What a silly notion. Adam Smith (if he were inclined to read Audiogon forum posts) would turn in his grave.
If you subtract any consideration of what the buyer gets in exchange for payment of ANY fee (which, as rational maximizers, is an analysis all buyers perform before parting with their money), then EVERY payment becomes merely a seller's convenience and (under this rationale) morally objectionable.
Since the premise of EVERY purchase is that the buyer will have possession and use of the item for sale, and it's the seller's obligation to make sure the buyer gets possession, why not object on the same principle to buyers paying shipping charges? After all they just finance the seller's convenience by making the buyer pay to relieve the seller of the obligation to deliver the item personally.
By the way, I have read all the posts, and I have to agree with Sean.
If you subtract any consideration of what the buyer gets in exchange for payment of ANY fee (which, as rational maximizers, is an analysis all buyers perform before parting with their money), then EVERY payment becomes merely a seller's convenience and (under this rationale) morally objectionable.
Since the premise of EVERY purchase is that the buyer will have possession and use of the item for sale, and it's the seller's obligation to make sure the buyer gets possession, why not object on the same principle to buyers paying shipping charges? After all they just finance the seller's convenience by making the buyer pay to relieve the seller of the obligation to deliver the item personally.
By the way, I have read all the posts, and I have to agree with Sean.