Is there some basic presumption that, if a person can be persuaded to take a particular actin, like making a purchase or accepting a belief, then the recipient/buyer assumes responsibility for the result? So, if the result is negative, then the recipient should have known better and has only himself to blame.
It is as if compliance and being agreeble to participate in a transaction is evidence of soem fundamental flaw.It’s as if even thinking of getting a benefit (something for nothing?) is some sort of original sin. Does that go some way towards explaining the moralistic attitude of the merchant class?
I suppose I am moved to the above by reading about the self-righteous response of San Francisco to shop-lifting and petty theft.Is theft, like lying, just instinct released?