Scott critiques the misuse of consent-based arguments to justify bans, arguing that they often disguise sacred values and can lead to more harm than good. Longer summary

This post critiques the misuse of consent-based arguments to justify banning practices. Scott starts with a satirical proposal to ban healthcare to prevent non-consensual treatment, then extends this to banning non-Democrat candidates to prevent accidental voting. He argues that these 'fake consensualism' arguments are often used to disguise sacred values as neutral principles. The post explains that while consent is important, banning practices entirely based on the possibility of non-consent often leads to more harm than good. Scott concludes by calling for a higher burden of proof for such arguments and suggesting that Basic Income Guarantee would be a better way to ensure genuine consent. Shorter summary