> You agreed to it, it doesn’t matter how one sided it was.
The libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It doesn't matter if society turns into a corporate fiefdom, as long as contracts and property rights are upheld.
I'll do my part and vote to make it illegal, and not reduce myself to a mere consumer. Just like companies don't, and lobby for restrictive patent laws. What happens when one side limits itself to just (individual) consumer choices, while the other uses all political and organizational means available to gain an advantage? In other words, if two players play a game, and one of them limits themselves to only a small subset of moves, while the other uses all, which player will win?
> make that illegal.
Oh no, that's just consent between individuals. People collectively place terms you agree to by continuing to conduct business in that country. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere - they can run their countries how they like. You're not saying organizing into companies is legitimate, but organizing into countries isn't, are you?
Yeah we’ve already established that you want to place restrictions on consent. I also don’t support patents, see what a bit of consistency does for you?
I am precisely saying countries are less legitimate than individuals. Governments hold and use their monopoly on force, they do not follow the rules they impose on those they govern. SpaceX can’t claim Mars and beat down anyone that challenges them, and yet that is exactly how most state borders came to be today. But again, if you’re willing to be consistent, then socialists should feel free to move to Cuba, else they consent to living under capitalism.
The libertarian philosophy in a nutshell. It doesn't matter if society turns into a corporate fiefdom, as long as contracts and property rights are upheld.