I'm curious if the free will et's use a sort of algorithm to base consent vs nonconsent. Even in our skewed laws, there are lots of loopholes.
So for some examples
*It's not consent if you're underage
*It's not consent if you represent a population affected that actually didn't elect you.
*It's not consent if the resources you are offering in trade are stolen, and once the theft is revealed, the new owners of the trade, should they have any reason to suspect that the resource traded was stolen, then the new owners are also a guilty party whom may need to forfeit the newly acquired property. More specific example: you buy an mp3 player on the street corner with the cereal number burned off and police see your player. Doesn't matter how elaborate of a contract you signed it's not necessarily your mp3 player.
*it's not consent if a gun is at your head while you sign
*Not consent if you are dieing of starvation and right behind the page is a sandwich
*Not consent if your knowledge of the language is poor and you're given little time to research the statements
. . . .
So on and on it goes. Anyhow, I can only think that those powers that be to our benefit have had the likes of millennia to refine ethical clauses about consent and some way of knowing whether we actually "agree" to things. The fact that we are a slave population, it leaves me to think that all of our agreements are dubious at best. So . . . Yes, some very complex algorithm of sorts are factored in. This is one other point of skepticism I've had. But not something to conclusively discredit the claims here of course