[WayneM]

I've yet to hear from you one single justification for anyone besides the owner of a company determining who he should trade with and how much he should trade? And no, I am not a libertarian. I think they're idiots for their obsession with drugs.

But don't you see that the same principle is at work here. You feel that you, and society as a whole, has the right to interfere with someone's personal freedom. In this case, the right to do drugs.

Yet you would deny society the right to interfere with the right of a business owner to conduct free trade.

I'm simply saying that society has a right to restrain the freedom of both individuals and businesses. In both cases the society has the right to do so, based on what is in the best interest of that society.

As a businessman you may not like any restraint on your freedom. That is to be expected. As an individual, I may not like paying taxes. I may not like being forced to adhere to traffic laws. I may not like zoning requirements or building codes. I may not like a lot of things. I still have to conform, and most of the time my society has decided that I should be made to conform.

Is this all wrong? Maybe so. But probably not. I can say this because I realize all freedoms have limits.

[ClintonBeGone]

Is this all wrong? Maybe so. But probably not. I can say this because I realize all freedoms have limits.

You've yet to tell me why freedoms have limits. At least why the freedom to trade should have limits. The drug analogy is silly when the libertarians make it and it's silly tonight. It's silly because there is nothing productive that comes from injesting mind altering drugs. There's no compelling reason to do drugs. There's no compelling reason to possess child porn or molest children, yet there are libertarian factions that believe those activities should be allowed. Let me ask you this, do you think there should be a limit on rich someone can be?