Best outcome for whom? I trust people to spend their own money in the way that they want rather than some top down dictated manner.

I don't like the societal purpose questioning because people forget that not everyone has a lot of money to spend - the trade-off will almost definitely be between "ethics" and the cost to the person on the street.

I don't buy my books from Amazon because I love Amazon, I do it because it's the cheapest option and I know it'll work. If you want to spend a bit more and support a local book company that's up to you but Amazon is undoubtedly a better experience than any other company I've seen (Specifically for relatively niche technical books, if it was a fiction book it's basically the same).

^ that isn't to say Amazon should he left to monopolize as they please, just that the nuance is easily missed.

I never ever said anything about top-down choice depriving solutions. That is a straw-man you have dragged into this conversation.

This is not a debate about the merits of capitalism vs. socialism (or communism).

This is simply saying that some free-market solutions lead to worse outcomes for society. My hoped-for solution was a co-op model app which is completely in the free market realm.

You went ahead and made this about the inherent virtue of capitalism and choice.

I really dont know what you are saying about Amazon since you seem to be equivocating. Not letting Amazon be a monopoly is depriving their customers of choice!

> worse outcomes for society

as determined by who?

> Does a company indulging in non-coerced commerce (i.e. voluntary) make it virtuous?

No, the reward is money/resources and the person wasn't implying the polar opposite of the article. You are creating a false dichotomy here by trying to split things into good or bad. There is a neutral position that you don't have to be invested in.

> Why is questioning the efficacy, for society, of the economic models of any company considered immoral?

I don't think the parent said this at all.

The parent opens with saying - I am not a fan of moralistic takes on business. I did not create the dichotomy, the parent did!

They are saying the exact opposite. They don't like assigning a moral judgement either way to a business that isn't hurting anyone. You were replying as if they had said that instead of something being bad, it was good. That is not the same thing. Treating something as neutral is not the same as saying something is an opposite.

Keyword "don't like". Moral judgement also.

No, that's ridiculous. Saying you don't like assigning moral judgements to companies is essentially saying you think they should be looked at as neutral.

If someone says they don't like cauliflower, that isn't a moral judgment. You are not understanding what is being said or what it implies.

You fail to see the distinction but on a meta level they are the same thing. Labeling something as a "moral thing" and saying you don't like is a judgment. Value? Moral? Esthetic. . We are semantic hair splitting here.

You are just reasserting the same thing without backing it up in any way. Saying something shouldn't carry any moral weight is not a moral judgement because who would it be judging?

Correcting someone about is not casting a moral judgement. Saying a piece of a system meant to create and capture some value doesn't need to be ascribed good or evil is a statement that can be taken at face value. Trying to say everything is a moral judgement that someone else is creating a false dichotomy is just projection.