What Kind Of Government Would Rand Accept?

[Guest jrshep]

If it was a rogue nation that nationalized the property, and the rogue nation is still in existence, then there is no problem in regard to a time limit since we always have the right to invade a rogue nation.

If the rogue nation has evolved into a free society, then I guess there should be some sort of a limit on making a claim, but I haven't a clue as to how to determine what such a limit should be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for your reply, Stephen. I only noticed today that you had replied after seeing that "Yes" had posted a new message to this thread.

I agree with what you say. What seems rediculous is claims of injustices which are not acted upon for decades or even centuries, yet held to be ongoing justifications for military action. At some point it seems that a people have to simply accept history and drop their claims for redress given that they have failed to act in all that time to do anything about the injustice.

But then, who would police such a statute? (Rhetorical)

[Guest jrshep]

Your argument falls apart because it fails to recognize one very important concept- the concept of private property.

The oil fields drilled in the mid 20th century were private property.  They rightfully belong to their owners, not to a nation such as America or Great Britain or any other.  So it is not up to America to reclaim these.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That makes no sense at all. Protection of property rights is exactly one of the fundamental and proper purposes of a government.

[Praxus]

I don't see how stockpiling small arms or forming a militia is contradictary to Objectivism.

Say a revolution starts against an objectivist Government. Say revolutionary A owns a single rifle and say 50 rounds of ammunition. This single person along with other people with similar ammount of ammo and rifles could ambush army troops and steel their weapons and ammo. They could raid ammo magazines. I don't see how the ability to stockpile firearms and ammunition is much more of a threat then when people don't have this ability.

If a revolution came there would plenty of weapons laying on the ground for the revolutions to get at. The right to bare armes be it rifles or pistols allows us to do it easier.

[Tom Rexton]

Your argument falls apart because it fails to recognize one very important concept- the concept of private property.

The oil fields drilled in the mid 20th century were private property.  They rightfully belong to their owners, not to a nation such as America or Great Britain or any other.  So it is not up to America to reclaim these.

You are certainly right. The oil fields WERE private property--the private property of the American oil companies from whom they were STOLEN by the Middle Eastern governments.

It is precisely within the legitimate function of the US government to reclaim those oil fields and restore them to their proper owners--the American oil companies.

[Yes]

That makes no sense at all. Protection of property rights is exactly one of the fundamental and proper purposes of a government.

However, by intervening in a foreign land, America no longer is in a position to protect and defend its own interests. It is working for the sake of others- altruism.

It is immoral for a private entity who invested in a potentially hostile country to expect that the American government, at taxpayers expense, should defend the interests of an American company attempting to do business there.

Protection of property rights is an obligation of the government in the location of the property. America has no self-interest to protect the property rights of Americans who happen to own property in foreign lands.

[Yes]

You are certainly right.  The oil fields WERE private property--the private property of the American oil companies from whom they were STOLEN by the Middle Eastern governments. 

It is precisely within the legitimate function of the US government to reclaim those oil fields and restore them to their proper owners--the American oil companies.

No it is not.

It is the obligation of the government in place there to protect the property rights of the property owners.

The main (and only) justification for America attacking a foreign, illegitimate government, is that such government sponsored or otherwise supported an effort to attack America. In other words, in defense of its self-interest.

Even if such governments are "illegitimate," America has no other right to attack other nations.

By the way.....

Those oil fields are not exclusively owned by Americans!

Some are owned by Dutch companies, others by British companies

[Yes]

If it was a rogue nation that nationalized the property, and the rogue nation is still in existence, then there is no problem in regard to a time limit since we always have the right to invade a rogue nation.

Nonsense. That's a private interest that America is defending, on a foreign land.

Our right to attack is limited to the defense of America and its self-interests, and does not apply to property or businesses owned by American citizens in foreign lands.

To do otherwise amounts to America utilizing its armed forces for the sake of others!

If the rogue nation has evolved into a free society, then I guess there should be some sort of a limit on making a claim, but I haven't a clue as to how to determine what such a limit should be.

It should be clearly understood by all that a company which decides to invest and do business in a foreign land does so at its own risk and must be responsible for the consequences of its own failure to understand such risk. As such, America can offer no rrepresentation to any company which decides to do business in a foreign land that it will protect its interests, as it is the obligation of the government in place to do so.

Any other representation amounts to altruism.

[Capitalism Forever]

Our right to attack is limited to the defense of America and its self-interests, and does not apply to property or businesses owned by American citizens in foreign lands.

To do otherwise amounts to America utilizing its armed forces for the sake of others!

Would your opinion be different if all of the government, including military operations, were privately financed?

[Yes]

Would your opinion be different if all of the government, including military operations, were privately financed?

A privately financed government is inappropriate in that it creates a conflict of interest between government and private enterprise.

Having a government that is "privately financed" is the dream of all those who advocate anarchy.

In capitalism, the government is the protector of its citizens and its free enterprises, and the administrator and interpretor of laws.

Left to the interests of a "private enterprise" given permission to use force to enforce laws is akin to gangsterism, and, in my opinion, is unacceptable.