 On what grounds might we justify interfering with consensual and mutually advantageous exploitative transactions? It might be thought that we could interfere on paternalistic grounds. A paternalistic argument could not justify interfering with exploitative transactions if the exploitative transaction is advantageous to \(B\) and if interference is not likely to result in a transaction that is more beneficial to \(B\). For paternalism justifies interfering for someone’s good, and this interference would not be to the target’s benefit. But there might be situations in which \(B\) knows enough to agree only to those exploitative transactions that are beneficial (as compared with no transaction), but does not know that less exploitative transactions are available. And so there may be a “soft paternalist” justification for interference with some mutually advantageous exploitative transactions.