You can put all sorts of restrictions on selling shares so long as you're not a public company, though. I own some shares which I can only sell to other people who already hold shares, and then only when the company allows me to, for example.
> You can put all sorts of restrictions on selling shares so long as you're not a public company, though.
Sure you can. But it is my understanding that the more restrictions you put in the circulation of capital, the further away you go from the capitalistic model and the closer you get to the socialist one.
You're implying that is necessarily a bad thing in all cases. Many people don't believe that. There are definitions of freedom other than the dominant ones - and plenty of ways in which many people are not free as a direct result of capitalism.
> You're implying that is necessarily a bad thing in all cases.
I sincerely wasn't. I was trying to be as neutral as possible. And I was not talking of freedom in the post you're replying to, I was only talking about restrictions on the circulation of capital.
> But it is my understanding that the more restrictions you put in the circulation of capital, the further away you go from the capitalistic model and the closer you get to the socialist one.
Restrictions and regulations are in no way automatically "socialist". Something being less laissez faire doesn't inherently make it socialist. Socialism doesn't just mean "not free market capitalism".
