theestevearnold

Reconcile faith and Objectivism, no, it ain't happenin'. While I have had discussions with avowed Christians with whom I can agree on many things, the subject of why we agree is one which I avoid, if I value the relationship. I can respect a person for their behavior, but when I have a Christian friend, I make it known that my philosophy is not compatible with his or her faith. I have had discussions with an avowed atheist, with whom I felt the need to point out that people need the freedom to express their beliefs every bit as much as anyone. As a self-proclaimed Objectivist, I may hold opinions that differ from other Objectivists, but not on matters of faith. One of the most important premises of Objectivism is that reality presents its own validation, and therefore requires no subjective or mystical claim of morality. While I still defend the rights of Christians to believe in fantasies, I do not judge them as a collective. America's on-going Culture War has no quarters for Objectivists. You might say, we're in a no-man's land. The "right" reject atheism; the "left" cling to altruism and collectivism. No matter how weak the defense, people of mystic persuasion will refuse to abandon their beliefs, and I have long ago learned not to attempt to persuade them. However, if one finds a particularly obnoxious hypocritical holy-roller, let'em have it.
I recommend softwareNerd's thread, mentioned above.

A brief discussion is here.

I believe entrepreneurs will continue to struggle for their niche in the market; larger industrialists will dominate. All those truly committed to their success will face growing difficulties, but some will rise to the challenge in spite of difficulties. I realize that these are banal statements, but these are basically the sentiments I expressed to one young man interested in Atlas Shrugged, and the possibilities of a "Strike" of this sort. In addition, I believe there are multitudes of ambitious, creative, and able men and women who will abandon their dreams for either the allure of secure employment, or the pressure of barriers created through government agencies. This is the sort of strike that Rand alluded to at one point in Galt's Speech. John Galt faced the possibility of having his greatest achievement made property of a company that would misuse the profits, and deny his creative contribution. Many great minds leave their employers to go into their own independent operations. These are the men and women to whom we all own our thanks, and we can only hope they never go on strike.

I remember writing a few detailed posts in other threads, on this. My main suggestion was to make paying taxes a condition of citizenship (where citizenship involves voting rights, getting a passport, being allowed to run for office, and other perks that, when withheld, don't amount to initiation of force).

I think that prototype of Richard Halley was Rachmaninov

This actually isn't true. Rand repeatedly said that compulsory taxation is wrong, and Objectivism is opposed to it. How are you going to protect rights with an agency that is violating rights as a means of its existence?

A few previous threads on this can be found here and here.

Don't thank me, thank the Venetian Senate. They're the ones who passed the first patent law in 1474, thus solving this problem.

The World Trade Organization is established, in part, for the purpose of lowering trade barriers. I would encourage anyone to learn more about the WTO, and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. There is a great body of history behind global trade, from the Silk Road, to Columbus, to the low point of global trade that prefaced World War 2. While the WTO is a bit mysterious, it is a forum for trading nations allowing them to negotiate, which is certainly one of the primary solutions to anti-capitalist sentiments endemic to all national governments. It must be frustrating, perhaps even dangerous, for a national leader to tell a part of his constituents that they have been screwed as a result of a treaty with a foreign power. Torches and pitchforks come out in full force, when the folks at home find out that new trade quotas have put them out of their lively-hood. It is always more comfortable for the leader to tell his people, "We will NOT allow foreign imports to threaten our jobs!," while charging higher prices for the domestic product(s), and very likely, laying off the people later, under the next regime. (Let the next chump take the blame.) Explaining this to my union brothers never goes over well. Nonetheless, it is vital that the basics of classic economics is understood by as many rational people as possible.

This premise is flawed:
 
"If all values are equal no choice is possible."
 
The truth is "If all values are equal ALL choices are possible"
 
Imagine the animal approaching a single bail of hay in reaction to a hunger it has chosen to satisfy, as it nears they hay bail it realizes that the bail of hay is not rectilinear but is actually a  small angular section of a circle of hay and lo and behold the animal is at its center, all of the hay now being equidistant from its snout.  This I suppose paralyzes the animal, because all of the hay it was it intending to eat is now equidistant and it "cannot" choose which way to go? 
 
The answer here is not that there is no way to choose, it is IT DOES NOT MATTER which way is chosen.
 
 
Here  the choice is to eat or die, the particular patch of hay chosen for munching is immaterial.
 
 
Please note, the choice to not place any significance upon the particular bit of hay to eat is not non-rational, in a choice between life and death, choosing life and ignoring the irrelevant is imminently rational.
 
 
I'm afraid this flawed thought experiment, in addition to being flawed in more ways than one, simply does not prove anything.

How could a nation with Laissez-Faire Capitalism remain untainted while trading with mixed-economies?

A possible response to theestevearnold's hypothetical concrete:
 
It would free up a corn field in Galt's Gultch which might be used to raise milking cows to supply the butter to spread on the gift of corn. The coersive monopoly penalizes the citizens of the country forced to pay the subsidies, not the recipients. When the statist government comes to loot Galt's Gulch, the robust military and competent police force are there for if the good diplomats are met with irrationality on that front. At the risk of playing police officer to the world, military intervention may be used to discourage the statist government from looting its neighbors, leaving the statist government to the fate of the consent of its governed.