Element

You really think they are fascist? I don't think people know how crazy Mussolini's and Hitlers system was. Hong Kong and Singapore rate really high in the economic freedom index. I would call them "Right Wing Nationalists", (As in right wing economically). I would never associate them with those insane Europeans though. Even if they started out as fascists or socialists, its clear that they actually wanted their nation to be great (its weird when they mean it) and they embraced capitalism.

Even with rights, democracy still suffers from other problems like the Rational Ignorance problem, or the Technocratic problem. Republics are not exempt from this. Rational Ignorance - My vote is worth one vote, and every time their are more votes my vote is worth less. since my vote is worth less, then my incentive to spend it well goes down. (That is, it is easier for people to spend one dollar frivolously than 1 million). Technocracy - We need technocrats. People who know what they are doing when they do their job. How is it I, someone who knows nothing about the military, can decide who can control the military? I could spend hours reading books about the military, and investigate potential leader's records, and I am still not sure weather or not I could come a well informed decision about who should control the entire military. Considering our presidents' abilities to miss which countries we should be invading (Iraq and Afghanistan?) I am not entirely sure some IV league graduate, even if he is well intentioned and supporting of capitalism, is capable of controlling such a power.

I think the nationalists and communists get along in their country politicall, seeeing themselves as common leftists but with different goals (internationalism vs pan-slavism). Pan-slavism has been the goal of Russian leaders for about 400 years, consider that Stalin and the soviet union was actually the first state to accomplish this goal. A united Slavic people, protected from the predations of the Arabs, Greeks, Austrians, and Germans. If I were a nationalist, I would admire Stalin also.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never presented such a dichotomy; the original post did imply bad things out of ignorance. That being the worst end of the dichotomy that you presented, you must already know that I am in the right to be just a little weary of that sort of thing. All I said was that I suspected him of being a troll to show him that he was way off, and being offensive. Which he was.

Okay, was there a single assertion in there that you have backed up with either appeals to common sense and knowledge, or actual reasoning and evidence? 1) There is no reason to care what Ayn Rand would endorse. 2) Throwing words like "Anarchist", "Subjectivist, and "libertarian" doesn't scare anyone. 3) As others have pointed out you are just appealing to orthodoxy and authority. Not a bad authority to appeal to, but none the less, on this issue she is wrong. 4) Objectivism is supposed to be an integrated whole. I don't see how accepting homosexuality as a viable life style is contrary to being an Objectivist. Being gay won't destroy the the system or anything like that.

So you go on forums and imply bad things about communities/ideas you clearly know nothing about?

Yeah, as indicated by the numbering, that should be the last step.

An elite group probably has a better set of incentives to keep a low taxed, slightly regulated economy (a pretty good thing in comparison today). So the rulers of Hong Kong pretty much do that there, capitalism is exploitable, there for they keep their cow fat and happy, they get to keep milking it. Sadly this only applies enlightened people though. Inevitably a dumbass gets in power and the decay sets in. The cow gets abused, and dies. Democracy just doesn't seem to work. There isn't any incentive for presidents to maintains a tax base longer than eight years (let the economic crash happen while I am out the door).

This bizarre of a misunderstanding is way beyond the normal misunderstandings that are annoying. (Objectivism is Naive Realism, Objectivism is Misanthropy, Objectivism is AnCap, Objectivism supports the status quo, etc). Objectisivst are crypto-christians? What? When talking about any subject that you want to talk about in a forum, try reading these things first. 1. Wikipedia 2. Publications by supporters of the philosophy, especially FAQs, but youtube videos, journal articles, blogs and such are good also. 3. Specialized encyclopedias are helpful (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for example) 4. Primary texts are good too, but expensive so I understand if you don't want to go buy them immediately.

You really need to figure out what an Objectivist is before you start making claims about the group. I suspect you are a troll. Someone who likes the book Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead is not an Objectivist. Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservatives who like her work are not Objectivists. An Objectivist is basically someone who believes in the Fundamentals of Ayn Rand's philosophy in the five branches of philosophy. A Christian who appreciates the work of Ayn Rand is not an Objectivists. Someone who supports anti-statism is not an Objectivist. Someone who disagrees with Ayn Rand's view of human nature is not an Objectivist so on and so forth. There are people who believe in similar philosophies to Objectivism (usually of their own creation). They are not Objectivists. I am not an Objectivist.

Your arguments are good, but if he hasn't tried to get away from this life yet, he won't. He will have to get kicked out of his house and divorced before he changes, then you can explain to him what went wrong, to help him make sense of the pain. I am sorry, but arguments only change the minds of people who want to be convinced or who are dedicated to being right.

The progressive era philosophy isn't really what he is remembered for from I have been told. You can read hundreds of people from the 1900-1950s saying things like that aloud, in writing. The Dewey of today, the one they want us to know about just wanted kids to learn through experience (or something nice like that), something that on its face isn't completely absurd. Just like the progressive era was all supposed to be about workers safety and women's suffrage, which on its face isn't completely absurd.

I would tell them they could be wealthier and happier without a slave-based economy. A slave based system is made up of two classed that don't want to work. The masters obviously don't want to work, and the slaves usually don't want to work because they aren't gaining from their labor. So what do you think happens to productivity in that country?

Whats the "reason" it is wrong other than the symptoms it causes? I have lots of germs, they aren't bad unless they make me sick (or if they do make me sick later). An action against the western world will restrict the freedom of westerners. The main reason this is the case is because we all happen to make use of the same institutions (banks, military). So we are tied together in this way. People in the same city can share suffering also by virtue of sharing the same area. If a flood or a hail storm hurts people, they will all suffer. This doesn't indicate a metaphysical unity of interests. For instance, if I kick a criminal in the face, I do not suffer even though he is suffering. If I steal from someone, I do not loose freedom, even though he lost it.

It is obvious to me that it is evil TO ME. I never got detached (inferred that you meant me), in fact I was trying to offer a decent explanation why a life style based on force would be bad. Risk isn't a reason not to do something btw. Otherwise we could many occupations and lifestyles immoral. Don't be a soldier, you could get killed!