kyleplum

It's something but honestly anything less than 100% is not great though. You can't easily go from living on 100k a year to 50k or less. It's still fulfilling the purpose of being an unfair deterrent from finding employment elsewhere.

To be fair, it's generally discouraged to speak ill about a previous workplace when interviewing/working at a new job as it may reflect more poorly on you as an individual than the company you are disparaging.

Okay let's use a specific example:

I decide that I don't want to trade with Country A because they are producing weapons that they plan on using to attack me with. Now let's say Country B is trading with Country A, and I think they are trading components being used to produce the weapons in Country A.

Is it a violation of Country B's autonomy for me to decide to not to trade with them because they are trading with country A?

If I believe that anyone who trades with Country A is supplying them resources to build weapons to attack me, and I decide to not trade with any Country who is trading with Country A, am I violating the autonomy for all of those countries?

> Not banning trade doesn't force the countries to trade, it just gives them the choice.

And the choice made by the US is to not trade with Cuba or anyone who trades with Cuba - it's their right to make this choice.

Would it not be a violation of Cuba's National Autonomy to force them to trade with partner's that they did not wish to trade with?

If Cuba refused to trade with anyone who traded with the US, would you say that Cuba is violating the national autonomy of the US?

> I think the libertarian perspective is that we shouldn't have protections that prevent people from making personal choices that result in harm to themselves, but only from harming others.

There are a few ways that someone bankrupting themselves via bad investments does hurt others:

Dependents will be significantly harmed

They are more likely to end up homeless or in jail on the dime of society

They are less likely to be a productive member of society.

I suppose the libertarian response would be that if someone bankrupts themselves, let them die homeless on the street - but I don't think you'll get agreement from any significant portion of society on that approach and even then someone has to pay to clean up their body.

Refusing to trade with a country is not a violation of their national autonomy.

"We can see that you are talking. Would you like others in the meeting to see you as well?"

More like a public pyramid where the people with the most divisive opinions are pushed to the top and given the largest megaphones