thenelli01

When you voluntarily donated to a government that protects the rights of every individual in society. No, the whole argument for voluntary government is predicated on the idea of man's self interest to have a society that protects every individual's rights. Are you arguing that government should only protect the rights of those who contribute? (The other nonsense in that post, I am going to ignore as I have already answered this and have not claimed or implied anything you described.)

Actually, its not the same argument at all. Bank robbers are taking your money without your permission (i.e. stealing). Moochers are mooching by your permission. The way mooching would violate your rights would be if you donated to a government not designed to protect the rights of every individual, but only to those who contributed.

You aren't doing it for them. You are doing it to create a rights respecting (i.e. just) society so you can be free to flourish. If, for example, you had a society that only protected the rights of people who contributed, you would be unable to respond justifiably to a criminal that raped, robbed, or assaulted a moocher. Because the rapist, robber, or attacker didn't violate your or a contributor's rights, on what grounds would you arrest them? The moochers, according to you, do not deserve to have their rights protected, and as a result, a known criminal is free and posing a serious risk to society. And if you do not want people to mooch off you, which I understand and agree, come up with solutions to eliminate or reduce it. However, I think you are overstating the issue by simple context dropping. The fact remains: they are not violating your rights by mooching.

You voluntarily donated to a government designed to protect the rights of everyone. There is no rights violation.

They aren't violating your rights if you voluntarily donate to a government that is designed to protect the rights of every individual. You keep saying that they are, but don't explain how. No, I am not kidding you. It is in your interest to have a society where everyone's rights are protected because it creates a just society. For example, if a man robs, assaults, or rapes a moocher, does the police step in if the moocher doesn't contribute? If it doesn't, you have a known criminal walking the streets, which puts your rights and the rights of every other productive member of society at risk. Not right now you can't know what price is fair. But once you create a budget, you will know how much it will cost for the government operate. Then you can create a suggested donation based on income or wealth. Or, if you like the citizenship fee idea, you could make it so you need to contribute "X" amount annually to become/remain a citizen. And that X amount is based off government needs, the number of citizens, its ability to raise money in other ways, and weighted by your income or wealth.

It is an irrational (i.e. meaningless) proposition that violates the law of non-contradiction. It isn't paradoxical, it is illogical. It denies and asserts the proposition at the same time. Implicitly it says that I can be trusted (i.e. this statement is true), explicitly it says that I can't be trusted (i.e. this statement is false).

Equivocation much? The fact is that it is in your interest to have a society that protects the rights of every individual even moochers. But again, as with the OP of this thread, you are context dropping. The dominant trend in a free society must be Objectivist to have a government funded by voluntary donations. So moochers won't be that much of an issue because the intellectual premises of society will hold government to be good and in man's self interest. Societal pressures, as well, will be a huge incentive to donate for those who don't want to. Yes, they have a right to mooch off someone who donates to a government designed to protect the rights of every individual. Just as I have the right to mooch off of soldiers who decide to fight for the freedom of every American citizen, while I stay home and go to school. I agree that everyone should pay for their own lives and not mooch off of others. So, the proper response is to think of ways to eliminate or reduce the "problem" -- unless your argument is that government should only protect the rights of people who pay into the system. But, if your argument is "I can't think of any ways to eliminate the mooching problem, therefore, no solution exists and voluntary taxation can't work," then I think that argument falls on its own.

As others have pointed out, this is not true. And, you are proposing an enormous contradiction: to say we need our rights protected, therefore, we are going to violate our rights to do so. That is the essence of your argument. People should and would contribute voluntarily (in a society where the trend is Objectivist), but you do not have the right to compel them to do so.

Source?

Rand's philosophy (Objectivism) doesn't agree with you. When you claimed Objectivism to be the genus, you necessarily claimed every part of the philosophy to be included. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of Objectivism are really Objectivism.

That doesn't make any sense. The differentia is supposed to fall under the category of the genus. How can anarchism fall under a philosophy that is pro monopolist government?

This presumes that the deciding (i.e. most important) factor in creating proper punishments for criminals is money. It is not, at least not in the context of the United States.

I completely agree with Grames. A relative of mine is in a similar situation. He was admitted into the hospital for high blood pressure caused by stress (for similar reasons that you have stated). He is currently selling his house (i.e. moving) and getting psychological treatment. I am not saying that what you are going through is necessarily in your head, but you clearly need someone to talk to about it, especially before it can cause damage to your physical health. Stress, depression, anxiety can have extremely negative effects on your health. First, completely remove yourself from the environment. Second, see a psychiatrist.

By the way, your argument parallels the argument for the draft. But you are missing the point: when a country is free, no draft is necessary.

You are context-dropping. Under an objectivist government, the trend in society must be objectivist for it to work. If it isn't, then the government won't be objective, it will reflect the majority view of the people. When the government engages in activities outside of its proper role, that is when funding will be an issue. That is because it will be engaging in activities outside the self-interest of individual man, and instead, in favor of a special group. Voluntary taxation can only happen when all of the donated money is going to man's self-interest. In a society where the trend and dominant viewpoint is capitalist (morally and politically), donations will not be an issue. There are no historical examples because there was no such society has ever existed. But, if you listen to Objectivist viewpoint: Government is good and in man's self-interest, then it won't be hard to see why funding will be there.

That debate was hard to listen to... lacked direction, proper format, and clarity. By the way, of course the debate wasn't on philosophical points. They agreed on the philosophical points (so there is no debate), but disagreed on the facts and, therefore, the application. The main disagreement was whether or not it was a state of emergency and if you could bring immigrants in without having the ability to vote under the current context. Still, very bad "debate".

The Objectivist position is that free will is both caused and free. I will post more later.

I think talking politics with people that have an irrational philosophical base is pointless. Most of my posts, and conversations in real life (unless it is with Objectivist-types), are not about politics. I usually try to avoid the subject. My main topic of conversation is the metaphysical-epistemological-ethical premises. I did have a chance to talk to talk to an Objectivist at Yaron Brook's lecture yesterday and we talked mostly about politics for about an hour. It was a great conversation, much better than I have had with almost anyone else. The reason is that I didn't have to start at square one with him and refute his basic premises before we can even talk about politics. My primary goal isn't to change the culture though. I do it because I love ideas and I love arguing (in the logic sense, not arguing dishonestly). I enjoy exchanging ideas and if I'm not evenly matched, I enjoy teaching or explaining my ideas logically if the person is honestly interested. You should spend the most time doing things that you enjoy doing the most so long as the context calls for it. If you are in a context where talking politics is appropriate and satisfying to you (i.e. not pointless argument or with people that reject reason), and talking politics is something you enjoy doing, then do it. If you are not in that context, do something you enjoy less such as playing with Rover. You have to justify this rationally, however. I wouldn't recommend talking politics (because you enjoy doing it) at the negligence of a higher value. So if your life is consumed with politics and you are neglecting higher values such as your relationship with your spouse or productive work because you are too busy talking politics online, then that is immoral and not good budgeting of your time.

I think Nicky already answered this question correctly. The purpose of retaliatory force:

I don't disagree - I think the death penalty is important for that reason and it serves as just as good (or better) deterrent as life imprisonment. But if judging (i.e. evaluating one's character and actions) is an essential aspect of justice, how come you don't advocate the death penalty on that point as well? If murder is the worst crime as it is evidence that one doesn't respect man's fundamental right to life, doesn't he deserve to lose his life? Why does he deserve to live?

By the way, how does imprisonment accomplish this? Surely it doesn't replicate the same "horror". You should answer the questions in my previous post before you accept rape as a proper punishment (if we could "rape objectively").

What is the objective purpose of punishment (with concern to the government)? Why should the government punish those who initiate physical force, and what are the goals it sets to accomplish?

What would it mean to rape someone with objectivity?

I read through, and (as I expected) it didn't take long for someone to evade Objectivist ideas and turn to the assertion that she is a hypocrite for accepting S.S.

Has anyone seen it, or plan to see it?