3 ms·
This article reminds me of arguments I heard on why letting goggle spy on you is OK: I don't have anything to hide, This pays for the service... The big proble
by johnea 3y ago
This article reminds me of arguments I heard on why letting goggle spy on you is OK: I don't have anything to hide, This pays for the service...
The big problem isn't each specific issue, the big problem is the ever encroaching corporate intrusion into every crevice of our lives.
Without pushback there is no limit. There's the annoying inconvenience of a commercial required to operate your remote control app, but what do you think about a subscription model for braking in semi trucks?
This may seem an extreme example, and it is by intention, but if regulations don't prohibit such charges, and companies can make money by implementing them, wouldn't any "libertarian" say that they should?
Accounting ledgers don't have entries for anything except dollars...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rwmj 3y agoAt best that argument only worked if there was informed customer choice, meaning that (a) the customer understood and accepted the contract, and (b) they had a choice of some other non-surveillance device. Neither of those is really true.
- 7speter 3y agoI really hate that "you will own nothing and like it" has been assigned to a political 'side'
- BillyTheMage 3y ago> subscription model for braking in semi trucks Not sure why, but this reminds me of the drug Vitoc from the game EVE Online. It's an eternal poison, and if you don't have a constant supply of the proprietary antidote for the rest of your life, you die. This is how they keep slaves with spaceships from escaping. > wouldn't any "libertarian" say that they should? Depends on which type of libertarian. You're thinking of right wing libertarians, as they have a very limited and self-serving version of it. Left wing libertarians would likely argue that coercion is the exact opposite of liberty.