Imagine, if you will, that there is a gang of carjackers who got sick and tired of risking their necks whenever they tried grand theft auto on their own. Many of them got punished for their crimes, and several had even been killed by their armed victims. What this bandit gang really needed was a way to lower the cost of their thievery to the point where they could carry on, much as they had done before, but with greater impunity.
So, they hatched a plot to steal more cars (with much less risk to themselves), by first defrauding their victims into thinking they had “agreed” to the systematic theft of their cars. They were able to do so convincingly through the abuse of not only language, but also of logic. Their con artistry was so persuasive that almost none of their victims deeply questioned the premises behind the carjackers’ arguments in favor of this “arrangement.”
During this time, the carjackers went to great lengths to give off the impression that they were sincerely interested in curbing, and sometimes even preventing, the carjacking itself. A contract was drawn up between the carjackers and their victims, which specified the “limited” extent of their thievery; namely, that the carjackers were only permitted, by the contract, to steal only certain types of cars, to steal only on specific days of the week, and even then, they were still contractually “limited” in the very ways they could steal those cars. This contract was not allowed to be negotiated by the victims, who were quite literally told to take this or nothing!
Oh, I almost forgot to mention that this socially binding contract is further “limited” to the parking lot of a car dealership. That, and the carjacking gang was also in the business of selling those cars, with total immunity. No one, outside of the gang, is allowed to investigate the gang just to make sure they aren’t stealing cars outside of the dealership in order to later resell them within the dealership, the latter of which is not only allowed by the contract, but in fact is explicitly reserved to the gang, at the expense of anyone else who may have wanted to also sell cars without having to join the gang first.
In other words, the carjackers tricked their victims into giving their sanction to a blatantly unenforceable contract. What initially appeared to be “mitigated” thievery was, in fact, an unlimited excuse to commit grand theft auto with absolutely no responsibility, even according to the terms of the contract itself, for anyone who bothered to read and understand it well enough.
Despite this, there were those few who argued that the gang had breached the contract, and that if the gang were held “accountable,” they’d be incentivized to respect the “limits” in the contract, and then the thievery could be mitigated somewhat, somehow; and an even smaller minority was obnoxious enough to advocate for abolishing the contract altogether, but they were shamelessly mocked those who simply wanted “carjacking-lite.”
And everyone lived miserably ever after (except for the carjackers, who continued to enjoy their ill-gotten spoils), at least until such time advocacy for “carjacking-lite” was given up as the hopeless mirage that it is.