4 ms·
What you say is true much of the time, but it is also true that consumers often do "choose" their arbiter. The aforementioned adhesion contracts often stipulate
by jaredklewis 10y ago
What you say is true much of the time, but it is also true that consumers often do "choose" their arbiter. The aforementioned adhesion contracts often stipulate a private (non-government) arbiter, which the consumer (probably you, too) consents to of their own free will.
I see your points. But I kind of feel like we were having a rather nuts and bolts discussion about how to improve security in Linux, and then someone chimes in that we should probably rewrite everything in Haskell.
If achieving a free market requires a complete upheaval of all of our governments and laws, then the idea isn't very useful.
- ericHosick 10y ago> If achieving a free market requires a complete upheaval of all of our governments and laws, then the idea isn't very useful. The idea is extremely useful: act consensual to others. There is no better basis of a social system than this. Having conversations like the one were having now is really all we need. To force the ideas on others in anyway, especially through democracy, would be hypocritical. A social system based on utility, which is basically all social systems we've had throughout history, is violent, aggressive and dangerous. No wonder history repeats itself.
- kazagistar 10y agoThe existence of property is based on a non-consensual model for the purpose of utility.
- sbov 10y agoWhich is forced upon others through threat of violence. And was obtained via violence in the first place.