>Welcome to toll roads Perhaps you have a very different idea of what mugging involves. Generally mugging means you are physically assaulted and then your prop

>Welcome to toll roads Perhaps you have a very different idea of what mugging involves. Generally mugging means you are physically assaulted and then your property is forcibly taken from you. >Take route A and get your employer to reimburse you. Or, find a new job that isn't going to fire you for taking route B. Or, pay someone else (the government) to get the "mugger" off of route A. You didn't answer the question. In the scenario if the person takes route A they are guaranteed to be mugged. If they take route A, for whatever reason, are they consenting to be mugged? >Your analogies belie reality You've never taken a philosophy class or participated in any thought exercises involving moral dilemmas? The purpose of the analogy is not make a perfect model of the world. It is to test your theory on consent. >They'll bitch and moan and play NIMBY games, but I don't see people revolting over these "thefts". I don't know what a "NIMBY" game is and I'm not sure why you introduced the idea of revolting. Why bring up red herrings? >I am also a firm believer that a completely free market can create inequality that is untenable in the long-term It is unfortunate that you have a negative bias against free markets, but it is not surprising. Most people have false beliefs about what a "free market" is. >please don't call the non-existent police when "the poors" storm your mansion due to their sub-par housing conditions, fifty years after the "theft" of rent control ends in your utopia. It's clear that you don't know what my "utopia" is? Why would police be "non-existent"? I don't have a mansion, but I guess if it's a utopia I might as well have one. And as long as it is a utopia why would there be poor? Why are you so occupied with the idea of violent revolt? Is this a non sequitur attempting to lead people to believe that a free market inevitably results in violence?