I here many justify things as acceptable simply based on a premise of "it's voluntary, so no harm no foul". Here is a scenario involving children trading baseball cards that shows how flawed this axiom is.
A 9 year old boy has some baseball cards.
A 13 year old boy has some baseball cards.
The 13 year old understands money more than then 9 year old.
The 9 year old has cards that are worth something and the 13 year old wants them.
The 13 year old convinces the 9 year old that his many cards are worth the same as one of the 13 year olds, and they should trade. The 9 year old boy wants to be liked by the 13 year old older boy, so he accepts the deal. He doesn't know any better.
The 13 year old boy actually traded a $0.10 card and lied about it's value in order to get a $10 card.
The exchange was voluntary, right?
Maybe instead of a trade, the young kid paid $5 -- or even $1 -- of his saved up money for one card that was worth $0.10. Still voluntary, right?
Many interactions are voluntarily agreed upon, along with exchanges. But the question that matters is: does the person know they are ripping someone off? If so, then the fact that the exchange was voluntary does not make it a right and honest exchange. The person who knew they were ripping someone off, or overcharging, whatever, knows what they are doing and they do it anyways because they can get away with it.
With the two kids -- or in adult interactions -- just because someone is clever, deceitful and can manipulate others into voluntarily buying things, that doesn't make it right or without harm or foul. Screwing people over is a wrong.
Just because people agree to pay for something someone is selling, doesn't mean it's a right, honest and fair deal. Screwing people over isn't right. We have trust in others honesty. We can be pitched a bullshit sell and believe it and buy into it. This applies for ideas as well as products and services.
If you're just looking at how "good" or "right" something is because you get to make money doing something that is "allowed", it doesn't mean what you're doing is actually good in the bigger picture. Maybe it's "good" for you to make money, in the short-term "now", but a long-term bigger picture focus is required in order to see if the benefits we get are actually something that merits doing in the first place. We exist "now", but we're always going towards the future we create. We need to look ahead before we merely accept doing things in the "now".
Screwing over a long-term potential success for an organization in order to get immediate short-term personal gains for ourselves isn't right either. Individuals can expand their vision beyond themselves, or the immediate short-term gains they or others can get by doing something. Instead of a limiting self-centered and self-concerned focus on what we can gain now, we need to look at how it affects the overall dynamics of the system we are in.
Some people -- or a politician -- may like certain policies in government, or try to pass them through, etc., because it can favor them personally. But what does this do to the long term of the country? What do certain schemes do in the long term for an organization or system? From nations, to companies and online communities, members need to be mindful and aware of the long-term goals and how to attain them, rather than inventing and celebrating new ways of exploiting the system or others just so we or others can personally gain in the short-term but at the expense of the long-term.
The phrase "it's voluntary, no harm no foul" isn't always correct. We can be deceived into accepting false modalities of living. Just because a society accepts it, doesn't make it truly "right".
There is also a credo people live by: "You can do anything you want as long as you get away with it."
I call this the credo of immorality, because it allows you to justify anything and invent it as something "right" even when it's wrong.
Have you heard people use this to justify what is happening?