No Means No, So Stop Asking: How Consent, Permission, and Volunteering Actually Work

             Learning to hear “no” as “no” can be one of the most difficult impediments to successful communication. “No” is among the most difficult concepts for a person who is new to socialization and civility, to master.

            Don’t feel bad, though; the meaning of the word “no” has baffled anthropologists, linguists, and other scientists, since the beginning of time.

Due to the word’s “negativity” – and its tendency to negate things - most people actually doubt its existence. “No” may not be a physical thing, and we can’t find it or mine it anywhere.

But “no” is a powerful force, because of the power contained in people who say “no”. This power, combined with energy, can be converted into force, which can kick you in the nuts for refusing to accept "no" for an answer.

 

            If someone has referred you to this article, then it unfortunately means that you don’t understand the meaning of the word “no”.

            Perhaps you have not heard the word “no” enough times in your life. I would be glad to help familiarize you with this concept of “no”.

            In case you weren’t aware, no means “no”. No means no, in a literal sense. And in a figurative sense, it means “no”, except figuratively.

            In Spanish, it’s “no”. In French, it’s “non”. In Italian, “no”. In Russian, “nyet”.

            “No” can be used as a determiner, an exclamation, an adverb, or a noun. It can also be used to tell someone to “fuck off”.

            “No” is the opposite – or negation – of “yes”. This indicates the direction in which you would like the person to fuck off; i.e., the direction which would lead you away the fuck from them.

            To put it another way: Off is the name of the general direction in which they would like you to fuck. Fuck “off”. Fucking off is the opposite – or negation – of fucking on. They want you to fuck off, because if you fucked on (or near) them, they wouldn’t appreciate it.
     Always get someone’s permission before fucking on or near them.

            Although “no” may be difficult to hear, I regret to inform you that other people besides you – in fact – exist in the world, and are not extensions or projections of you. Other people do not exist to serve you. If you want others to serve you, you have to negotiate.

            If you want to use other people’s stuff, share with people, and use other people’s labor, then you’re eventually going to have to deal with the sticky world of “consent” and “permission”.

            You’re also going to have to get used to the idea of negation, which the concept of “no” is based on. You may also have to deal with the mean concept of the “negative”.

            Since negations and opposites of things exist, it is sometimes necessary to “be negative”; such as by using words like “no”, “not”, “none”, and even “negative” itself.

            But using the word “no” every now and then, doesn’t necessarily make you a bad person. It just means that there are some things that you will do, and other things that you will not do.

            Everyone has standards, and boundaries. And everyone has a right to set up standards and boundaries, as long as they clearly communicate those boundaries to others.

            We say and think “no” every day. “I will not walk into the road because there are cars there”, “I will not spend too much of my money because I want to have some left over”, and “I think that I will not drink poison today” are all things that help us¸ yet curiously they somehow involve the “negative”.

            Thus, “no” is unavoidable, and what it brings to our lives is not solely negative. But why is this? Let’s take a closer look.

            Other people own their own property and possessions, and control their own bodies. If you want to use their services and labor – or their property or goods they produce or sell – then you have to get what’s called their “permission” (also known as “consent”) first.

            Usually this “permission” or “consent” is given through the verbal communication of an affirmative exclamation; i.e., the person will say “yes”.

            There’s a debate over whether "silence equals consent", and the idea that a clear affirmation must be given in order for permission and consent to be said to have been given. The idea that silence equals consent, could probably help explain the source of the confusion which you are experiencing.

            Allow me to be perfectly clear: Silence does not equal consent.
     A person should always clearly communicate that they want something, or want to participate in something, before another person does something to them that - for any reason - they conceivably might not want to do.
     If you're ever unsure as to whether someone really wants to do something, ask them. Ask them whether they feel pressured to say "yes" or "no", remove them from that pressure if there is any, and ask them again when you are sure that nobody else will unduly influence their decision.

            Additionally, for a person to be said to “volunteer” or “consent”, they have to have given enthusiastic consent.
     This means that a person must want a thing or action so badly, that any negative consequences which could possibly result from it, are negligible, in their opinion. But they have to know about the possible negative consequences in the first place. This sets up what is known as “informed consent”.

            For consent and permission to be given, that consent must be fully informed. And ideally, a person’s consent to an activity should be enthusiastic, and everyone who is involved, should benefit. This is the essence of mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.
     The more of these conditions that are fulfilled, the more consensual an activity becomes.

            “No” means no.

            It most certainly doesn’t mean yes. Unless someone is playing mind games with you, or has worked out a code system, or you and someone else have decided that it’s “Opposite Day”.

            “No” does not mean “maybe”.

            “No” does not mean “ask again later”.

            If you are reading this article, then it means that you have asked someone to use their property, or their possessions, or their body, or their labor, or their favors, so many times that they no longer feel that they can say “no” to you, and have that be the end of it.

            Given the historic level of derision afforded to The Knights Who Say “No”, it seems appropriate to conclude that the true meaning of the word “no” is, in fact, even deeper and more profound than modern anthropologists and linguists have ever guessed.

            Linguistic anthropologists have determined that the actual meaning of "no", more closely resembles "no, and please stop asking", as opposed to their previous hypothesis (which posited that "no" actually meant "do whatever you want, just don't kill me", which was widely regarded by nearly all of humanity as the word's previous meaning).

            You see, “no” is not just a small, two-letter word, bearing zero power. It can be applied to many situations, thoughts, and fields of study.

            Think of the economic, social, and sexual implications of the word “no”, for example.

            Many salesmen like to tell each other “Remember not to take ‘no’ for an answer.” This may be great advice for a sales meeting, in which everyone knows that one person is trying to be the seller, and trying to get the other person to be the buyer. But not every situation is transactional, and not every situation should bear those kinds of expectations.

            Suppose that you were a salesman, and you were to bring the same attitude that gets you a successful sale, into the bedroom. Suppose that you were to go out to celebrate a successful sale, by going to the local bar, and trying to pick up a woman. What would happen if you remembered not to take “no” for an answer?

            A person who refuses to take “no” for an answer - in a sales meeting in which everybody knows he’s determined to make a sale and everyone’s fine with that – is a good businessman. But a person who refuses to take “no” for an answer – in the bedroom, or while trying to pick up mates – is a potential rapist.

            If you do not learn how to take “no” for an answer sexually, then you are at risk of becoming a rapist.

            If you do not learn how to take “no” for an answer socially, then you are at risk of becoming a person who is interpersonally exploitative.

            A person who is interpersonally exploitative, takes every chance they can, to exploit other persons. They see each and every social interaction, as a chance to “win” or benefit in some way. This is a common trait of people suffering from narcissistic personality disorder, which is typified by a grandiose sense of self and delusions of grandeur.
     It's not that a person shouldn't want to benefit from every situation they're in. In fact, they should. People don't have a reason to do something, for which there is no benefit or payoff. But it's socially maladaptive - and frankly rude - to try to benefit more than other people do in every social situation.
     If you're trying to benefit at the expense of others, then you're not just "rationally self-interested", you're greedy.

            Applying “no” to the context of politics, gives us political independence movements, and movements to respect the consent of the governed. “No” as in “no taxation without representation”. “No” as in “Congress shall make no law…”.

            If someone has referred you to this article, then you need to learn how to take no for an answer, either socially, sexually, or economically. Perhaps all three. Or maybe it was in regard to your politics; maybe your political ideals have somehow refused to accept the idea that people will give a hard "no" to certain proposals, laws, or programs.

            Feel free to take this opportunity to read this article, and brush up on how to take "no" for an answer in each of those different ways (i.e., social, sexual, economic, and political).

     You may be unclear as to why someone has said "no", and you may find yourself in want of a better - or another - explanation as to why you received a "no".
            If someone has referred you to this article, then it is probably because they can’t find a polite, indirect way to say “no” to you that you will notice. Odds are, they have tried being polite and indirect, and it has failed. Now, they can't find a direct way to tell you "no", which you will not describe as impolite.

            If you are still at a loss for why someone is still saying “no” to you, then the reason why you find yourself in this situation, is that you refused to accept the explanation(s) which you have already been given, as to why someone told you “no”.

            Remember, if you are asking someone for something – their time, a favor, use of their body or labor, a possession, etc. – then you should not be surprised when and if they say “no”.

            After all, if you asked them, then that implies two things (which I don’t know whether you were aware of this):

            1) The answer will either be “yes”, “no”, “maybe”, “I don’t know”, “yes but only on certain conditions”, or “no unless certain conditions change”. “Yes” and “no” are the most common responses. All questions asking for consent and permission are what we call “yes or no questions”. Anyone who asks a “yes or no question” should keep in mind that “no” could be one of the potential answers. And that person should be prepared to accept that answer the first time. If you are unsure of whether they mean what they say, and you feel that you must ask for permission multiple times, then you should only do it in order to give them a second opportunity to say "no"; don't do it to pressure them to give a "yes". If you accept someone's "no", but the other person then says "What do you mean 'no'!?", then that will be a great opportunity to teach the other person about the wondrous concept of "consent".

            2) Asking someone implies that the person has the right and the authority to say either “yes” or “no”. You do not have the right to beg for an explanation after hearing “no”, unless you indicate during the “yes or no question” that you intend to beg and whine after the answer is given. You are asking for permission because the thing or person you want is not yours. This includes people besides you, their possessions and property, things they co-own with people, the household items they possess, their pets, children, family members, etc.. You can do what you want with things that are yours. But someone being "your" friend or family member does not make them your property. You have to clearly ask them for permission, and clearly receive a "yes", or else you have no right to expect them to help you.

            Therefore, asking someone a “yes or no question” carries with it the assumption that they are allowed to say "no".

MIND = BLOWN

     It is too bad that nobody explains this idea to us early on in our lives!
     Most of us only get a basic explanation: "Don't hurt other kids, and don't steal from them." And some of us are lucky enough to get the additional advice of "and if you do, don't get caught, destroy the evidence, and intimidate any witnesses into silence".
     Unfortunately, for the "take-charge" types, consent is a little bit more complicated than that. It's not just about avoiding killing, stealing, rape, and fraud. Your actions affect others in ways you might not be able to anticipate. People's willingness to continue interacting with you is conditional upon your continued good behavior and fair treatment of others.
     You do not have any right to pressure, guilt-trip, bully, bribe, or intimidate anyone into continuing a relationship, when they have consistently said no, and lost their ability to trust you, due to your repeatedly ignoring their answers.

            Human beings have limitations. They need rest and relaxation, sleep, adequate heating and cooling and ventilation, decent quality air and water and food, health goods and services, and emotional support.

            You do not have a right to make others prioritize your wants over their own needs. Do not expect other people – each of whom is going through a struggle you know little to nothing about – to set aside their basic survival needs, to attend to your wants.

     You do not have the right to interrupt someone's sleep or meals to ask them for favors. You do not have the right to accuse someone of needing to eat, or sleep, or clean their house, as if they did it just to spite you or fuck with you or lord their possessions over you. You do not have the right to expect someone to have the energy or patience necessary to hang out with you, if you are constantly draining them of energy, taking up all of their attention, and preventing them from getting anything done to advance or improve their life.
     Simply put: Your friends can't hang out with you if your neediness makes them drop dead from exhaustion.

     If you are an adult with a car, money, a job, and/or friends, then you can probably solve your problems by yourself, without pressuring one of your friends or family members into saying “yes” to something they’re obviously uncomfortable doing.

It's not that my problems are more important than yours.

It's that your problems are your problems,

while my problems are my problems.

I have enough problems. I can only take on your problems

when I am ready and willing to do so.

     Consenting to someone's request, is different from giving up and finally saying yes after they've repeatedly refused to accept "no". This is called bullying someone into changing their mind. Enthusiastically consenting to something in a total absence of pressure and coercion, is completely different from begrudgingly saying yes after the other person has communicated that they will not accept "no" as a final answer.

            The fact that you can successfully pressure someone into acceding to your asking for permission over and over again after you have already been given multiple clear, direct “no”s, doesn’t mean that you have the right to blame the other person for letting you manipulate them.
     You are the one who manipulated them. You cannot claim that you’re not responsible for your own actions, unless you’re a child, feeble-minded elderly, mentally disabled, desperately addicted to drugs, or psychologically deranged.

            Human beings are like Magic Eight Balls. If you ask them something, and they say “no”, you could shake them violently over and over again until they give you an answer that resembles “yes”. But the fact that you can shake a person violently until they change their mind, doesn’t mean that you should.

            Magic Eight Balls are inanimate objects. Human beings are not Magic Eight Balls. They are real people with real feelings, and they are not extensions of you. They are not objects on which you can project all of your hopes, dreams, thoughts, perceptions, suspicions, and delusions.
     They are people who are trying to fix their own problems. People need their space sometimes.

     You do not have the right to keep asking for consent and permission after you’ve been given a direct “no” over and over again. The answer is no.

            You do not have a right to an endless series of explanations, which imply that you’re only getting a “no” because you might not have asked “the right way”. The answer is no.

And you do not have the right to change the agreement in the middle of the agreement being fulfilled, unless the change you are making is to end and terminate the agreement.

     If you are having sex with someone, and they ask you to stop, stop. If you are giving someone a ride, and they ask you to stop (and it’s safe to do so), stop.

            Please learn to respect other human beings, their boundaries, and their right to say “no”. The sooner you learn this, the easier it will be for you to understand that you should not use the fact that someone said “yes” once to some particular question, to imply that they really mean “yes” from now on. even though they’re saying “no” over and over again from now on.
     A single "yes", said once, is not the same thing as a "yes" that is meant to last forever. The more chances you give someone to say no, and withdraw consent, the safer you will be.

     No always means no. The only time it doesn't mean "no" is when it means "no, no, a thousand times no".
     Sometimes a "no" isn't just a "no". Sometimes it means "No, and please stop asking", or even "No, and please go away."

If someone tells you “no”, and you think they really mean “yes”, then it's fine to ask them, as long as you don't do it more than once. You must be prepared to take "no" as a final answer either the first or second time you hear it, or else you relinquish the right to be trusted by the other person, as someone who respects their boundaries.
     Make it clear that you didn't understand. Ask them, “When you said ‘no’, did you mean ‘no’? Or did you mean ‘yes’?” Be prepared to explain whether it was the "n" part or the "o" part that you failed to understand.
     Next, they’ll probably tell you what they really mean. And when I say “probably”, I mean “definitely”.
     Unless you're in a private sexual situation involving B.D.S.M. and/or "consent play" - or you're playing "Opposite Day" with someone, believe what they say. You have no right to expect other people to lie to you about their intentions regarding what you are planning to do together.
     Be direct with people, and they’ll be direct with you. Don’t say the opposite of what you mean, and other people won’t say the opposite of what they mean. If you need to practice taking what people say at face-value, then do that.

     Finally, a person who volunteers, must volunteer of their own free will.
     The "vol" in "voluntary" is the same root word that we find in "volition", which means "willingness". A person can only volunteer himself. To "volunteer somebody else" is not purely voluntary on the other person's part, unless they agreed to potentially be volunteered by someone else beforehand.
     And finally, there is nothing voluntary about demanding that somebody volunteer. Someone who tells a group of people "We need a volunteer, and if there are no volunteers, then a volunteer will be chosen at random", is not using the word "volunteer" correctly. There is nothing voluntary about pressuring people to volunteer after everybody present has already indicated, through their silence, that they do not intend to volunteer.

            If you can remember even just one of the pieces of advice in this article, then your difficulties communicating clearly, and respecting other people's boundaries, should start improving soon.
     Good luck on your journey! Welcome to the world of "no"!

This has been a semi-satirical piece.

Written on May 23rd and 24th, 2021

Published on May 23rd, 2021

Edited and Expanded on May 24th, 2021

How to Be Friends with a Libertarian: Protecting the 9th Amendment and Stopping the Regression of Freedom

      Most liberals - and many conservatives and progressives, too - like to justify depriving people of rights, based on the fact that some people lack rights, while other people are not using theirs.

     People like this will base their ideas about what we all should do, on the lowest common denominator of rights that somebody has. If one person lacks rights, then everybody else – so this line of logic goes - needs to have rights taken away from them, in order to make things equal. Or if a person tolerates one injustice, or has in the past, then they should tolerate other injustices in the future.

     They say, "If you need car insurance to own a car, then you should need health insurance because you own your body."

     Also, "If you take drugs from strangers, or eat McDonald's, then you should have no problem taking what's in the vaccine."

     Alternatively: "If you need a license to operate a car, then you should need a permit to operate a gun, because they're both deadly weapons."

     To that, I say "fuck that shit". The fact that you are wasting your freedoms does not mean that I have to give up mine.

     The idea that I should give one freedom up because I seemed to surrender another, is a false equivalency. In part, because it assumes that everybody thinks about rights, and connects them to each other, in the same way. It assumes that if they tolerate one thing, they should tolerate another. It assumes that people are ideologues who do and should behave predictably.

     What you see as me "surrendering a right" might just have been me making a decision. The only right you surrender, in the act of making a decision, is the right to know what will happen if you make a different decision. It does not mean your future decisions all have to be consistent, nor that they all have to conform to somebody else's ideas of consistent logic.

     The lines of logic used to justify this mode of thought do not even make sense. First, it's arguable whether we really "own" our bodies, or whether we are our bodies. Second, you can't avoid having a body as easily as you can avoid having a car or a gun.

     Third, a person has the freedom to put into their body anything they want, as long as they don't harm others. So if a person's feelings about drugs, food, and medicine do not conform to your preconceived notions about how a person should make decisions about health, then just remember... that is somebody else's body you are talking about.

     Mind your own business. If they want your advice on health or safety, then they will ask you for it.

     Moreover, there are about eight hundred toxic chemicals which are inside of our bodies right now, many of which are legal and F.D.A.-approved. Some came into our lungs after we breathed polluted air; others came from cheaply made consumer products. And some of them are more common and thus more difficult to avoid than others.

     Should the fact that I tolerate one toxic chemical (because I can't avoid it), mean that I should tolerate a second? What about a third? And so on, until I'm tolerating the fact that my body is full of 800 of them? Simply because I smoke weed, or take LSD at a festival, or eat Burger King every once in a while? Hell no! [I mean, if I'm smoking cigarettes, feel free to remind me that several hundred toxic chemicals are found in them. Especially if I started smoking near you without asking you if it's OK first. As Ron Paul has said, "Freedom is the right to tell people things they don't want to hear."]

     The fact that you were recently exposed to a certain level of toxic chemicals, does not, and should not, mean that you ought to be exposed to more (unless that is your wish). If anything, it means that you have probably had all the toxins that you can take for a while, and that you deserve to take a break from being full of toxins.

     Stop expecting people to go on suicide missions solely for the sake of appearing to remain consistent to you. Just as "the Constitution is not a suicide pact", neither is a friendship. We should build each other up - and say "I believe you and I encourage you if you say you're trying to quit this substance" - instead of knocking each other down and holding them to how "cool" or "chill" or "lax" they have been in the past.

     Life is about more than chilling out, and tolerating other people's (or your own) bad behavior and moral back-sliding. It is about defeating evildoers, and overcoming the obstacles necessary to achieve your goals. We can't afford the costs of holding each other back.

     The Obamacare mandate to purchase health insurance is not currently being enforced, because it's dying in the courts. So why not use this opportunity to say "If I don't need health insurance (to own my own body), then I shouldn't need car insurance either"?

     We don't even really "need" health insurance, nor car insurance; we just think we do because people older than we are, made laws that require us to have those things. You don't die if you run out of money, or insurance; you die if you run out of air, water, food, and medicine, or if one or more of your major organ systems collapse.

     If we don't need insurance or money to live, and alternative accreditation systems exist outside the state and yet are not in violation of its laws - then why not say "I don't need a license or a permit to do anything, because I was born free, and because of the content of the 9th Amendment"?

     [Note: Amendment IX affirms that we have rights which are not listed in the Constitution. These are called "unenumerated rights", which is distinct from the concept of Congress having unenumerated powers.]

     We rarely cite the fact that others are more free than we are, any more, to justify getting more freedom instead of less.

     [Note: an important exception to this, is the 14th Amendment incorporation clause, which empowers people to have their freedoms recognized in their states, because other states have recognized their own citizens' freedom to do the same, and the federal government cannot logically say that something is a right in one state but not in another.]

     In the Trump era, many of his supporters have used the fact that other countries are "shitholes" run by tyrants, who mistreat dissidents and people who try to come into their countries illegally, to justify gassing protesters and gassing people at the border. This is not acceptable; it is "what-about-ism". It is the idea that if somebody else did something worse than what you did, then what you did is OK.

     Likewise, when someone tries to tell you "You should put up with Y injustice because you put up with X injustice in the past", just tell them either "I was wrong" or "I could tolerate X, but I can't tolerate Y, and that's my decision." Unless it affects them directly, they have no right to interfere in your decision. They can complain all they want, because they have free speech, but they cannot rightfully interfere unless you betrayed them or harmed them, or your decision will harm them.

     People who use one example where we tolerated a deprivation of freedom, or a slipping of standards, in order to excuse or rationalize or justify another, should stop talking about what “we” supposedly have to do, and start making their own decisions about their own personal food and health choices and about their safety. Otherwise they might as well be inviting other people's advice, because they can't live without meddling in other people's decision-making and without subjecting them to nonsensical lines of logic that limits their freedom to change their mind.

     If you don't want people telling you what to do, then don't tell others what to do!

     You do not get to tell others that they have to accept ever-declining standards, just because they have made several poor or inconsistent decisions in their lives. You do not have the right to berate someone who changes their mind, unless you have signed a contract with them.

     We do not have to do jack shit. The only thing we need to do is stop writing laws that make it harder and more expensive for us - and more profitable for the government - for us to exercise our rights.

     If you respect me and my rights – and want your own rights respected – then you will respect my boundaries and the fact that I am an individual (and the fact that individuals, alone, make decisions), and you will leave me alone to fix my own problems, and refrain from giving me unwanted advice or pressuring me into accepting unwanted assistance from you or the government.

     If you want to respect my boundaries, as a libertarian – that is, as a person who values the need for informed consent above all else – then you will not aggress against me nor threaten me, you will not pressure me to spend money that I do not have or haven't earned yet, and you will not tell me that I have to sacrifice my boundaries or my needs in order to hang out with you.

     This includes my right to safety, and to peace and quiet, and to staying out of handcuffs!

     If you respect me, and my right to be informed about what's going on around me, then you will not steal or commit other crimes while you are around me without notifying me first. And that should go whether the crime or infraction has victims or not.

     I can't tell you how many times I've been shopping with friends, only to discover at the checkout line that they intended to steal. It creates a huge imposition on me and puts me in a dilemma! It is not fair to spring something like that onto somebody with little notice.

     It's not that I think someone shouldn't consider shoplifting if they're desperate, and I am certainly not trying to defend the police or wealthy sellers and big corporations. If you are my friend, and you need something so badly that you're considering stealing it, then I will buy it for you! Just ask me. I don't want either of us to go to jail!

     If you have a child or a pet to take care of, and you're in public holding on to them while committing crimes, then you are not a responsible person. Whoever you're with, while you're stealing or getting arrested, is going to have to figure out what to do with your dog or your kid while you're in jail.

     The level of carelessness that some people make excuses for having in their lives is really astounding sometimes. Not that I am entirely blameless. I can't tell you how many places I've possessed marijuana without getting the permission of the proprietor. But I at least know well enough not to use my family and friends as getaway cars after buying marijuana. You have to think about the consequences of your actions, from the perspective of the worst possible way it could potentially affect someone.

     You may say, "Yeah, but it's not wrong." So what? Something "not being wrong" is not a good enough reason, in and of itself, to do something. You should want to do things that are right, not just things that are "not wrong".

     Who do you think pays for the losses from shoplifting? Insurance companies, if the stores are insured. But those costs don't come out of the C.E.O.'s pocket; they're borne (like the majority of the company's costs) by the company's lowest paid employees. Those are the people who get shafted in order to pay for other things the company thinks it needs. 

     But do companies really need security, and on-premises detention of shoplifters? No, they need to lower their fucking prices to something we can afford, so the markets can clear, so the foods aren't left rotting on the shelves, necessitating toxic preservatives that harm our health, in order to keep them "fresh" and marketable.

     So if we're at a store together, please, don't make me into your unwilling accomplice, and risk me going to jail, just because you want an extra item in your pantry. Even if it's a gift for me! I didn't ask for it.

    Don't fucking do things to people without their consent and knowledge, whether it affects them positively or negatively!  [Unless, of course, you're giving them a surprise gift and you know they like surprises, and aren't bothered by the attention involved in having their birthday celebrated, etc..] Do this for the simple reason that "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

     In economics, affecting people positively or negatively without their awareness and consent, is called externalizing transaction costs. You are imposing a cost upon them, as the price of hanging out with you. That price takes the form of bullshit surprises that you spring on people, which make them uncomfortable, and pressure them into helping you over helping themselves.

     This is called being interpersonally exploitative. In each transaction and social interaction, we should make sure that the interests of everybody involved, are aligned; but that doesn't mean that each person should feel empowered to shamelessly take advantage of every situation to ensure that they benefit the most.

     More reasons not to give people gifts for which they didn't ask, include the facts that: 1) what you think will help a person, might be something they think of as causing them to become more dependent upon you for that thing; and 2) they might not know whether and how to get you back for it.

     When we shop together, I don't want you to get arrested, but if you act like an idiot, and it's either you or me, the fact that you are my friend does not obligate me to cover for you. Certainly not instead of myself. Certainly not when I would have to make up a lie and put myself in danger for a friend's stupid thoughtless decision. Shoplifting is not always wrong, but that doesn't make it a good idea that's worth going to jail for! If you're going to steal, and there's nothing I can do about it, then at least let me know ahead of time, so I can run, or else be prepared to sock a security guard in the face.

     Do you have any idea how uncomfortable it is to have to consider asking your friend, "Hey, uh... You're not gonna steal from Wal-Mart, are you?" before there's any indication that they would, because of their past history? Do you know how awkward it is to ask someone, "You paid for that, right?" or "You're gonna pay for that, right"? and hear them shush you?

     I don't play that shit. That creates an imposition on me to shut up about your bullshit. You do not have the right to get your friends in trouble and then pass it off as harmless fun. Some people are trying to work and maintain normal jobs and have families and avoid jail. That's different from being a buzzkill. If you have a child, then you shouldn't be stealing in front of them, unless you're prepared to defend that decision with force.

     Not that I don't have sympathy for people who steal, or for my friends. If you're reading this and you're thinking, "Just don't hang out with people who steal, or are likely to steal", then to that, I say, "Easier said than done, asshole." At least half of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck. Nobody has any money. Shoplifting is the least of my concerns, morally. But that doesn't give people the right to make me into an unwilling accomplice of theft without my consent or knowledge.

      Consensual transactions and interactions require informed consent, which requires knowledge of the choices available, and a total lack of external pressure, and the right to make your decision final without others continuing to ask you a question you have answered over and over again.

     Don't ask me if I want to do something until I say yes. That is "not taking 'no' for an answer". That may be acceptable in sales, but it is certainly not acceptable in the bedroom, and it shouldn't be acceptable in public social interactions.

     Not taking "no" for an answer sexually is what a rapist does; so take "no" for an answer socially, or you will be the social version of a rapist.

     Voluntary exchange requires mutual benefit, in addition to consent. If someone is sacrificing in order to participate in a social interaction or an economic exchange, then it should be asked: “Why is that person sacrificing, while others are not?”

     But this should be asked, not in order to punish those who are not sacrificing, but rather, in order to make sure that nobody is sacrificing (unless it is necessary and they genuinely want to).

     If a social interaction, or an economic transaction, does not benefit all people involved and affected, then it should not occur, and the people involved should go their separate ways. That is how you produce free decisions that are also fair.

     Decisions which don't harm anyone, but do benefit everyone involved (or at least they don't harm anyone involved), are called Pareto improvements, after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto. These are the necessary conditions for mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.

     We must end the culture of pressuring others to accept lower standards. We must stop brow-beating each other into prioritizing consistency over self-growth and self-improvement.

     We must also stop tolerating people who we reasonably believe are deliberately ignoring our boundaries just to mess with us or to test us. 

     It's time to start respecting others. It was always time to respect others. But if we don't bother to find out what each other's boundaries, limitations, and needs are, then we aren't going to understand how to respect them.

     People need to communicate with each other. We can't just have people committing crimes around their friends and having awkward conversations in the middle of the store about whether we'll be paying for this.

     We can't have protesters and counter-protesters coming up to each other and trying to quash each other's right to be there while they're right there on the sidewalk and there are no police officers around to resolve the dispute.

     We can't go on just not coordinating with each other. We must deliver on our promises. But we also must find away to avoid punishing people too severely for changing their minds, and one of the ways to do this is to make sure we are not pressuring the people around us to set unrealistic goals.

     And we must not expect others to allow their moral standards to slip just because they have agreed to hang out with us.

     This is how we stop the back-slide, and the regression, of freedom. This is how we stop a society desirous of freedom, from collapsing into a "slippery slope" to tyranny that refuses to recognize that freedom is (almost) free, and doesn't require any trial by fire. We are born free and innocent, so why should we come into the world owing anybody anything?

     The only cost of freedom is the effort we expend respecting others' freedom. The only costs of freedom are self-responsibility, self-control, humility, and adequate communication with others.

     This is how to respect me. What about you? Does this sound unreasonable? Or just familiar?

     To read a more in-depth discussion of Ninth Amendment issues, and how license and permit systems limit our freedoms, please read my 2015 / 2016 article "Papers, Please!?: Freedom vs. Permission", which is available at the following link:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2015/12/papers-please-freedom-vs-permission.html

Based on a post published in early January 2021

Edited and expanded on January 7th, 2021