Comment: "In the United States,

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Freedom from U$ury (see in situ)

"In the United States,

"In the United States, slavery is illegal. In the United States, extortion is illegal. But usury is legal. It's quite a contradiction."

Slavery = infringes on the rights on people who have not conzsented to the deal (else, it'd just be called "employment" or "volunteering" or "an internship")

Extortion = infringes on the rights of people who have not consented to the deal (else it'd just be called "a gift" or "charity")

Usury = both parties consent

There, no more contradiction.

And before you say "but usury often doesnt involve consent" or "but the people are consenting to one deal and given another ina bait-and-switch", then clarify that youre against "fraud" and "bait and swtich" transactions. But being against "fraud" is something that I am against in ALL trasactions.

So are you really just against "fraud" and would agree that "All non fradulent transactions among consenting indivuals are allowed to stand, weather they involve usury or not"?

Or would you be against usury even in instances where there was no fraud or coercion involved? If so, please justify what gives you the right to tell me and my friend what sort of contract we can or cannot sign regarding him lending me money?