Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pyrakra

Regulars
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.vampirepumpkins.com

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Coding, animation, drawing, reading, thinking, and most anything to do with computers

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Pyrakra's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. His duplication is astonisingly good, although he isn't very good with abstraction (for example speech), much better with concretes (photographic memory). I have sometimes wondered if one can choose their main method of thought, concretely vs. abstractly, but it seems in this example that it's biological.
  2. I agree that using vouchers would allow people to choose where to take their business based on donations, and this would probably lead to businesses paying enough to fun the government. I can see that in times of government prosperity, funding would not seem as important so business patrons would be more inclined to go for lower prices as opposed to higher donations. Then in times of war or the government just not getting enough funding in general, people would be more inclined to protect themselves by patronizing businesses donating more. In this manner the cost of government would remain relatively fixed, but would be flexible in cases of emergency. I'm still a little uncomfortable with the idea of having to rely on government like a charity, as in, I pay for protection but I also have to rely on others paying enough. However, the idea of using government funding as a marketing scheme is pretty good. The only problem I can see occurring is businesses creating forgeries of vouchers, unless they are very complicated pieces of paper or some kind of holographic display where the customer can verify that it is real.
  3. From what I’ve read of this thread, there are two distinct viewpoints on how to pay for government without forced taxes. 1. Donations are used to fund the government. Pros: With this system in place, there’s no worry about only protecting those that have paid for it even if that endangers others around. For example, if someone doesn’t pay the military, they are still protected along with the rest of the country if another country tries to invade. Cons: In addition to the concerns listed above in the forum, I would like to point out another one. With a government founded on donations, a smaller and smaller proportion of the productive would pay for more and more of the moochers. Funding the government through donation means that there is no concept of an appropriate sum to pay the government for the protection of individual rights, anyone can pay any amount and seemingly get the same benefits. This system would cause those individuals with the greatest love of life and production to pay most of the burden in order to protect their rights, while the moochers know that these people will pay anything to protect their rights and therefore won’t pay for themselves. As you’ve said before, the producers will let the moochers ride along for free. But for how long? How long until there is only one person of ability left and the government is in ruins? Asking people to donate and then cover everyone equally is like having one supermarket and telling someone that in order to buy enough food to sustain themselves, they must also pay for the entire town to be able to eat first. Under this system, the individual has no say in who the money they donate to the government is spent on. What if an individual ONLY wants to pay their own rights? Under this system, they can’t. 2. The government is funded by individuals paying for the services they want. Pros: People pay for what they want so there is no concern over the government falling due to most people not paying and a few people being shackled with the cost. Cons: What happens with things that affect the entire country? For example, when a foreign army attacks the U.S., the army can’t exactly defend those who have paid this particular fee and not defend the others. The army has to defend the borders of the nation, not individual houses in the suburbs. If an annual fee was attached to land based on acreage, then everyone owning land would have to pay the cost of defending it. I know that this would then be a mandatory land tax and no one wants that… but how else would this work? Would individuals just pay if they were near borders, and those in the center of the country wouldn’t pay knowing that the enemy probably wouldn’t get that far? I suppose people that didn’t pay would just have to defend themselves, but then how would the army proceed regarding those properties that weren’t paid for? Just watch the enemy burn down a house and attack its occupants? That would endanger those that did pay but fighting for a property uninsured for foreign attacks would be asking the army to work for free, unless enough people had already paid, which shouldn’t be assumed. I agree with the idea of people paying for the government services they want to get, but I’m still unsure quite how that would work in cases akin to military, as shown in my above questions.
  4. Hi, I'm a new person here, so here's my introduction. I first read a book by Ayn Rand about a year ago after a friend recommended it to me. I've been hooked ever since. My two favorite books of hers are Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. I am currently reading Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. I didn't have to change much of my original philosophy to accept Objectivism, but I now fully understand my reasoning behind decisions. I now also have a philosophical sanction on my actions which I didn't before. After starting my trek of learning Objectivism more fully, I would debate any views that were contrary to mine. I discovered that many people either don't really care what their own views are, or if they do, their views are irrational and unchanging no matter what evidence is presented. So, after getting extremely frustrated at people, I would talk to my Objectivist friend online and he would remind me that I should go to this forum to meet rational people. I finally decided to try the forum, that's why I'm here. A few other things about myself... I will be a Sophomore in college this year, majoring in Computer Science. My hobby is animation and making movies, although when I don't have enough time to do that (which is most of the time) I will settle for drawing. Thank you everyone who is rational for being rational. I look forward to seeing your points of view and the rationality behind.
×
×
  • Create New...