What limits should be made on the ability of individuals to enter into negotiable agreements? In short, this is the argument in favour of non-voluntary exchange, even if they seem unfair. Not to ignore the worst is that your concern for the poor and the desperate is really hurting the poor and desperate; No worse says that the position of the object of your moral concern is more important than your moral intuition, that the exchange is unfair. For voluntary exchanges or exchanges to take place, all participants in a transaction — individuals or organizations — must expect to benefit from the exchange of one valuable object for another. For example, a company pays an employee $12 per hour if the employee can provide a market-estimated service at least $12 per hour compared to the number of hours required to provide the service. In exchange, the worker will work voluntarily for this salary if he estimates the $12 per hour more than any other benefit he could obtain in exchange for his work. Small businesses represent a division of labour where some firms produce more of a product or service than they need and others produce less. These companies and their clients voluntarily participate in markets in which they are committed to exchanging their goods, services and other assets for other goods that they value more. Ideally, this process is mutually beneficial to all parties to the exchange. As a result, the parties will voluntarily participate in the market in the future. Of course, a consumer`s choice to buy a product marketed by a monopoly is not in the sense that political power is a constraint. But when the product is urgently needed, the choices of the consumer, who is faced with a monopoly, do not seem to be voluntary. The question is: if the exchange is not voluntary, is it morally acceptable? It is interesting to note that in the case of Richmond, there was an obvious institutional solution, implemented by companies that wrote insurances against such risks. These companies were all encouraged to ensure that „non-serious“ (i.e.
involuntary) contracts were applicable because it costs less to pay for high salvage costs than to pay for an entire ship and goods that are not saved.