I don't think you're an egotist necessarily, but rather misguided. I mean, how do I know that you aren't egotist if your demand is to walk away from any deal on

I don't think you're an egotist necessarily, but rather misguided. I mean, how do I know that you aren't egotist if your demand is to walk away from any deal on the basis that it is voluntary? If you reject any tool through which I (another party) can force you to follow the contract? You have to admit, it is very suspicious. I am not clear how you imagine resolving conflicts in your society. That requires some sort of authority, and this authority being based on democratic vote seems to me like a decent solution. Especially if the conflict involves third parties - negative economic externalities for example. I think to try to understand the world (especially society and politics) as a series of two-party interactions is grossly reductionist. Not to mention the distinction between parties is rather arbitrary. For example, let's say you consider joining a multinational company as an employee, and the company already has unions, but the legal contract you are having is with the local subsidiary of the large mother company. Then on what basis do you recognize who or what really constitutes the other party - the multinational, the local subsidiary, the multinational including the unions, your hiring manager, or some other combination? What about joining a worker cooperative, would you refuse to join on the principle, because it is internally democratic? And if you, in this case, accept the legal definition of contracting party as the "other party", why do you have a problem accepting a legal concept of democratic constitution? Or any other law or regulation, for that matter?