I don't understand. You seem to be emphsazing the point that there's no real difference in principle. The question is this: why would it be okay to purchase a new account in order to subvert the trust system but it's not okay to simple purchase trust to subvert the trust system. They are both ways to subvert the trust system but one is okay whereas the other isn't.
Because people say so. There aren't rules, the community as a whole dictates what is ok and what isn't ok to do.
I believe that is why buying trusted accounts to scam isn't a commonplace thing. Its just not profitable, but I could be entirely wrong, that is just my theory.
That said, I still don't think that either is a commonplace thing, because all it takes is one guy to say, hey that trade looks fishy, make a thread about it, and everyone involved is marked a scammer, and whoever trusted that person on default trust on the first place would have to deal with a lot.... and I mean a lot of hate.
That all said, there were a lot of rational details that people overlooked here, so their panties got into a wad for nothing. First the OP didn't have a default trust account, they had no understanding of how the trust system worked. If they did have a trusted account, it was most likely on trust depth 3/4 which would be relatively meaningless. We don't know how much the OP was charging for trust and we don't know if their trusted account had any weight at all. I actually hoped that they did have a trusted account, because the only way to see how it would have all played out. I have a few theories on why selling trust isn't profitable either, but we would have had to see it in action.
So in conclusion, what is ok and not ok is dictated by the community.
The reason the trust system has been in place this long and this topic is just coming up sort of speaks for itself.
Very good post, too bad it will fall on deaf ears (for the most part) by a few hard heads only wanting to stir up trouble.