That is true, but the only law in a free, non-aggressive capitalist society is protection of personal property from aggression and nothing more, not statist concepts such as "personal harm" or some slippery-slope, preemptive notion of protection from blame. However, I don't think either of us will make much progress against the entrenched positions in this discussion, so I am respectfully bowing out of this thread.
The similarity between what you prose and being under duress is that you feel people should be forced to deal with fraud, like it's okay, and when people signed things under duress, they feel forced to, like it's okay. Neither is.
The difference between trademark and fraud is simple, but I don't think you could grasp it. When a trademark is violated, the company (Kraft, in your example) is the one suing the imposter company for damages (or lost revenue actually). When fraud of a similar vein occurs, the person who was sold macaroni under the impression that it was Kraft-made would be the one to seek restitution. In the first case, there is no harm done to Kraft. They were never part of the transaction. In the second case, the consumer was wronged because they were given a product they did not wish to buy, while the imposter company tried to keep the money. In fact, if the consumer were to get his money back, he will likely buy real Kraft macaroni, since that is what he wanted in the first place.
Your argument stands on nothing, even with all your flailing about a right to commit fraud.
Nice try (impala). You think you're a (trailblazer), but you follow in the paths of others. (impala)
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
fraud is agression
the initiation of fraud has no place in a nonagression society.
I'm not "forcing anyone to deal with" anything, I'm not initiating any physical force here, you're the one proposing outlawing something.
Your argument stands on nothing,
Actually, yours does.
And then there was spam.
you are proposing that it is ok to breech contracts.
that people should not have the right to put authentic clauses into contracts where if the product is not authentic the contract is breeched.