Capitalism flat-out can't function without a reasonably clear, consistent and fair application of the rule of law (a painfully and repeatedly demonstrated fact that neoliberal and libertarian fundamentalists tend to forget).
What does this swing at libertarians have to do with anything else in this thread? No law has been broken, so how would the absence of the rule of law change anything in this case?
Convincing stupid people to make bad deals is immoral but not punishable by law, else most CEO's of banks and phone-companies would be behind bars. And forbidding unequal deals would be the same as forbidding profits.
Also, capitalism without 'a reasonably clear, consistent and fair application of the rule of law', would mean no taxes, no regulations, no law enforcement - just private property and free trade, yes? I too think that there would be a lot of problems with that, especially resolving contract disputes and cases of fraud without resorting to violence.
That said, how and where has that "fact" you present been "painfully and repeatedly demonstrated"?
FTR, I'm not libertarian, but seeing them called fundamentalists with an unsubstantiated argument, in an unrelated thread, annoyed me.
