Yakntoro, the difference is between coercive and voluntary interaction. I have no problem with people entering into contracts, they are the foundation of civilization after all, but they have to respect both parties to the contract equally. If not, then the contract isn't a contract at all. In fact, in contract law look up the term 'contract of adhesion' which is one where a contract is forced onto the weaker party by the stronger one. That is the essence the problem I have with all forms of collectivism. They are coercive 'contracts of adhesion.' The social contract 'leftists' revere don't realize that by using the coercive power of the state to create that social contract (which the citizen didn't sign by the way, they were born into this bondage) they are advocating for endless contracts of adhesion. Voluntary exchange is the basis for society. Coerced exchange is the basis for tyranny. Tell me right now what the big tech firms are engaging in? Because it ain't anything close to an equal relationship between supplier and buyer of their services. They are becoming something worse than gov'ts.

Ah, I see what you mean. Think I'm finally starting to understand. You rail against collectivism; if one cannot control/own oneself, one cannot be free. (Let me know if I'm barking up the wrong tree.) But can't individuals willing and not by force enter contracts with each other to achieve aspirations that would surpass what an individual can achieve alone? And isn't the family the foundational form of collectivism, where each other edifies one another and creates new life?

I really want to have a discussion with you on what your definition of communism is. Lol. Because most communists had merkel, macron, etc. Good discussion, Tom., even when I disagree with you.