You're either replying to the wrong person, or completely missing that my point is exactly your first sentence.

Those sound like some rather specific non-libertarian rules, but okay. Just imagine that in order to hire a receptionist you had to hand them $200,000 in company shares along with their first $1500 paycheck. I don't think anyone would want to hire you and I, and I don't see this being workable without government force. The whole point of libertarianism is that trying to organize a group of people into a single monolithic society or economic system requires government force to rope in our abuse the people with different wants and needs that don't go along, and that voting to use that force against your neighbors (or possibly worse, random strangers on the other side of the country from you) is immoral. The closest to lib-soc we could achieve is a system that *allows* for socialist-style worker ownership of the means of production, which I pointed out we sort-of already have, and wouldn't differ greatly from ordinary libertarianism. "I need the government to lower taxes because I want to buy more company shares and own my own work" isn't *politically* much different from "I need the government to lower taxes because I want to replace this piece of shit car." However, "I need the government to force my employer to award us more shares so we can vote out that CEO prick at the top" is not libertarian at all, but it is socialist.

How about a system where most private employees purchase stock in their publicly-traded employer with a certain percentage of their income each year, while said employer contributes additional shares of ownership up to a certain threshold?