Alish

I think consumers have a right to know if certain product poses either immediate or long-term threat to their health, when the producers are aware of those threats. I don not advocate banning, excessive taxation, or any other ridiculous government regulations. However, I believe that businesses should be legally required to disclose information about possible or existing health concerns arising from the use of their products (e.g. cancer warning on cigarettes). Unfortunately, I noticed that objectivist folks oppose even that. Why? Isn't concealing information regarding safety considered fraud? Isn't it fraud immoral and illegal under free marker system?

I don't really identify myself as an objectivist. But I don't see anything wrong with lottery winners. Playing a lottery doesn't sacrifices anyone's well-being since lottery players understand that no one is coercing them to play and chances of winning are slim. When buying a lottery, a person makes a willful contribution for someone who just happened to be a random person to buy a winning ticket. Again, no coercion is involved. The most horrendous thing that government can do about gambling is to restrict people's right to spend their money by proposing some stupid and ridiculous law that would ban gambling. So, being lucky to win a lottery is fine. Restricting the right to spend money is retarded.

Leftists claim that totalitarian socialist states weren't really socialist. Well, what else would you expect from socialists who are hesitant to admit failures of socialism? Anyway, I often hear ridiculous claims that countries like USSR were state-capitalist (although state-capitalism is an oxymoron). That makes me laugh hysterically. They say that the reason why USSR was state-capitalist is because the means of production were controlled by ruling class, instead of workers, and production was driven by profits that were collected by the government. That's I think is absolute nonsense. Although it's true that government was responsible for planning, the production itself was never aimed for profit and private enterprise was of course impossible. How would you refute those claims made by leftists?

It's a law that emergency medical care is provided to anyone regardless of ability to pay. Does that contradict the Objectivist ethics in any way?