Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (58019)	10/8/1999 2:22:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 108807

>I think in the libertarian state one party can do almost anything to another party as long as its a mutually agreed.< But that is an unapproachable ideal. When a strong party lays a contract before a weak party and snaps out "Sign this." the forms of a mutual agreement have been satisfied. But I maintain that the situation is actually coercive. A working libertarian state must imo contain a feature that prevents coercive "choice management". In a libertarian state that I would accept as livable - the potential prostitute should be motivated by "Now here's a job I like" and not "what else could I do?".

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (58019)	10/8/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I totally agree that my definition of libertarianism is feudal, in fact I think libertarianism is in some ways feudal. I agree company towns were horrendous but I maintain that "workers rights" legislation is not libertarian. In theory, the workers would have the right to move elsewhere, or to form unions and resist the company. Theory and practice are of course very different. My own belief is that removing government entirely from the field of play leaves a power vacuum which is inevitably filled by whoever can afford to maintain a coercive force. This, as Lather points out, is feudalism, the opposite of libertarianism.