Everything posted by wlflrsn
Thanks for responding and I agree with much of what you say. Distinguishing between a limited government and a mixed economy seems like an impossible task in regards to justifiable opting out especially if limited government means no institutionalized rights violations. Seems a bit utopian if you ask me so that is why I think a framework of anarcho-capitalism is the same as Objectivism since individuals voluntarily choose to pay for governance as well as freely changing institutions in mixed economies.
Under both anarcho-capitalism and Objectivist government, all property is private and legal institutions are funded voluntarily. My question becomes what is the functional difference between each system? It seems Objectivism is unclear on this point since Rand didn't flesh out how consent would manifest itself in a free society. For instance, she said "If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country—it has the right to do so." The "right to do so" is precisely what anarcho-capitalism embraces. If one or more individuals have the right to opt out of mixed economies, i.e, an environment of institutional rights violations (has always been the case), is there a fundamental difference on how governing institutions would operate? On a related topic, should all rights be codified or formally recognized by law. If so, how would the right to secede be implemented in mixed economies?
I saw it yesterday and agree that it was terrible. Everything fails on a cinematic level from the casting and acting to the screenplay and direction. Ebert starts his review with "I feel like my arm is all warmed up and I don’t have a game to pitch. I was primed to review 'Atlas Shrugged.' I figured it might provide a parable of Ayn Rand’s philosophy that I could discuss..." What he is in fact acknowledging truthfully is that the movie was so goofy and poorly made (my take), he doesn't feel it's worth any effort to discuss the merits of Rand's ideas presented in the film, which is pretty sad considering how much I love the book. I had a discussion with someone afterwards and asked if the script could carry the movie if all of the other aspects were fixed (proper actors, production, etc.) but we still concluded unlimited money and talent could not save the screenplay. At least the book sales are up.