pull down to refresh

100 sats \ 5 replies \ @javier 24 Apr \ on: Consent to coercion econ
I'm a natural law expert, the natural law is this in the end:
You are responsible and liable to fairly compensate for objective damages caused to the property of others except when there is a voluntary mutual agreement in full knowledge of the conditions and risks.
Which means you have to both perfectly know and perfectly agree with the conditions and risks. If you don't, you don't enter into the contract.
Any questions?
write
preview
21 sats \ 4 replies \ @DarthCoin 24 Apr
https://i.postimg.cc/cLvhR9RZ/darth-freedom.jpg
reply
101 sats \ 3 replies \ @javier 24 Apr
It's another way to see the natural law, but yes.
Here are other forms, choose your one:
  • You have the right to free use of your property and agreement with other beings, as long as it is voluntary and in full knowledge of the conditions and risks, and if not, you would be fairly responsible and liable to compensate them.
  • You have the right to private property, to compensation for damage, and to fair, informed and voluntary contracting with other owners, as well as the obligation to use it without violating the property of others.
  • Love and let love with knowledge and wisdom, take responsibility for your mistakes and demand responsibility from others with complete justice.
Choose your one, all means the same.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @DarthCoin 24 Apr
do you think statists will ever understand the natural law you've just explained?
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @javier 24 Apr
"Ever" probably, but not soon. They have to dissolve their cognitive dissonance first, which is a very hard task.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @DarthCoin 24 Apr
2000 years of brainwashing is hard to wipe out... indeed.
reply