Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Collectivist

Regulars
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Collectivist last won the day on July 7

Collectivist had the most liked content!

About Collectivist

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 03/06/1950

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Georgia
  • Relationship status
    Married
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Biography/Intro
    I have been writing on OBJ. subjects ( mostly Op-Eds ) since 1968. They don't always get published but I have seen an increase in published articles ( usually from 4-10 paragraphs ) lately.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Found Ayn's fiction in 1968 and her non-fiction a year later. I am an original subscriber of the AR Letter back in '72
  • School or University
    Providence College
  • Occupation
    Retired but active ( writing D-photography, Philosophy plus a ton of other hobbies )

Recent Profile Visitors

1511 profile views
  1. Collectivist

    Taxing The Income Taxers

    I like the voluntary lottery system. It seems to me that, that is a "trader system" rather than a complusion system
  2. Collectivist

    Taxing The Income Taxers

    How about this. Everyone will finnance government services by paying a 1~3% voluntary contribution on purchases of goods and services. No state tax (the government collects all the contributions and would distribute it to the states on an equal basis). Your choice in the matter is like at Wal-Mart when they ask do you want to contribute the charity of the moment. You can say "No" so it would not be automatic. This way it would not be called a "fair tax" but a "voluntary tax" 33 million citizens (give or take) paying 1~3 % would be enough to finnance any government. In times of emergency Congress would be able to raise the rate (with a time limit) to meet budget necessities for that particular emergency.
  3. Collectivist

    Taxing The Income Taxers

    "Sending a small amount of their salary to government" isn't that just the same as "income taxation even if it's a smaller amount? As hard as it would be to implement, no amount should come out of your paycheck every week if so wouldn't that imply that the government still holds a gun to our head?
  4. Collectivist

    Taxing The Income Taxers

    In a wider scope, you are absolutely right, however I was using government in this case to refer to local administrations like police, EMT, and public utilities. Your right, I should have made that clearer.
  5. Collectivist

    Taxing The Income Taxers

    Well said!
  6. Collectivist

    Taxing The Income Taxers

    Taxing The Income Taxers Understanding The Nature ofTaxes! The view that a government any government ( or any administration for that matter) has the right of unlimited power over its citizens is called by various names, (most often referred to as republicanism, fascism, communism, totalitarianism and other particular unlimited ism’s) but it is mostly and widely referred to as statism. The difference between all these are only in their form and nature of its forced and self appointed legal absolutism over its citizens. Statism denotes an all powerful political expression of joined collectivism or more simply as a “welfare guardian” of the individual. Under both a moderate or strict statist government, an individual has no choice but to do what the state demands, no if's and’s or but’s. The most obvious and simple example of this is taxation (from here on in I will refer to as government as referring to all forms of ism’s as indicated above). Taxation can be defined as a government practice over a city’s, town’s, state’s and/or nation’s control over a particular economic area. It’s income is a demand over its entire populace as a piece of pie out of every single paycheck. There can be no resistance and no choice or recourse. To withhold a government's entitlement is to invite danger or worse. To a government withholding of its just “deserts” is always considered a crime. But what, you may ask, is the nature of this crime? And does that mean that every person which producers (works) and therefore contributes to the sum total of a government’s income is a potential criminal? Would you be surprised if the answer was a resounding “Yes!” The first and foremost role of government is to prevent the initiation of the use of force and to protect those who are directly threatened by such. This we can all agree. But the initiation of force is exactly what the government does by collecting taxes from a given paycheck out of every individual within its jurisdiction. The fundamental principle here is that no government should be invested with the legal right or power to the use of physical force against any individual ('s) to act contrary to their voluntary choice (s). But again it is just what the government does by initiating the coercive action of taxation. “Coercive action” can be made by threat, legal action, property expropriation, imprisonment or in extreme cases death! Refuse or resist to pay what a government “feels” is their right of a “stated amount” of your income and these things may fast become a reality. Here is where you may be criminalized even if your intent is but fundamentally disagree in what is your “fair share”. If the government says it isn’t enough, then brother you better head for the hills! What then is the answer? You say you must pay your taxes or you may find yourself in jail, separated from your family and marked for life or worse! Not so! In a truly free society (granted our country has not yet gained this obvious objective), taxes would be paid voluntary without compulsion or coercion! No one would or could tell you what to pay or how much. What? Who would want to pay anything out of their pockets freely and to an entity or entities they may not agree with? Everyone-here’s why. Imagine one afternoon you arrive home from a family outing and you find your home has been burglarized, you reach for your phone but there is no police to call. You stand outside watching your house burn down one afternoon but firehouses do not exist. A loved one is having a health difficulty but EMT is nowhere to be found. Your water faucet ceases to work because of a main pipe break down the road but “public works” has yet to be created. Roads are full of potholes but who will administer to their repair? These and a host of other problems will arise if no one steps up or believes in voluntary funding of necessary government administration. But the question remains how to administer voluntary government funding in all the possible situations that can arrive in the course in a day, month or year (s)? That question can only be answered by rational individuals who see the necessity of such funding. Can we do this now, today? Yes, if we see the true nature of individuals living to further life-sustaining, and life furthering actions and take responsibility for themselves. One, therefore, should be willing (and want) to pay for an administration of public and national defense, public utility repairs and such and so on. The final question remains how much one should voluntary pay? Immediately a second related question should be asked-how much is my life worth and am I willing to take responsibility for it? The exact amount cannot be calculated by any one person. If that was the case a person would have to spend endless hours going over budgets, manpower needs, compitent hiring practices etc. and have no time to live his life. So this question is hard to answer and at this time may not be answerable until individuals reach a point of cooperation that exceeds government coercion but one thing would be sure, if voluntary funding of government was possible then waste, low productivity, career and corrupt politicians all all the other evils that go along with today’s coercive type of taxation would cease immediately-and wouldn’t that be nice!
  7. Collectivist

    What's Going On Here?

    Of course what you say is valid......I was just making a funny! Must we Objectivists always be devoid of humor?
  8. If the Democrats are so smart how come they have a "Jackass" as a symbol and why is it that the Republicans have an "elephant" as a symbol and forgotton how to rule!
  9. Political Factions: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly Psychiatrists usually equate good mental health in decision making with proper and prudent understanding of the decision (s) required, knowledge of the decision (s) complexity, discussions with confidents and above all honest rational thinking. Only then psychiatrists say can the proper decision (s) be made. Notice however that most elected officials nowadays decision making are based on range of the moment expediency, whim, intuition and/or false reasoning. For example, if a bridge is to be built or replaced in your town, do elected officials seek out the most qualified (and not necessarily the cheapest) construction companies to perform such a complex time consuming task,or is the hiring based on favors, long standing friendships or in the extreme, promises of some method (not necessarily money) of “payback?” In small towns (and in some larger cities) elected officials are often voted into office by “factions.” A faction is a well organized group of voters who dedicate themselves and their votes to one specific candidate. Factions are not illegal but they (in extreme cases) may interfere with the voting process by totally blocking out oppositional voting. If the town is small enough (by average city standards) only two factions may exist. This means that faction candidates are voted into office over and over, one after another, making many qualified persons without a change (or factions) to ever become elected. In this example towns of this sort find themselves in a quandary when nothing seems to improve or even modest improvements in the life of the town citizens in question can advance. Why? Well, it makes sense if you owe your election to a faction, elected officials will do nothing to embarrass, mock or rule against their particular faction for fear of losing their support. Now, what is the result of faction voting.? But first I don’t want anyone to get the idea that all political factions are bad. They are not. Electoral factions can be correctly judged by their ideas, aspirations and goals. For instance a faction can be formed to elect a good official against one that isn’t. A faction can be formed to elect a model sheriff or mayor. One’s that are known to put the people’s interest as their highest priority. It’s not all one way. However, if a faction sole interest is gaining or preserving power then here is what happens. Suppose you live on one street and there is a street right next to yours. Both are in dire need of repair. You are a fine citizen of your city, you help with needed causes and so do your neighbors. But there is not enough money to repair both. You wonder what is going to happen. You wake up one morning with the sound of repair trucks working the road,you look out your window and see, yes they are repairing the street but it is the one next to yours. You street will remain in needed repair for years. What happened? You have been a victim of faction “favors” because over time you learn that most of the people on the other street voted for those in power. Factions are a definite threat to our Republic. Factions however, will continue to exist. There will always be the good, the bad, and the ugly factional positioning in any election. Be aware, be confident, never give up, never give in and always vote your conscience and resist being told who to vote for! Stand up as an Independent and a knowledgeable voter the founders intended you to be!
  10. Collectivist

    Failure To Launch Epidemic

    When I was young (now 67) I worked very hard to afford to live. From my first job at 16 I was required to pay my parents $25.00 a week for my food and shelter ( I was making only $45 a week back then). My father was on Social Security which I did nit begrudge him, he earned it by his own hard work. When I volunteered for Vietnam at 18 the Air Force payed me only $400 a month. I sent $100.00 home every moth for three years to be able to afford my own car and apartment. It was hard but I stuck to it. When I first came home and delayed marriage until I was 27 (having saved a 20 percent down payment on my first home,( it made me and my new wife pennyless but nonetheless that made us a "property owner" to which we were emensley proud. Time went on and gaining a BA at a predigious Big Est College, I could not find a decent paying job that was worth the energy and work I put in my college studies. Still, I saved what I could and after ten years bought a second bigger home in Florida (originally from R.I.) hopping for a better life. It didn't. My wife and I could not afford to live gracefully at all (everyone was paying minimum wage in Florida no matter what your education level) Still, every time I was knocked down by business closings or lay-offs I persisted knowing that my unfortunate position in life was nothing personal, it was just the way things were. I never gave up and I never gave in. Finally my last two jobs in my career (the last 20 years of my working life) I found that my knowledge and business savey was worth money -lots of money. The last seven years before I retired I was making 50K+(I understand that same job now, everything being equal is now worth 75K+ per year or more) It was a long climb but I never gave up. Why am I writing this: well young people today are marked with an intense fatalism. I've heard many a young person that are frustrated by their low income (especially college grads) but are not willing to put any time or effort in it. They usually tell me (para-phasing) "Whats the use, I'll never own my own car, home etc". That is not true. I did it. If I can anyone can. It may take a long range view but you will get there. And don't begrudge seniors for receiving social security. Most money they made when young was to bring you up so you would never know the pain of hunger or lack of shelter. I know you guys can't see a future that is worth living but it is there, just grab hold of it and don't give up. You will find one or two that will help put you on the right path. It may not happen today, tomorrow, next week or next year but if you are consistant , someone will recognize your talent. Angry are you are now, I was too in my younger days was very angry (even to the point of joining the S.D.S) but I stood tall in defiance against the bastards that I felt were "holding me down" and swore that someday,someday I would look back at laugh at them all. That time has come for me, it will for you too..
  11. Collectivist

    A Short Discussion On Ethics

    In discussing politics, you may have heard the word “morality” or more specifically “ethics” discussed. What you may not remember or know is how you exactly define these words. In our short discussion here we will used “morality” and “ethics” interchangeably since they essentially mean the same thing. Ethics are actions, values or goals one chooses as guidance in decision making. Decisions are made every day from the simplest like choosing which ice cream flavor to consume today, to the more complex as in whom should I vote for, weather Alderman, Council Member, City Manager, Mayor, Governor or even President! Should I wave "hello" to my neighbor or ignore him all together.The array of important ethical choices in one’s life are almost limitless. So how does one decide or make these choices such as those above?. Which one’s are more value to me than another? Do I choose to buy a shiny new Cadillac even though I know I can’t afford to do so or do I choose more modesty and buy a more affordable mode of transportation? Do I build a bridge with “lego blocks” or hardened steel? So the question has to be asked, does one choose one’s ethics by emotion, faith and/or reading tarot cards or do I instead use logical rational judgement. Do I turn off my mind and hope for the best (and hope no one gets killed in the process) or rely on specific specialized topographical knowledge and logic? The answer of the first sections “blanks out” the answer to the second. All ethical choices reflects the inner characteristics (sometimes called epistemology) of the chooser. Show me a person’s choices and I will know what their ethics (value judgments) are so immediately. Try it yourself. You will be surprised how much you will learn about human nature in the very shortest time than you could ever believe. Ethics then, no matter how you look at it, defines codes of life one follows such as we said above, actions, values and goals by a standard chosen for oneself. Take the value (ethical choice ) of truth. If instead one lies consistently to gain an action, value or goal more simply (without applying much of themselves), then one not being honest (or ethical ) with oneself. Such actions can lead to disaster or worse. Such is with all ethical choices: integrity, honesty, independence, justice and other positive virtues. My point here is that the purpose of ethics is not to make life more difficult but to make life more enjoyable. The choice is yours!
  12. Collectivist

    Anything For Anybody Is Everything

    MisterSwig $ cBh, I couldn't have said it better myself....Bravo!!!!! We truly have hope as people like us voice our objections to the growing nonsense of the alt-left!!!
  13. Bertrand Russell ( 1872 -1970 ) famed British mathematician and philosopher once remarked to a large lecture audience at Cambridge that “....nobody can be certain of anything!” contrary to his insistence on previous occasions that mathematical knowledge was a certain and a provable science. He wasn't being funny. He of course was being very serious. How his epistamology changed we can only speculate but his lecture did proclaim to the whole world that no absolutes can exist, the tree you see or the car you drive or the meal you eat is not real, forgetting substanuously and unknowingly that he was uttering an absolute of his own.This type of evasion is like stating that the pursuit of knowledge is not only fruitless but pointless at best:that reality is unknowable, that the syllogism is corruptible and prone to error and that thee brain doesn't work; therefore rendering the mind impotent. If one accepts Russell’s quotation above as true, the logical conclusion would be that, if nobody can be certain of anything then everybody can be certain of everything that he pleases. Since nothing can be refuted anything and everything would be permissible. In politics this is called the “double twist” used to confuse voters into accepting facts that are not only untrue but to fall into the condition where a voter voluntarily gives up his independent judgement and concedes to the politician in question that he/she must know something better/more than I do (regardless of the true facts) This is the biggest reason America is falling into an ever lowering ring of fatalism that she may not be able to recover from and that my fellow Objectivists would truly be a shame.
  14. Collectivist

    Private Property-Who Does It Belong to Anyway?

    Yes I remember that. Wasn't one owner a widow ( I believe she was the defendant in the case) and didn't want to move under any circumstance?
  15. Collectivist

    Private Property-Who Does It Belong to Anyway?

    You guys are amazing!
×