Originally Posted by Schlack
also there are other impediments to individual freedom, from other individuals (or even voluntary non collective groups)

say for instance, that a particular individual has an extremity of wealth and wants to do something against the wishes of another poorer individual. surely the advantages oof the wealthy individual will mean that they get their way and the poorer individuals freedom and choice are restricted.

how would an individualist society get over that particular impediment to freedom?

Actually, Schlack, you are describing the system that you support and that is in effect today -- and has been for millinnia.

In a society based on natural Rights, if the wealthy fellow wanted to do something that did not infringe on the rights of the not-wealthy fellow, then it does not matter if it is against the wishes of the not-wealthy fellow. On the other hand, if it infringes on the natural rights of the not-wealthy fellow, then the wealthy fellow is prohibited from doing what he wishes to do unless the not-wealthy fellow voluntarily accepts compensation for the infringement, in either case the issue is resolved.
Yours,
Issodhos

Last edited by issodhos; 11/25/07 07:38 AM. Reason: corrected word
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos