I think a more appropriate example scenario would be something like this: You are driving through the desert with a truck full of food and water. You come upon an old couple whose car has broken down, hundreds of miles from the nearest town. They beg you for help, offering anything for some water. As a shrewd negotiator, you assess the current market situation and offer a gallon of water in exchange for the woman's diamond earrings and the man's gold ring. This is a win/win scenario! They get to stay alive a little longer, and you get a great deal on some jewelry. No coercion needed, and since both sides entered into the deal voluntarily who can complain! As you drive off, you smile to yourself at the thought of how wonderful it was that everyone acted in their own self interest and managed to improve their situation.

That analogy isn't quite right. It would be more apt if the couple instead of having diamonds and gold had, well, lithium. What is that couple going to do with lithium? For that couple, that lithium is effectively worthless, even factoring in if circumstances were better, but the food and water is priceless. Both sides do legitimately benefit from that transaction, even if one side is legitimately upset about how much more the other benefits from the arrangement.

It's reasonable to desire that resources extracted from a country or region should benefit the people of that country or region more than the companies extracting those resources. The problem is that that is a classic tragedy of the commons, making it unreasonable to expect or hope that that sort of problem gets solved on an individual basis. Yes, let's hold mining companies to task for not further helping impoverished communities near mines, but let's not mistake that it is the government of Argentina that allowed this to occur to begin with.

I didn't create any false dichotomy, I simply noted your original middlebrow dismissal of the article was based on the absurd premise that its criticism of a mining company for causing a problem and lowballing with compensation was analogous to the criticism meted out to those whose philanthropic proposals "observe or interact" with problems they couldn't fully solve. The mining company doesn't stand accused of observing problems whilst not doing enough to help, it stands accused of creating problems whilst paying off just enough to get a contract.

Nobody is suggesting the mining company is the "bad guys" for having an interest in making a profit. They are suggesting they might be the "bad guys" for allegedly exploiting the naivete of local residence to pay a pittance to wreck their environment.