When someone's 'perspective' is built around the premise that games developers are absolute monarchs, who's very word is rule of law (something even the ED EULA doesn't claim, though I've seen a few that get close...), it is difficult to take it seriously.
... Are you playing strawman with a straight face?
FD is the sovereign here, and the Elite Dangerous universe the game itself is under the jurisdiction of FD.
If Weber is relevant at all (which I have to say seems highly debatable, to say the least), it is where he points out the difference between different forms of power, and in particular the way 'legitimacy' for the (then) modern state was built around "belief in the validity of legal statute andfunctional 'competence' based on rationally created rules."
Actual written down rules. In statute. Or even (at a pinch, for arguments sake) in an EULA. Or stretching it even further, since we are only discussing a computer game, and this isn't actually a court of law, on the menu.
The legality here is understood to be FD's vision of the game and their statements, which clearly incorporate PvP in the picture through the numerous quotes even mentioned in this thread. Since if you only include EULA, then your argument about consent is applied to everything, which doesn't make sense as I've pointed out here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237164&p=3662210&viewfull=1#post3662210
My point was that there is no 'legal statute' saying anything about consenting to anything. One can argue that consent for PvP in ED isn't necessary (it almost certainly isn't), but claiming it exists because FD exerts absolute power? Nope. Like I said, silly. Absolute monarchs don't need 'consent'. FD doesn't need consent to allow PvP in open, for that matter. Logic however says that one cannot actually consent to something one is unaware of.
FD has absolute control over the player's account (monopoly of force), player can appeal against it to FD (within the scope of the state [Elite Dangerous]), or appeal to the actual legality in one's country/government (outside of the scope of ED).
FD has absolute control over what happens in ED, what rules exist, what is acceptable and what is not.
By playing Elite Dangerous, players are actively aware of this, hence by extension, PvP is a part of the content in Open and Group possibly engaged for the time being like everything else available.
Edit:
I think every player wants to tell FD that they didn't consent to the crime and punishment system in the universe and the death penalty (rebuy), but guess what? It doesn't matter, all players can do is propose alternative implementation or complain while dealing with what is currently in place.
Edit2:
Actually now all background simulation players can now rise up in arms and claim that they didn't consent to other Cmdrs influencing their BGS if your claim is somehow valid. That makes no sense.
Edit3:
Oh wait, all the PP players can now rise up in arms like the BGS players similarly.
I think anyone can see where this is going.
