‘Radical-consentism’ … that’s the best name I could come up with for an ideology where two people emerge from a vacuum to contract something. It doesn’t matter what they contract. What is important is that they consent, they are old enough and, of course, at any time they can walk away.
I could fill this page with examples. But since I want to make this short let’s look at the principle.
For starters, society is not just filled with lone individuals hermetically sealed from one another who then make contracts with one another that are ‘nobody’s business but mine.’ This is obviously a business idea but think about a business contract.
Yes, two are involved and yes, legally, they are separate fictitious persons. It’s an exaggeration to say, however, that they are in a ‘consent-bubble,’ Look at the banking crisis of the last 7 years. No problem if two people make bi-lateral contracts? Really?
The principles of radical-consentism are wrong. People are entitled to make certain choices that fit into the overall ethic of a political community. Their choices must either enhance or, at worst, not detract from the ‘group-feeling.’
Otherwise people do end up in a vacuum.