, it is the economic need and financial starting position of citizens that should determine what is acceptable behaviour, not objective needs or social and political mores. the intellectual and political weakness of this defence of the status quo lies in the fact that, in a liberal democracy, the primacy of market arguments is contestable and is contested. many of us purport to have other values and goals than the satisfaction of personal greed.
Anarchist