This is a sequel to the article with the same name and is meant to provide some of the possible counter-arguments to the arguments provided in the previous article. Thus this article is meant to prove why the practices like black-marketing of movie tickets and forced donations demanded by some schools are corrupt practices.
The solution to the first issue is about authorization. When a company is selling packaged food to customers at a higher price than what food of that sort would cost the customer, it is providing a service to a section of the market that are pressed for time. While the ticket-blacker does the same, he does so without the authorization of the people who are providing that piece of paper with its value. While even the Railways have such service for people who book tickets late, the benefit is going to the Railways, but the ticket-blacker does not share his profit with the movie theatre or the producers of the movie. Neither does he have a contractual permission to sell the tickets to the customers at a higher price than what the movie theatre has decided.
Coming to the second case, a high-profile school would generally have a higher fee as compared to other ordinary schools, but if they are demanding a donation on top of that it is like the waiter at a posh restaurant asking for a huge tip even before the customer has been served. Whether the exact value of tuition or other fees charged by the school is appropriate or not is a different issue, but if the school demands a donation for providing the candidate with the opportunity of getting a better education, then they must remember that they have not provided a service yet. A waiter can’t ask for a tip without providing some service first. Similarly a school can’t ask, leave alone demand, for a donation without providing the satisfactory service to the student for which he wants to go there.
These are but some of the possible arguments and I will be glad if the readers can provide even other arguments to validate these points.