RationalBiker

If you mean that I agree with Rand's idea that the proper province of government is limited to the protection of individual rights, then yes, you are right. Up until now, I thought you agreed with that as well. Now that i see your view of government goes beyond that, I'm kind of surprised. "The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of man’s self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according toobjective law." - For the New Intellectual, Ayn Rand. I'm sure you are capable of looking up any number of quotes that demonstrate what Rand intended government to be. Should you do so, you should see where you are in disagreement with Rand. Now personally, I don't mind if your individual philosophy differs, as all men must think and reason for themselves - I support that as much as anything Rand said. However, I think you should truthfully distinguish when you go outside the bounds of Objectivism so as not to confuse others by what set of ideas you are representing to them.

No, they are not. Nice distortion though. Do you realize this is a good argument for handing over responsibilities to the government for a whole lot of "needs" for people that are not within the province of a proper government? I have to agree with 2046 here. 1) The building of the wall is not within the realm of protecting individual rights; and 2) I do not think you have successfully demonstrated why the government in a true Capitalist society (one with VOLUNTARY monetary support of the government) would necessarily be more successful in handling this than a private entity.

And we all know governments don't fail. And we all know that governments will use our voluntarily offered "fees" to do only those things which will objectively benefit everyone. Argument by imagination... it's hard to lose.

On the contrary, the local government consists of individuals who can decide to resign and move away should they believe the threat is imminent and real and the bunch of dunderheads around them are too stupid to want to act against the threat. They may choose not to, to go down with the ship as it were, but they can by all means bail out.

I make it sound like the scenario hasn't happened yet because it hasn't in the way I'm considering it. In any of the examples you provided, were government funds based on voluntary fees or donations? In all the sea towns that did not build a wall, where were there rationally self-interested people that would have made this work without with coerced taxation, much less with coerced taxation? Your examples suggest these rational people were out to lunch. Well, it is all about the money before anything else can be done. Also, you didn't answer my question; What is it about the government that it will be more likely to have enough voluntarily provided fees that could not be as easily assured by a private entity given that the gravity of the project is equally important to a rational man's interests no matter which entity builds it? You addressed the money by simply glossing over it with; "Assuming the government has or can get the funds required,..." That's the heart of my question, why do you (appear to) assume it is more stable for the government to be able get this funding than private entities IF taxation is voluntary? What I'm suggesting is that under Capitalism with a government whose services are reduced to their proper roles (thus reducing taxes - an assumption I know), people will be more reliant on private solutions to many of the problems the government handles now, and I think people would be more inclined to give money to charities or private entities that served their interests. I don't see how you are making the argument that the government would provide a better solution to the problem than a private entity IF both received their funding from voluntary sources AND government responsibilities were reduced to their proper roles. At best, your examples demonstrate how governments funded by coerced taxation are better suited to handle the job than private entities, as those are the applicable facts of the examples you provided.

So, we can assume that there will be enough money voluntarily provided by rationally self-interested people to support the police, the courts, the military, the wall, and whatever else was deemed necessary by the government. However, should such an important project as the Fudai Seawall be left to a private entity, there would not be enough rationally self-interested people to support that endeavor. What is it about the government that will be more likely to have enough voluntarily provided fees that could not be as easily assured by a private entity given that the gravity of the project is equally important to a rational man's interests no matter which entity builds it? Surely rationally self-interested men would see the importance of the seawall either way, right?

Okay, what if someone doesn't want to pay the wall fee? What if most don't pay the wall fee? It's still voluntary, right?

A government that is funded in the manner it ought to be funded is a charity. How can you be certain that a government with voluntary taxation would be more reliable for your life to depend upon building that seawall than a private charity with voluntary funding?

I'm not certain the concept "justice" applies to "events no one has a choice about" when you are talking about events outside the province of man and man's choices (i.e. natural phenomena). One has no right or realistic expectation for "life" to treat them in a particular way. One cannot hold nature accountable if a meteor comes crashing down on one's house. Unfortunate, awful, and tragic may all be relevant, but justice does not apply in the situations to which you appear to refer. These various events that may befall a person during the course of their life are not subject to whether they deserve them or not, they just happen. They happen regardless of whether you personally think they are "unnecessary" (another term which may also be inapplicable). On the other hand, "Original Sin" does, as it is a concept referring to a false condition propagated by some people to guilt people into particular modes of behavior. Your initial post is so vague on details that the default here is that it is unrealistic; believing doesn't make things happen. Specifically, what do you want to do to end some particular form of human suffering? How do you think it is possible to eliminate ALL tragic human suffering? How would you stop natural events from occurring that will result in tragic human suffering? I'm not sure you have really thought through the monumental undertaking which is so easily typed out on a forum.

Thanks for clarifying.

Off topic perhaps, but who the heck are you talking to in the above quote? It appears you are talking to the author of the book you quoted. Is he a hidden participant in this thread?

My wife and I recently started playing Pandemic and have had a blast. Pandemic is a cooperative board game in which all the players (2-5) assume different roles in the CDC and have the common goal of finding cures for 4 different virii before they spread out of control. Although the game mechanics are not very difficult to learn, this game requires some reasonably heavy strategy to win though some "luck of the draw" is involved as well. The players must learn how to most effectively use their role's special ability in conjunction with other player's special abilities and the normal actions anyone can utilize. The mechanics for spreading of the diseases is pretty well designed and they really convey a sense of urgency. Let me tell you, very nasty and unexpected things can happen if you don't pay attention to the board (and sometimes even if you do). Here's a link to the game page of the website. I'd be happy to expand on the description if anyone is interested. Here's a pic of our first "real" win and it was ugly; (by "real" I mean we had played some previously game incorrectly but won)

What you can or can't say about the film's detractors is probably very limited and largely uninformed outside of their participation on this forum so it's probably best not to embarrass yourself with such inane commentary.

Bah dum bah! Thanks everyone, you've been a great crowd, I'm here until Tuesday... or am I?

Incidentally, I just checked the weather for the next 36 hours, no hell fire in the forecast. Then again... weathermen...

20 minutes and counting.... repentance and prayer or Fireball shots? Yea, Fireball.

Welcome to the forum.

One of the things that typically comes up in discussions like this is "are they really happy?" The best one can do when making an observation about another person's emotional state is say "He seemed or appeared perfectly happy...." So, even though I'm sure you can imagine someone being "perfectly happy" as a slave owner, are they really?

"No wars at all" without further context is be far the more dangerous option. Do you what you want to us, we will turn the other cheek so you can do it to that one too.

A Rapture Disclaimer.... LOL!!

I just wanted to say how much I've enjoyed the turbulent times I've had on this forum over the past 7 years. It seems the Rapture is coming and I just wanted to get that in before we all die. LOL!!!!!

Actually, I didn't say that I thought you were being disingenuous, I provided an example sentence (which is why I lead into that sentence by telling you it was an example but you seem to only read parts of what I write) for you to consider were it levied against you. What I understand you to say is that you don't mind being accused of being disingenuous. Got it. But providing an example is not a double standard, it's an attempt to illustrate something you seemed not to understand. As for the conversation being tedious and inane, how long you choose to stay in it if that is what you felt was your decision, not mine. Also, I'm not sure why you consider bin Laden to be an honorable man, but whatever. I think he was a terrorist who deserved to be killed. Yes, we continue to disagree and I'll stop conversing with you on matter at this point.

Look at my statement you just quoted and check your premise here.... I'll highlight the relevant area. That does not logically imply that "everything seems just fine". Let me give you an example of what attacks/insinuations I'm referring to; It seems disingenuous to deny that you've made any attacks or negative insinuations against me. Don't mask your failure to understand my position with suggestions that I'm being obtuse, disingenuous or suggestions that I'm being less that honest in our disagreement. If you don't consider those things "attacks", fine, but I'm asking you to please stop doing those things. I am being serious, I am not being disingenuous, and I'm not being deliberately obtuse. If you don't understand something, don't blame it on me by casting dispersions on my character. We disagreed on the propriety of public displays of torture, brutality and killing of our enemies. I thought I was clear on that.

Yes, otherwise I would have put a winky or a smilie face afterwards. Past that I'll ignore the personal attacks/insinuations. Your concern for whether or not we will continue to exist is not shared by me with regards to what we are discussing. Yes you are, so please leave the personal attacks out of it. You should note that where you quoted me above I said "we continue to exist". As to whether it's been made a "big deal" or not... meh. Probably not. You keep missing where I point out there are also CIVILIZED people in the world stage that pay attention to how we do business. Secondly, depending on who you are referring to as uncivilized, I addressed that before. It appears to me that making even more immediate enemies is of no concern to you, but it is of concern to me. If you are concerned with the continued existence of the US (as you have stated you are), you might also consider just how many more people we want to make our enemies, uncivilized or CIVILIZED. If you want to characterize all such considerations as appeasement, then yes, we disagree on what appeasement is. I can't help further then.

Okay, perhaps it would be easier to do this; What exactly do you mean by this statement? I ask, because as stated, it is not true; we continue to exist. You apparently mean something more than "exist", even though you used the word "exist". To avoid confusion, if you don't actually mean the word "exist", please tell me what word you really mean. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that killing bin Laden did not appease our enemies. I'm thinking they probably were not happy with that at all. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that all the soldiers who have been over there killing the enemy have not been appeasing them. There is a difference between "appeasing the enemy" and not pursuing the war effort as vigorously as one could. The wishful thinking here is that the manner in which a dead body is handled is of any consequence to the dead body. On the other hand, how the dead body is handled can have great consequence (IMHO) to us in the eyes of the rest of the world, both civilized and uncivilized, as these actions would not only be observed and judged (and acted upon) by the uncivilized. Dictionary.com; sav·age/ˈsavij/ Noun: (chiefly in historical or literary contexts) A member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized. Does that clarify what I mean by savage? I used a noun, you used an adjective. At any rate, I do not seeing us reaching any agreement as to the propriety of public displays of Jigsaw-esque treatments of our enemies. I will simply reiterate, I'm glad to live in a country where that is not the practice. If I want to see public torture and punishment, I'm move to that bastion of freedom and liberty called Saudi Arabia.