The double standard question is totally legitimate and a very good one!

My point of view is that the trader willingly entered the market with the sole intent of trying to make a profit, whereas the other two just wanted to actually trade goods.

Which is why the situation is asymmetrical in my opinion, and why the way we judge it could be as well.

> whereas the other two just wanted to actually trade goods.

They wanted to trade excess goods, in other words, unrealized profits, for something usable to them to realize the profits of their labor.

Everyone's intention is to profit, that is the reason you sell to the market.

Everyone's intention is to profit, even the con artist, but the buyer and the seller are providing and receiving goods, meaning they actually have a reason to be involved in this specific trade. One party produces oil, a second party consumes oil, and the third party is just there to take his cut because he thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

It shouldn't be surprising when one of these parties isn't trusted by the other two...

It's essentially scalping. Do you trust the people who buy concert tickets in advance and sell them to you at a 100% markup? They're serving the exact same role in society as these market players. No one likes them for a very good reason.

> One party produces oil, a second party consumes oil, and the third party is just there to take his cut because he thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

One party produces oil and a second party consumes oil, but those events do not occur at the same time. A third party 'stores' the oil meanwhile and charges for it. You are welcome do it for free, I'm sure you'd be a hero to society.

making a profit and trading goods are the one and same goal. it's not asymmetrical at all. After all, isn't the point of trading goods to produce excess value after the trade (i.e., profit)?