> That's not how rights work. For every right, before it was created, it didn't exist. This seems tautological. Why would it have been created if it already ef

> That's not how rights work. For every right, before it was created, it didn't exist. This seems tautological. Why would it have been created if it already effectively existed? The whole idea of rights is that it legally enforces something that wasn't any kind of guarantee before, and its absence caused all kinds of problems. > No, I don't agree to that. [...] What size of business is most "efficient" in our current society, which in many ways is not a free market, gets decided by lots of things, most of them having to do with various ways the government interferes in the economy You were just arguing that a monopoly is the most efficient thing to do business with on account of how it's cheaper. So now you are saying that it isn't necessarily. So I can only assume this means I can now argue that just because something became a monopoly, does not mean it is the best entity to do business with. And yet, it is a monopoly, indicating a non-ideal situation for the consumer, because there are more efficient ways to spend your money, but because they're a monopoly, you can't spend them that way. Hence how it's not ideal for consumers. > This is silly. Do you call companies on the phone to tell them about all the things you would like them to provide? Of course not. What do you think a user research call is? How do companies build their backlogs at all? Normally not by not talking to customers or potential customers. > they don't think they can provide the support people would want at a price people would pay for. This is the exact problem. Companies don't know the exact value of providing phone support because it is hard to measure. It's especially hard to measure at a societal level. At the very least, lack of phone call becomes an externality like pollution.