I know this is supposed to be a profound question on the nature of our society, but I think its a lot more simple than that. First, this isn’t a binary one way or the other. We have “stop taking advantage of people” things written into law already in many places. Things (so far) like the FDA that say food manufacturers can’t put sawdust in food (yes this used to happen). We have the FTC that limits how much interest a company can charge you for lending you money. So we do have some of the “stop taking advantage of people” rules and powers in place.

However what you’re talking about is generally: individual choice. For this the issue isn’t where the attention is directed (the abuser vs the abused), its how this would be implemented. If we’re instead switching the focus and enforcement on to the “stop taking advantage of people” for everyday purchases, who would be the arbitrator of what is being taken advantage of or not who would decide if a change is made, if it is enough of a change? Today it is the individual guided buy the mantra “don’t let people take advantage of you”. Here’s an example if it were the other way:

A new 2025 Ford F-150 starts at $38,710, but if you go to a dealership lot you likely won’t find one for that price. They will all be more expensive for various reasons (no low trim models in stock, arbitrary added dealer markup, or dealer added options like tinting). So if a buyer is at that lot wanted to pay $38,710, are they being taken advantage of because they are forced to pay more? I would argue, yes! (but even my opinion is subjective). So what is the remedy? Do we force dealers to stock X number of base models with no addons? What if those sell out? Do the dealers have to stop selling higher trim models until they can get more base models on the lot resulting in ZERO F150 trucks for sale at any price?

People want a choice to decide on their own if they are being taken advantage of, and whether they are is subjective to the person, and a remedy is also subjective.