Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

softwareNerd

Regulars
  • Content count

    12866
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About softwareNerd

  • Rank
    Proud Father

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://practiceGoodTheory.blogspot.com
  • ICQ 0
  • Other Public-visible Contact Info [email protected]

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Interests My wife and kid. Software. Finance.

Previous Fields

  • Country United States
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Chat Nick sNerd
  • Relationship status Married
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Copyright Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro 50+ yrs old
  • Occupation Software Development

Recent Profile Visitors

50308 profile views
  1. Yeah, let's just ignore the bleeding obvious that is being said to you multiple times and play these games instead. If you have no clue what people are referring to, you clearly are incapable of carrying on a sensible conversation.
  2. Someone had to say it, I guess, breaking the social rule that you resist giving harsh advice unless the person s paying you for the wake up call Anyone who speaks of making 10 million dollars by following some fairly guaranteed business model is deluded. Worse still, you may be a patsy in a scheme being spun by your "friends". It sounds almost like an Amway opening pitch.
  3. There've been a few pekple who tried to secede here and there. They usually figure on the news when the cops surround their homes with military style vehicles and persuade them to come back into their voluntary, consensual citizenship,
  4. Maybe you're thinking of it this way: Premise: citizenship is a consensual contract Conclusion: consent to the laws flows directly from that premise In that case, your premise (as now restated is false). You explicitly said that one should pay taxes. Now, if you come back saying that one is free to leave, and think that you're demonstrating your premise then you've got to think about what freedom really means. People are often "free to leave" as in "your money or your life".
  5. Yes, that's what I said in my last post, with one exception: you aren't arguing, that is simply your premise.
  6. I doubt you expected that, eh? But, at least for me, Epistemologue's position is clearer: he says that he not arguing about the morality of the law, just about whether one should follow it. He says the same would be true of an immoral law on slavery. He's not arguing that one should follow the law because it is practical not to go to jail (as an Objectivist might), but basing it on his fictional concept of an agreement to be a citizen, and also a fictional agreement between countries (e.g. Canada and US) when it comes to foreigners. The argument is the same as saying: "God says you should follow laws, so you should" The formal structure is: "Fictional thing is true" --> therefore --> "False conclusion follows" There's really no way to argue once this structure is revealed, unless someone wants to attempt the impossible task of showing that the fictional premise is fictional.
  7. On the topic of activism and advocacy, I think this is an issue that our grandkids can address. If we can make some headway toward a much lesser end -- reduce government to some core functions -- it would be huge. The rest is gravy anyway.
  8. Let me restate my point this way: Epistem is praising/advocating tax on a certain premise. He supports that premise. That premise can be used -- with very similar arguments -- to support any populist law that violates individual rights. Espistem is rejecting the fundamental building block of Objectivist political theory, but he is going much further too. He is rejecting the entire "natural rights" concept that predates Objectivism and informs the flawed, but better-than-most, US constitution. Not the first time he's rejected natural rights and individual rights in favor of a fuzzy notion of "voluntary agreement"... Which always boils down to populist democracy in practice. Of course he would reject this characterization since he hasn't yet sorted out the contradiction for himself, He seems to ignore it and move on to the next thread, to restate it like it'll become true by repetition!
  9. What do you know of Objectivism? What books or articles have you read?
  10. I only have a vague, mostly second-hand idea of Sam Harris; but, I agree that he differs from Objectivists in pretty fundamental ways. Indeed, a decade ago, most Objectivists who point out his good bits would probably have focused on his bad bits. I think the reason is that one picks one's battles: and, I assume more Objectivists who listen to Harris, link to him, etc. would also acknowledge his flaws. Analogously, the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan took the west from fighting an enemy whose philosophy was based on explicit naturalism and reason (the commies ) to an enemy with a mystical belief in the "uncreated" nature of an ancient scripture.
  11. I agree I don't think Epistem is speaking of the current situation as such or that taxation is voluntary today. The topic of taxation is completely secondary in my perspective when his primary notion of the morality of laws is so flawed.
  12. The core issue here is not taxation as such, but the concept "voluntary". For example, some have argued that taxation is necessary and that if they're only spent on legitimate roles of government and are fair, they are moral even if one must pay them under penalty of force. However, Epistemologue's argument is far broader than that. He says that one must pay them because they are voluntary... based on his concept of a voluntary contract that is implicit in being born in a particular place. This is broader, because it essentially says that laws are moral, just because they exist. Presumably, he limits himself to democracies making laws, but even this is not clear.
  13. The crux of your argument is that citizenship can be renounced. It is unclear whether you mean in the way one can do so today or something different. For instance, today, a Canadian citizen in the U.S. is protected by U.S. law and subject to U.S. tax. Given that you argue being born in the U.S. somehow enters a person into a contract which he never gets to see, read...and in fact does not exist, I assume you will argue -- analogously -- that a Canadian coming to the U.S. is subject to whatever taxes the U.S. imposes. If so, you should make it clear in your argument that you're saying that anyone born in the U.S. who does not want to pay tax, should actually leave. Is that what you mean? Also, taxes are just one part of the law -- not even the most important part -- so, I presume you think this applies to all laws? The implication would be that if a majority of U.S. citizens want to bring back slavery, this is moral and legitimate? If this mis-states your position, then how?
  14. The implication of ceasing to be a citizen is that one should be able to choose a different government. That's the true Netflix analogy. Are you for multiple competing governments? if not, ceasing to be a citizen is a meaningless phrase.
  15. Your ARI watch site is swill. You shouldn't be spamming the forum with your links.