_bearMountain's comments

sitation?

Fraud would be illegal. But still, yes, some people will always have more info or intelligence than others and will probably benefit from it. Though also in a free market, businesses will spring up that offer to provide information services.

You say consent plus something else. What is your something else?

> Isn't the government granting private property coercion? As soon as it gives it to you I lost my consent. reply

Yes, this basic philosophy depends on the belief in private property rights. I.e. you own your body and you also any property that was gain through legitimate (non-coercive) means.

> Smog? did you commit violence against me?

If you can prove damages, yes.

> Government property? Parks?

No government property. Private parks and eco reserves allowed.

> Taxes? how does the court system run without funds?

Short answer, no taxes. Longer answer, this gets into the debate of minarchism vs anarchy. Minarchism would allow taxes only for courts, police, and military.

> Excessive profits? Aren't monopolies a form of coercion?

Try to name a destructive monopoly that isn't supported by government.

> billboards with porn?

Tricky one, I don't know the answer to this one.

> Is a trade secret a form of coercion?

No. If someone acquired a trade secret through legitimate means, they deserve to control it.

> How about the feeble minded?

Fraud could be prosecuted. Still, will stupid people make stupid decisions? Yes.

Hey sharemywin,

Thanks for reading the article and for the thoughtful questions.

> So, when is consent revocable? Should it be presumed by default? These are technicalities that would need to be spelled out in law. But as a short answer consider our current system for how purchases are made or how jobs are taken. For purchases, once you make the purchase, you may be stuck, but some companies allow returns. For jobs, generally a contracts is written up where someone commits to a certain period of time, or an at-will contract.

> How do you prevent someone yelling fire in a crowded theater using only consent? or spam for that matter. Yelling fire in a crowd is generally considered to be violence in the same way that punching someone is, because you're causing a panic that can cause physical harm to people. In a consent based society, people own their bodies and their property and any violence against either would be illegal.

> How does consent work with humor or theatrics? Just shoot me... did I just consent to being killed? A judge would have to determine when consent was given. In this case, it wouldn't be any different than our current laws. No judge would say that someone would be bound by a contract if in a joke they said "Well if you're so much smarter than me, then why don't you just take my whole house!"

> If I know the outcome will harm you do I have any obligation to you? What if you are unaware it will harm you? is it different physically versus financial? This seems to basically ask "What if someone takes advantage of someone else?" In a consent based society, it would be illegal to defraud someone. The basic idea is that if you were fraudulent in your contract or proposition, the consent wasn't genuine. Again, there would have to be some sort of court system to arbitrate this dispute.

I loved the questions. Hopefully my responses were clarifying. Let me know if there's anything else that piques your curiosity.

Thanks for reading the article. Can you elaborate - what is it that you disagree with?

Follow up article: Misunderstanding Economics — The “All Or Nothing” Fallacy. https://medium.com/@unlocking/misunderstanding-economics-the...

(% change var A)/(% change var B). Are you saying this proves or disproves something? Please elaborate.

I don't think it does yet. But there's an extension system built for Standard Notes so 3rd party can add.