[tmp231]

I certainly support contract law. What I don’t want is coercion. They make a device, offer it to you with a contract, and you can say yes or no.

You make a recommendation for how they run their platform, they can say yes or no. You can go or you can stay.

It’s that simple.

But I think we’ve run this well dry.

[josephcsible]

> offer it to you with a contract

If I walk in to Best Buy and get an iPhone, I'm not signing any contract with Apple. All I'm agreeing to is "I give Best Buy money, and Best Buy gives me this physical product." The reason we're upset with Apple is that they're imposing terms on us as if we signed a contract with them, but we didn't.

[tmp231]

Right. Then you boot it up and have to agree to a bunch of stuff to use iOS. You can bail at that point and not use the device. Or you can know that you’ll have to agree to it later, and that the device is quite difficult to put another OS on, and just not purchase it. Get a librephone or Android or …

You may say that you bought the phone and so you can do with it what you want —- ok. Hack/root it to run another OS. It’s your device in that sense. But they are under no obligation (nor should be forced to be) to make it easy.

I agree with you that I wish they would make it easy, but alas. Buy a librephone.

[stale2002]

Ok, but then don't go around pretending like you are someone who opposes government intervention.

Instead, it is other people, who want to get the government out of our phones, and not have the coercive, government force, under threat of violence, preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased.

If you want to say that you support the government, using force and coercion, and government intervention, into people's lives, fine. But that is your position. And it is extremely anti-free market.

But, if your position, is that you support this government coercion, then I am not sure why you would get upset about other forms for laws, and government coercion, given that you want the government to forcibly prevent other people from doing things with phones.

Because you absolutely support government coercion, that would be government force on people, who are doing things with phones that they own.

[tmp231]

> preventing us from doing things with phones that we purchased.

Nobody is preventing you. Who is preventing you? There’s no government action here. You buy the phone or you buy a librephone. Let’s leave the government out altogether.

You’re the one pushing for some kind of regulation against free agents interacting. No need to contact the federals on this.

[stale2002]

> Nobody is preventing you

You were advocating in favor of using the government to "enforce a contract" or whatever, on people doing what they want with the phone that they own.

> You buy the phone or you buy a librephone.

And if someone buys an iPhone they should have the full right to do whatever they want with it, and the government should absolutely not be preventing people from doing so.

> Let’s leave the government out altogether.

Yes, lets ensure that the government never prevents anyone from doing what they want with the phone that they purchased.

So if you take back your previous statements, and instead agree with me that the government should not prevent people from doing what they want with their phone, then cool.

But otherwise, if you disagree, then you would be the one advocating in favor of using government coercion here against people.

[tmp231]

So it sounds like you don’t agree with contract law. that if you make an agreement with someone or something that you are bound to keep your word. You somehow think that because you agreed to something voluntarily that the government should then act and impose new terms on the parties.

That’s one reason why we are regulation drunk in this country. Instead if having a simple rule that says you live up to contracts that you agree to, now we have to have a million rules for exceptions to contracts people sign.

I do t thing we can get anywhere if you don’t agree with contract law.