Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Biography/Intro
    Hi. 23. White. Live in the USA. Male.
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Have read parts of the philosophy, know some of the concepts.

Recent Profile Visitors

1335 profile views

123Me's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. Hi all. Been awhile since I posted.. here goes: I have been recently been toying with an idea. Seems unlikely to happen but still might yeild knowledge if answered, so... In a hypothetical future, imagine a machine that essentially produces any sort of material value you can imagine from nothing. Food, clothes, oxygen, houses, cars, roads, planes... So the question - assuming that this could could be mass produced and given to everyone, it seems like it would make most jobs and industries obsolete. If that is true, should it still be given, or would it for some reason be better to not give it and keep industry alive? Thank you for your time.. Thoughts?
  2. Well, I can't say if it's right or wrong, but I can't say that it's evil
  3. I see. Alright. Well then I see my argument wasn't right so I withdraw my statement.
  4. The Argument: If you don't have solid evidence proving God, then it is not possible God exists. Principle: that which does not have solid evidence = not possible Other arguments using the principle: -I don't have solid evidence that I will have kids in my future, so it is not possible that I will. -I don't have solid evidence that I will live for the next ten years, so it is not possible that I will live for the next ten years. -I don't have solid evidence that I will have the use of my eyes tomorrow, so it is not possible that I will have the use of my eyes tomorrow.
  5. OP, In other words.. you haven't seen it or had God proven to you, therefore it is impossible God exists?
  6. Thx for the thoughts guys. Ultimately what I realized earlier today I think trumps everything... no one cares if I use the gov. money. No one holds it against me. At least 99 percent of people out there, or more. So I can use either mine or theirs which they put in at the moment b/c they aren't going to be holding it against me, they would agree that it would be fine for me to use it. I am not saying to take advantage of them though, just that everyone basically would say it's okay, and those people are the people who's money is being used (and mine). So, yeah.
  7. So, an update. I started going to college, but I still have questions floating around my head. Some arguments and counter-arguments are as follows. I wanted to get your thoughts on them if you have thoughts. ( :-P ) The people won't get their money back anyway. If you refuse to use what is offered, nobody benefits. What if ppl benefit by having $ in the system though? If I say no there is more to go around. If I don't even know if I or my family is not taking more out then I am putting in anyway. Besides, if I am, then I am guilty of receiving stolen goods. Plus, what if they DO get it back if I don't use it? Like, there is a limit and I am using the share they put in, but if I don't use it then they get it back? Most people support the system anyway, so you aren't robbing them. Taking money from a blind person who if he knew better wouldn't have agreed to it is taking advantage of people. Whether you use it or not, the robbery is a fact. It already happened, and it will either benefit someone or it will just sit there and nobody benefits. Well, there is still the option of taking it out and giving it to people. Still, you don't know who is putting more in then taking it out. If you get the wrong guy you are getting someone who is 'overdrawn' Well, you could ask for people to prove it, for example, if you posted something on the internet then people might want to prove it for some free money. Law of Supply and Demand. The government is driving up prices because they are giving loans to people. Unless it equals out: the people who lost the money gain it back in the loan so it is kept even, and not driven up. You have payed and will pay taxes, plus your whole family was taxed. So why only get 'robbed' and not get anything in return? Well, I don't know if the services in use out of the family total are more or less then was put in. If I am taking more out then that is receiving stolen goods, if I am taking less out then that is fine, but you don't know. You don't want to make moral decisions on what you don't know. So, what do you think?
  8. Nicky, it was not a statement. This is offtopic, and this conversation about it is over.
  9. Nicky, Miscommunication. I didn't say that there were socialist societies that have worked well... I was asking. This is what I said (asked) specifically: "Hasn't there been planned societies that have worked out (at least semi-planned)?" I am not sure how much more I can really get out of this forum anyway... I think it seems like what has been said so far is all that is going to be said. Unless anyone has anything new to add? As far as I am concerned unless someone provides me with answers, I think to come to something solid in regards to my original question(s) I need to do more research.
  10. Nicky, I don't know at the moment, but I have heard that there are semi-socialist countries doing well, in fact very well, in modern day society. I am not sure if this was one which I found or not but isn't Sweden semi-socialist and doing very well?
  11. SpiralArchitect, you are still staying in America, voluntarily. You have the option to leave if you want. While you are here and are partaking of the services, I don't see how it is the proper thing to say that America is not "supposed" to tax you. They are not saying you can't leave, but you will be using the services which are already in place, and I don't see how it is proper to NOT contribute. Anyway, alright, done.
  12. Spiral Architect, I can see what you are saying. BUT, the thing is that I have not put in lot by the way of taxes to the government so far. It is likely that I will be moving countries so I won't be contributing like that. If I use the services, it will most likely equate to me just taking money out of the tax pool and not contributing. On the basis of my family could have had more money, I think of this: Basically, it is not a definite thing that my family has put in the tax money and has not gotten it out, or gotten more of it out thus it is not in balance, having taken more out then they have put in. I could take it out not knowing if they are 'overdrawn' or not. Whatever the case is, it might be best to not 'punish' someone unless you are sure that they are responsible. Public roads, public schools, police... yeah I have used them. But I was forced to go to public schools, I have no other options but to use the roads, and the police I have no alternative if I am in danger to call (like a private militia). Honestly, not using taxpayer money is not something I am trying to die for (in terms of police) or to seriously cripple myself... i don't think there is any sort of police work that is legal even apart from the government. However in terms of taking government money for college or a trade school there is other options for education then taking the money. As for the subsidy comment from Matt: I am not sure how this is the truth that subsidies mean higher education prices. Could you elaborate?
  13. Dragonlady, are you related to Ayn Rand? You look ... like her. Dragonlady, while it may be in people's best interests to pay for these services, things won't necessarily go that way. Do you know of any times in history where there was an absolutely free society and it went well? Hasn't there been planned societies that have worked out (at least semi-planned)?
  14. I don't see why a country which has for years been the rulesetter of the land now does not have a right to do so simply because you can't "buy the land". I don't see how that makes sense.
  • Create New...