black_bird

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by black_bird 7y ago

   If these options do not exist - which is not true - it is because there is not enough consumer demand. No one produces wine in an abstemious society for obvious reasons.
2. 2.▲
   by black_bird 7y ago

   > "the free market will just fix everything" I think the market doesn't fix anything because there's nothing to fix in this case. > you're not being given a representative set of available options... What woul
3. 3.▲
   by black_bird 7y ago

   Then you agree with me. Your preference is greater for "being in contact with someone" than your privacy or other factors. Case closed. Or are you saying that someone should force your family members to use another product that s
4. 4.▲
   by black_bird 7y ago

   I'm with you. Again and again we see how certain conclusions and opinions expressed on this site presuppose a global knowledge about the preferences of other people. Regulators, planners and collectivists assume that what is bad for th
5. 5.▲
   by black_bird 7y ago

   There is no "we" in this. I would express it: >Why should "I" accept that privacy intrusions are okay? As long as it's a voluntary business relationship, there's nothing to say. If your scale of preferences
6. 6.▲
   by black_bird 8y ago

   I don't know if it's sarcasm or not. Positions are dictated by empirical evidence, not feelings. What is false does not become true because I feel it is true. Free markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand. My opinion i
7. 7.▲
   by black_bird 8y ago

   It's a moral argument. Any form of coercion that prevents the free lawful use of private property is an attack on individual freedom. No act can be considered lawful if it comes from an unlawful act. No individual or group of individu