[ghostwriter]

> No, actually. Those customers should have the right to deal with whoever they want.

They shouldn't, a notion of rights does not include any material implementation of these rights for you by other people. If you disagree, then please make sure that I deal with Tesla and SpaceX on my terms next week, because I definitely want it.

If you find that Apple acts as an abuser in an abusive relationship, you just cut all ties with the abuser. I've never heard of anyone suggesting a victim that "they should have a right to continue living with that person" or that "there's a right to coerce the abuser into the comfortable co-living with the victim".

Again, free market doesn't imply absence of unfair practices. It implies that there's no force that is able to chain you to the abuser.

[stale2002]

> They shouldn't, a notion of rights does not include any material implementation of these rights for you by other people

This is about the customers rights. They should have a right to do whatever they want with there own devices, and buy repair services from anyone who chooses to deal with them.

I am not saying it is " for you by other people. ", so I am not sure why you are making this up, when that is clearly not what I meant. I repeated the same point, like 6 times, so I thought my point was clear, but somehow you ignored it.

Instead, I am saying that both these customers, and other companies, should have a right to deal with each other, if both agree, and an unrelated 3rd party, Apple, should have no ability to stop it by them using government force, which Apple is doing.

And if you don't agree in this voluntary trade, then you don't believe in free markets.

> If you find that Apple acts as an abuser in an abusive relationship

I find that they are using government force against others.

> you just cut all ties with the abuser

Well, the people who actually support free markets want to remove Apple's ability to use government force against others.

That is what we want to do. We want to get rid of their government supported coercion that they are using against others.

> "they should have a right to continue living with that person

I don't want a right to force Apple to deal with me. If they don't want to sell iPhones to people, they don't have to.

Instead, I want to remove Apple's ability to use government force against others, for engaging in voluntary trade. For example, Apple should not be able to sue anyone for voluntarily using 3rd party repair services.

> It implies that there's no force that is able to chain you to the abuser.

But there IS force! Apple is literally using government force against others. Stop ignoring this point. Lets get rid of that force that Apple is using against others.

I will repeat once again, so that this is clear.

You said "It implies that there's no force". I am saying that Apple is using force against others, through government support lawsuits, and I want to take away Apple's ability to use this force against others. Lets get rid of their ability to sue people, for voluntarily buying from 3rd party repair shops.

This is the point that I am making, and you keep ignoring it.

I made like 6 sentences where I repeated this exact same point, and somehow you ignored them multiple times that I repeated the same point, over and over again.