public-interest arrangement by joining them in the work they undertake at fair market value. Thus, others are prevented from selling goods above the fair market price and may sell them only if they undertake to sell to one of those participating in the arrangement. A person may be unable to do that.

It may be said:

These are two forms of injustice: compelling a person to sell and requiring him to sell at the fair market price. This entails harm. If people’s affairs can proceed properly without this arrangement, such harm may not be tolerated without an outweighing benefit. If, however, without it people cannot obtain sufficient food and similar necessities, or can obtain them only at high prices, whereas this arrangement provides them with sufficient supplies at the fair market price, then this public benefit warrants tolerating the restrictions mentioned above.

As for compelling people to enter such an arrangement, this requires further distinction. When people are in pressing need of the goods or services someone possesses, he must make them available at fair market value. He is also prevented from withholding a commodity from sale until he has sold a specified quantity. This is not the place to discuss these questions in detail.

With this understood, someone who undertakes to pay a levy to the authority imposing it, on condition that he alone may sell the commodity and may sell it at whatever price he chooses, undoubtedly commits injustice of the same kind as that involved in governmental levies, in both respects previously mentioned. For this reason, those who disapproved of dealing with such a person did so because of the doubt concerning the lawfulness of his wealth. If he alone sells, at whatever price he chooses, it is as though he compels people to buy from him at his chosen price, thus taking from them more than they rightfully owe