Imagine we have a project that requires consensus. You've invested 1M$ and I've invested 1$. Now I would be able to blackmail you, not giving you my consensus until you give me most of your M$. And in the long run nobody will invest in such a project. So if you want a project to work, you'll have to use force against me, obstructing minority, i.e. to switch from consensus to democracy.
At democracy majority oppresses minority. Brute force wins.
At consensus minority blackmails majority. Those who care less wins.
The both systems are inherently bad.
The good solution is the free market.
Consensus =! Unanimity
Right. Unanimity is the end result.
Consensus is process of reaching this unanimity.
The process consists of cliques blackmailing each other until the one who cares less wins.
If you only have 1$ at your disposition then you are by definition poor and at a disadvantage over someone with millions. In an ecosystem as big as BTC this will make you an outlier and no matter how strong you shout your voice will not be heard because it is not respected.
I took these numbers - 1M$ against 1$ to make it more clear for you. However, the same principle works in any "consensus" situation, including bitcoin core dev consensus.
Stop throwing "free market" around as if it makes any sense or is relevant in that situation.
In that situation it does. BTW, I'm preparing a post about it right now.