The idea of forced contracts is a neo-liberal statist fraud of an idea.
It assumes that in order to "protect" everybody from say....criminals; we need to enforce a "contract" that everyone has to "comply with" and willingly "sign" even if they are unaware of its contents.
Why can't we just let the states decide? Not go back to 1865, but flat let the States handle state matters.
Why can't we allow States to decide how they allocate their own resources? What's the downside?
Why can't we allow people to decide, one to another, their own private contracts and settle with each other in their own "private" way that does not impose force on everyone else. The system still works.
The Free Market balances out a lot of improper competition. Courts do their job. People get out and prosecute corruption, the economy recovers.
I don't see any issue here, since there has not been any "free market" practiced in the United States. Might as well open up competition....instead of obligating a force on everyone by contract
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise repr