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.

Technology Stocks : CheckFree (CKFR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Roger Bass who wrote (1737)	2/22/1998 8:03:00 PM
From: Spots	Respond to of 8545

>>I'm not sure I would see even this much government regulation as necessary In the most general terms I agree, with some specific exceptions. I think the proper function of government is to ensure that contracts are kept. (If you're a classicist, that is the basis of government--the enforcement of agreements. The runes on Odin's staff, etc.) To my mind, a proper function of government is to ensure claims as an ancillary to ensuring contracts. The fundamental of human rights is the right to own and enjoy private property and to enter into, and enforce execution of, contracts. These notions are under attack nowadays, but they are the fundamentals of our constitutional law and was the basis of my earlier comment. (I mean, my opinion on this was the basis of my comment.) The trouble with cost in loss reputation, etc, from forums like this is not that it isn't ultimately effective (I agree with you on that point), but rather, that it isn't useful for individuals enticed fraudulently into contracts (which include purchases, an implicit contract of fitness). I do NOT think government has any business making any rules about other claims except as they relate to inducing an entry into a contract. The sale of a product is one form of a contract. So is promoting a stock when one has a beneficial interest in doing so. I remain foresquare against regulating the promotion; I think requiring disclosure (and giving the purchaser the right to rescind if interest is not revealed) is the proper solution. Forget lawsuits beyond proving A said it and A was a spokesman for B who benefitted. That's enough (should be) to let me back out of a deal and be made legally whole. Speaking of lost causes, I'm also looking for the clause in the Constitution to be enforced about "consent of the governed" as well as the enforcement of contracts. I expect I'm as likely to see one as the other. <Very Big Sigh> Regards, Spots