| > If you approach this from a "very strict Libertarian perspective" then the rights of the 25% (at least) who did not vote in favor of this rule are being infringed. No, from a Libertarian perspective, those 25% chose to live in that state and enter into a free agreement with their neighbors to participate in representative democracy. It's no different from them choosing to participate in a necessary market like buying Internet or a car, and the same forces that would make it too expensive/time-consuming to run for office or move to a different state also prevent them from forming their own automobile company or paying exorbitant prices for privacy-respecting products (if those products even exist in the first place). Of course, they are "free" to start their own automobile company, just like they are "free" to make their own political party. > Individual people have rights which are independent of what the majority choose. Look, I agree with this statement, I think this is an important statement to make. But it's a perspective that's totally inconsistent with Ancap philosophy; by this logic the market itself can infringe on my freedom by refusing to cater to niche consumer wishes (which it often refuses to do). I'm looking at this issue through an Ancap Libertarian lens because that's what OP originally suggested in their criticism of the ballot measure -- regardless of whether or not I agree with Ancap philosophy, I'm examining the situation through their worldview. From an Ancap perspective, people choose to participate in markets, and it's just as easy to move out of a state to avoid a regulation as it is to move out of a state to avoid a market. > The difference between "no one is obligated to produce what you want" and "other people can use force to stop you and others from producing what you want for yourselves" is perfectly obvious. No, otherwise agreements wouldn't exist. Do you think your freedom is being abridged when you sign a terms of service agreement? People voluntarily chose to take part in representative democracy. Even if you don't buy that citizens can move out the state, the companies choosing to sell in those states certainly have the freedom to move out. They have the power to even move to different countries. They voluntarily chose to enter into an agreement where people would have the democratic freedom to vote for regulations. They aren't forced to be here. From an Ancap Libertarian perspective, this is the exact same scenario as you signing an agreement with Apple when you purchase an iPhone. That agreement may restrict what you can and can't do within Apple's ecosystem, but you chose to sign it. They chose to incorporate and sell in Massachusetts. You mention this point as well: > In the former case, if someone does decide to produce the good for others to use they are free to do so, even if the majority disagree. But the analogy here is more like you going into Apple's ecosystem and saying that you should have the freedom to put any app in their store. You still have the freedom to build automobiles without oversight. You just don't have the freedom to infringe on other people's spaces and violate their collective agreements. The people of Massachusetts are not obligated to give you a platform to sell your goods in their community, you don't have the right to force them to do that. > They are not a party to the transaction and have no standing to interfere. If I violate Apple's TOS and sell pornography on their app store, can I say that Apple isn't party to the transaction between me and the buyer, and that they have no standing to interfere? Communities have the same rights to set up rules about how they will operate as companies and platform providers do. Now, separately, we can get into an argument about how free transactions can actually result in less free outcomes, but that's approaching this issue from a different lens than the Ancap lens that OP was using. And part of the problem of using that lens is that as soon as we do venture into questioning whether free transactions universally result in more freedom, we're left evaluating the market through the lens of market outcomes, and regulations like this tend to look really good when you're approaching the market through the lens of encouraging free outcomes rather than purely guaranteeing free processes. But my point is not to convince you that Ancap Libertarianism is good or bad, it's to take Ancap Libertarianism at face value and apply it to the situation, and I don't see how voluntarily built communities, interacting with companies that have voluntarily entered into those communities and signed agreements with them, is any different at all from you signing a contract to publish your apps on the Apple store, or buying a tool under a license. When you argue that communities have no right to set rules or regulations, what you are effectively arguing is that the people who make up that community don't have the right to form a voluntary contract with each other. Which is obviously an anti-Libertarian sentiment. The forces of expense/resource-availability that keep you inside of a state with rules that you disagree with are literally the exact same forces of expense/resource-availability that keep you locked into market-wide abuses and that keep you from going away and forming your own markets that better serve your needs. It is impossible to criticize one without criticizing the other. |
Yet more nonsense. They were born there. They never agreed to abide by whatever rules their neighbors choose to impose. Leaving is not zero-cost and no one has the right to force them to choose between acquiescing to others' demands and leaving their home—as if there were even anywhere else they could be expected to go where they won't face the same unreasonable demands.
> But it's a perspective that's totally inconsistent with Ancap philosophy; by this logic the market itself can infringe on my freedom by refusing to cater to niche consumer wishes (which it often refuses to do).
Again, more nonsense. Your rights are not infringed upon by other people not giving you whatever you happen to want. They are infringed upon when other people step in and threaten you with harm (for example loss of property, imprisonment, or capital punishment) when you attempt to provide the things you want for yourself, or through voluntary cooperation with others.
> Do you think your freedom is being abridged when you sign a terms of service agreement?
No, because that is a voluntary arrangement. If I don't agree to the contract we go our separate ways and no one loses anything that already belongs to them. People do not "voluntarily chose to take part in representative democracy"; their participation is compulsory. It's not just "take it or leave it" (which is already getting into contract-of-adhesion territory) but rather "take it or give up your entire life up till now and hope, against all odds, that you can find somewhere to live that doesn't have exactly the same problems". And that applies just as much to companies as to individuals.
> When you argue that communities have no right to set rules or regulations, what you are effectively arguing is that the people who make up that community don't have the right to form a voluntary contract with each other.
More nonsense. The individual people who make up the community have every right to enter into voluntary contracts with each other. They do not, however, have the right to compel anyone to enter into those contacts as a condition of living near them, or to make anyone who doesn't agree to the contract move somewhere else.
The rest of your reply is just more of the same. It's clear you have no idea whatsoever what "Ancap" Libertarianism actually means. You're approaching it from a collectivist mindset which is diametrically opposed to the actual ideology, and confusing voluntary interaction with laws based on force.