erik

Well its practically the same I just fleshed out some details which may or may not work. Its Rands idea to begin with anyway, corrupted by my lagging memory cells. I never claimed to have come up with the concept on my own. We had bantered about financing gov't over on the Capmag forum and taxes always make me try to think of a better way.

"So than, if this is your contract fee, where are your contracts coming from... is the government writing them for you?" There are numerous ways to achieve this but with todays technology it would be very easy. All you would have to do is submit your contract to the government website along with a fee and it will be on file ( sort of like a patent or copywrite which would also be fee based ). People buy things over the internet all the time with no signatures or anything and its all legally binding because they signed up for the card to begin with. When you register to do contracts online you could sign up front and then get a password etc to protect from fraud. If the contract was disputed it would be very easy to pull it back up in court this way. Of course you can hire your own lawyers etc but it would probably be easier and less expensive to just pay the fee and do it online. Regardless of details I think this would be a moral way to finance a good part of "legit" gov't.

My idea of the contract fee is this. The fee would be optional and equality under the law the same for both transactions. The legitimacy of the purchase with the 1% would be a lot easier to prove than the one that was done without it. Of course you can hire lawyers etc. to write up contracts on your own but the 1% gov't would be cheaper I would think than a lawyer. National defense is a tough one and I don't have time to address it right now anyway. Maybe tomorrow.

While others ( RadCap ) have addressed this topic quite well I would like to make a note. The 1st post included and example of SBC being forced to sell copper to competitors. Well what about cell phones? I haven't had a local phone service in 2 years, my bill is cheaper, and I have a portable phone. Technology and freedom makes monopolies impossible. Also I see one of the main problems with your ( MasterScowler ) thinking is that its way too concrete. Also your concrete examples leave context out completely. for example: your doctor scenario is painfully simplistic. 1 doctor, 1 ill person. If that 1 doctor doesn't treat this person ( who has no money/property for whatever reason ) they will die and that is your basis for enslaving the doctor. Luckily reality isn't so simplistic and devoid of context. Even if you flesh it out its still an abstract devoid of context. Thats why its better not to use arbitrary concrete examples in a discussion. Especially when discussing things with objectivists who are well rooted in Metaphysics etc.

I've heard the term "contract enforcement fee" used before. Like 1% on all transactions. That would pay for protection under the law. So if someone defrauds you you can then use the police and court systems to prosecute them and it would be paid for with the 1% contract fee. That would be easy to implement in the modern era too. Credit card companies take 2-4% of every transaction a merchant does for a similar purpose and they are rich, rich. Anyone else have good MORAL ideas on how to raise money to finance gov't?

for 4 billion a year they could probably protect themselves just fine......

I'm a Microsoft stockholder and they pay about 4 billion in taxes a year. Its on the stockholder report. I'm an officer for a small business and our business had to pay $30,000 in taxes just to the Feds. That doesn't even count the city, county, franchise, don't screw with me local taxes that amount to another $20,000 a year. It makes more sense to NOT run your own business these days. I, after trying really hard, got my personal taxes down to $400 this year ( plus $350 for my accountant ). I bought a new rental property and spent a lot fixing it up and have lots of interest to write-off right now. I highly recommend real-estate to help lower your tax burden. Plus I have a 9.24% sales tax where I live that includes groceries. So I pay a huge chunk of what I make to the state in that way. Just so they can have socialized medicine, repave the same roads over and over, plant flowers on the highway, have the worst police force and school systems in the country, and on and on. Then there is property taxes which also helps pay for crappy schools I will never use. This is pissing me off I 'm going to go calm down for a minute.......

Clarus, I am curious why someone would just expect an objectivist to sign on to a blanket commitment like this. Also argument from intimidation is not going to get you anywhere on this forum. I for one would like to live free-er but I have roots put down where I am and moving would incur a significant cost to my life in many areas. If I am going to move I want to see that its a significantly better to make those costs worthwhile.

Isn't bartwarts position essentially Nathaniel Brandons and TOC? That objectivism should evolve with the times so to speak.

For the record Bush did cut taxes. The US treasury by lowering the value of the $ against the Euro and the Yen has essentialy raised prices for enough items to erase the tax cut for most Americans. It more expensive by 10%-15% to buy overseas products and thats with the other countries trying prop-up the $ artificially. That policy alone will make it impossible for me to vote for Bush and there are many others to make that decision on as well. Like his push for Theocracy in America. John Kerry is no better but as long as Republicans retain the majority in Congress it might be better to have the gov't split so NOTHING gets done. The Republicans have had all the control and have spent like no other. So much for them being fiscal conservatives.

Isn't Ether that stuff they used to use to knock you out before an operation ( or a kidnapping ) ?

When advancing knowledge its useful to have some basis in reality to start with though. Otherwise your hypothesis, or in this case arbitrary assertion, is worthless and a waste of time.

I think we were more than justified going into any totalitarian regime if it was deemed to be threat to national security. What Bush and co. did was go in to "save" the Iraqi people and we can see that is not possible. The British and French failed there long ago why would it be different this time. I think what they should have done is take out Saddam. Leave immediately and then when Turkey or Iran or Saudi Arabia trys to invade and take over the oil fields ( which all we really care about anyway ), attack them. One after another we would topple the totalitarian regimes and hunt for Osama and gang at the same time. Terrorist organizations need stable totalitarian regimes to train in. If there are none left they have nowhere to plan in safety. Its either that or do what Peikoff said and nuke em all.

Yes he really does miss the point of it all doesn't he. Or purposely distorts things to prove one his own assertions, his title.... "THE TROUBLED ECONOMICS OF AYN RAND" says it all. Of one really wanted to get at Rands Economics one should look at CTUI which is what she meant to cover that topic. Like someone else said her novels are "Romantic" portrayals of man as they should be, not systems of economics. Not once did he reference here works on Economics while referencing Wealth of Nations and Von Mises. Either he can't research or did not research. thats the only two conclusions I draw from the article.

Most of the un/educated think that a "mixed" economy is the only way to go. They can't say "why" they just know that all socialism is bad and all capitalsim is just as bad. Thats what our public school systems teach though so what do you expect.

Actually you have to clarify what "primary" means. If we didn't buy any oil at all from Iraq which we didn't for awhile would it effect oil prices overall. Only slightly. 6 billion has flowed since the war as of March and previous to that they were "allowed" by the UN to produce only 17 billion a year maximum since 1998. Top sources for US oil imports Saudis 17% Canada 16% Mexico 15% Venezuela 13% Iraq 8% We produce 35% of our own oil needs domestically. It would be more but large areas are off limits to humans by law. Russia has the largest oil reserves "known" but does not have the capital to get it out of the ground. If Putin has his way they never will. If not US and British companies can partner with Russian companies to become the USA's largest source of oil in the near future making Middle East oil a non-issue.

You also might point out that tomatoes are easy to grow in the back yard or just not eat at all. I will most likely plant some tomato plants this year as the ones at the store are always rotten by the time they get put out for sale.

why not contact his ISP and have him banned from them as well.

The appeal to the masses argument is a logical fallacy. Whether they be 17,000 scientists on a petition or half of all nobel prize winners. I don't have much respect for the Nobel prize anymore but even if I did it wouldn't make global warming true because half of them thought it was so. FYI: I just noticed the banning a second ago. I guess that spurred on the tirade of empty insults. What a waste.

Oh my. A few pages of that and my head hurts. All I can make out is "Dogmatism", Pure Reason, lots of words that don't make sense and way too many commas. I think I picked the wrong week to stop drinking coffee. Has anyone theorized that Kant was just a raving lunatic. I know this is a translation but its just all over the place. Well back to it.

Whether he was really a troll or not is beside the point right now. He has succeeded in wasting a lot of our time and making us argue amongst ourselves about something. Maybe this is a new tactic among the trolls. Make them argue about whether or not we were a troll and they won't have time for anything else.

LOL

For the record the guy left of his own volition, he wasn't banned like most trolls. So its my opinion he was not a true pain in the rear troll that will continue to blindly spout mantra until they are banned. He was a half-troll that didn't want to have his beliefs questioned at this time and is so young takes everything on an internet forum too personally. So one guy rubs you the wrong way. It happens on forums all over the world. He may be back once he cools down a little.

"The world is full of innumerable entities. Without the ability to generalize -- forced to approach the world as if every entity were entirely unique and different -- you would waste all of your time grasping fundamentals over and over again. Life would be impossible." Your mind is filled with concretes.

OG are you purposefully making contradictions or are you truly confused? How is it voluntary when I'm FORCED to pay for roads ( or anything ) whether I use them or not but not voluntary when I can CHOOSE to pay to drive on a road or CHOOSE to not drive on a private road. Just like I could CHOOSE to take a train instead of driving. Or I could CHOOSE to violate someones elses propert rights and break the law. All are CHOICES.