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 : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dragonfly who wrote (474)	4/21/1998 6:06:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

A: Ultimately, Ms. Rand thinks the LAW is criminal, NEVER the sellers who might be deemed so under it. B: Under these laws any seller may be deemed criminal for unpredictable reasons at any time. She "exagerates" because logic dictates she can. The law on the books makes it possible. <<Because one business...has been prosecuted...does not mean that all businesses...are criminal under the law. Ms. Rand presumes it does.>> And again, she is logically correct if even the slightest unreasonable possibility of prosecution for mere selling exists under this law. IT DOES! It doesn't matter if the current powers that be choose to prosecute- they COULD under this law- and that is all she needs to say what she says- and say it logically. Furthur reading would enlighten you as to what Ms. Rand does and doesn't presume, and in particular, her understanding that such laws as this will be used selectively! I don't think you've read much of her- you seem scarcely aware of what she was well aware of. This law is unconstitutional IMHO(I am not alone). I say her logic is a proven commodity.