pieman

My problem isn't that I don't talk to people or I'm antisocial and I don't know how to get to know people, it's that I'm one of the more popular people in my class and it seems very empty. I have a lot of friends that I talk about sports with or just do nothing with, but I don't enjoy having to spend 7 hours a day with them. My problem is that I'm stuck at school learning things I already know with people that aren't exactly intellectually stimulating. There are definitely those who are enjoyable to be around and great people, but I don't get to see them often with school and preparations for the exchange. I'm asking about what you guys do at work or school when the people you are around 30-40 hours a week don't provide you with anything but small talk. I can't really quit school (I turned 16 last week), but I can't imagine spending another year there. Knowing I and a few others are light-years ahead of the rest of the class but still having to sit through useless lectures all day isn't a good feeling. I'll also take a look at the book, but it doesn't seem like it fits my situation.

This is an issue that's been bothering me for a while. I'm in high school, where literally everyone is caught up in others' opinions and either fitting in or standing out. I didn't really get into individualism at all until last year, and I have no feelings toward many of the people I considered great friends when I was younger. It doesn't really bother me that there aren't any individualistic people at school since i can't control it and it doesn't exactly affect me, but I'm unsure of how to exist at school and home. I'm sure everyone here has had this type of experience, so I'm wondering how you handle it. I have to be there for 7 hours a day, but I'm not really sure what to do. The work is boring and the people are just a swarm of Keatings. I'm going on a foreign exchange after this school year, so it's not a real pressing issue atm, but it's something I expect to be dealing with for the rest of my life.

I'm trying to write a paper on laissez-faire capitalism, and the argument I keep running into is that people have an obligation to sustain the government because the government creates the infrastructures that allow them to gain wealth in the first place (roads, patent systems, courts, etc.). It seems to me like the best argument against this idea is that private individuals and companies could do this as a business endeavor, rather than a 'public service' and that just because other people voted to pay for these services doesn't mean I'm obligated to (aka a majority can't vote away the rights of a minority). But this is one of the only anti-capitalist arguments I have trouble beating with clear logic. How would Objectivism counter this argument? Obviously Rand would say nobody has any "duty" to do anything, and that consent is what matters, but when writing a school paper it's hard to write "the wealthy shouldn't be taxed because they don't want to be." I know it's a good argument, but how would you explain it?