Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

volco

Regulars
  • Posts

    785
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from bluecherry in Country voting itself in for social services   
    Thanks for this extremely useful example.
    This is why I advocate selection of nationhood.
    People are not all the same, we don't even know whether we descend from the same animal, or from related but different animals. Some people could be gentically pre-disposed to prefer a family-like conservative society, (the cro-magnon influenced Basques are a prime example in their suborness and natural-born xenophobia). Man should be free to chose.



    The above situation is as moral as theft - or extortion.



    It is perfectly moral to do such a service, as moral as setting up an insurance company. The part you are missunderstanding is that if 100% of the citizens agree on it, it becomes a utility, not a tax. That's the only part your are missunderdtanding. But you cover that, with the following:



    This represents a problem with my advocacy of Nation-Shopping. In general, Children represent most of the problems I have with Objectivism - deserving a separate thread.

    An example in reality are the Quakers or "Friends". When their children either legally or naturally come of age, they are sent to the City to decide whether they want to voluntarily join the ascetic community as adults, or go free into the vicious World.

    I guess something similar could be instituted.

    The problem with this scenario is the potential pre-conditioning of children - specially vulnerable to that- however in the case of Quakers it seems to work to a certain degree (as in numerous ex-quakers in mainstream society)
  2. Like
    volco reacted to Brian9 in Is taxation moral?   
    And governments are consumers of other goods. The whole market is an integrated whole. Any agency of force has technology costs, transportation costs, you name it. They have to integrate with the rest of the market in an intelligent and efficient way. As time marches on, some ways are shown to be better than others. One can't snap one's fingers and say, we've figured out the business of governance. Everyone send your checks to us and we'll get the job done. It doesn't work that way. You have to compete. You have to be good at the job and who is the judge of that? Not you. Because anything you can do, I can do better.
  3. Like
    volco reacted to Brian9 in Is taxation moral?   
    Grames, all of that exists in the real world. Armies for hire have always existed. Competing police forces have always existed. Competing court systems have always existed. Competing systems for the incarceration of prisoners have always existed. I think somehow people imagine that competing police forces would have to be shooting at each other all the time for control. Most people have a difficult time fleshing out the concept of competition in any sphere of life and when force is involved, it doesn't make the task any easier I will grant you. But competition exists all the same. Competition is a law of nature. I compete with my local policeman for my own protection for instance. The more I can rely on myself, the less I need him. If I hire private security, I need him less. The FBI and the CIA compete, don't they? All levels of government compete with one another. One policeman competes with his partner for the promotion. States compete for population. Yes, it is true that government often tries to grant monopoly rights to certain agencies. It does this all the time. It never works. Prison systems compete with one another I'm certain. You can think of a thousand way in which the laborers in force compete. They compete with the laborers in other markets as well, because competition is pervasive and goes across all boundaries. So, what do you think? Are you ready to concede that there is a market in force?
  4. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from brian0918 in Is tyranny intrinsic to governments?   
    Had you refrained from using the word Honor, something quiet important in Objectivism as it relates directly to personal integrity, or just clarified that you probably meant honor in the Prussian Military sense; your refutal would have been perfect,.

    No one can call him or herself an Objectivist if he or she has a hair of respect for the concept of Military or Patriotic Duty.
    Ayn Rand loved America for - oh so many times repeated reasons, but she never meant to create a cult of Patriotism. Conservatives, as they are usually a lot more tolerant of different ideas than American Liberals, gave Ayn Rand a chance because she defended America. But in turn, some people, maybe the guy with the Roman Sturmtrooper in his avatar, have clinged to Objectivism for accidental missunderstandings.

    Like the little flag in this board's icon. Why isn't it a Dollar sign or an O, or a flame?
  5. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from Grames in Is tyranny intrinsic to governments?   
    Had you refrained from using the word Honor, something quiet important in Objectivism as it relates directly to personal integrity, or just clarified that you probably meant honor in the Prussian Military sense; your refutal would have been perfect,.

    No one can call him or herself an Objectivist if he or she has a hair of respect for the concept of Military or Patriotic Duty.
    Ayn Rand loved America for - oh so many times repeated reasons, but she never meant to create a cult of Patriotism. Conservatives, as they are usually a lot more tolerant of different ideas than American Liberals, gave Ayn Rand a chance because she defended America. But in turn, some people, maybe the guy with the Roman Sturmtrooper in his avatar, have clinged to Objectivism for accidental missunderstandings.

    Like the little flag in this board's icon. Why isn't it a Dollar sign or an O, or a flame?
  6. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from Jake_Ellison in Is tyranny intrinsic to governments?   
    Had you refrained from using the word Honor, something quiet important in Objectivism as it relates directly to personal integrity, or just clarified that you probably meant honor in the Prussian Military sense; your refutal would have been perfect,.

    No one can call him or herself an Objectivist if he or she has a hair of respect for the concept of Military or Patriotic Duty.
    Ayn Rand loved America for - oh so many times repeated reasons, but she never meant to create a cult of Patriotism. Conservatives, as they are usually a lot more tolerant of different ideas than American Liberals, gave Ayn Rand a chance because she defended America. But in turn, some people, maybe the guy with the Roman Sturmtrooper in his avatar, have clinged to Objectivism for accidental missunderstandings.

    Like the little flag in this board's icon. Why isn't it a Dollar sign or an O, or a flame?
  7. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from Jake_Ellison in I think I might have to leave objectivism   
    Maybe it was the age, maybe the recent loss of her husband, but in that interview she conquers the audience and Phil, in the end leaving as a lovely old lady with the youngest Promethean eyes.
  8. Like
    volco reacted to Hotu Matua in Is tyranny intrinsic to governments?   
    No, it is not.
    If it were, individualists living in San Francisco would not be so concerned about Obama's health care reform, as it would be a problem for The citizens of, say, Chicago. Nowadays, if Obama has a spooky plan in mind, you get the creeps, whether you live in Honolulu or Anchorage.

    Do not misunderstand me.
    I believe the USA has the best federal system on earth.
    But I also believe it is just not good enough. What worked well for 13 young, unexperienced, vulnerable, rural ex-colonies will not necesssarily work well for a constellation of wealthy, sophisticated, investment-hungry cities with a diversity of appetites.

    I agree with you that the ultimate check for governments to avoid tyranny is people. But how? How people achieve that?

    Let's examine some methods

    1) Revolution. Mmmm.... It has not worked. It is bloody and expensive. it is to be used as a last resort, when a full-fledged dictatorship is already at the corner, or already established.
    2) Voting in the ballots. Mmmmm... It has worked for short period of time, but made no difference in the long term. Democratic elections brought Hitler to power.
    3) Nationwide cultural change. It will take many decades. It had a chance with the Founding Fathers and the impetum did not last mlre than a century, and was never totally embraced. It had a chance with Ayn Rand, but her followers spent more time building a cult around her than helping her, despite herself, in reaching the average man and building alliances with libertarians, rothbardians and individualists outside the USA. Ayn was not fortunate enough or wise enough to find an intellectual companion of her stature, who could stare at her and criticize her bluntly and without remorse. Who knows, maybe she lost her chance to Murray Rothbard. It is my belief that a more tactful Rand and a less touchy Rothbard could have represented a tremendous intellectual force to accelerate change.
    4) Local cultural change + Migration. That is the method I propose. Evolve to city-States, win some of them over for laissez-faire capitalism, and let them overperform semi-free neighbouring cities.
  9. Like
    volco reacted to Hotu Matua in Is tyranny intrinsic to governments?   
    The advantages of political union or disunion should be examined according to the changing reality of world affairs, as well as the grounds and purposes of why such union or disunion is being advocated.

    For example, an extraordinary novelty of civilization these days is the rise of cities, specifically megacities.
    Mankind was rural for most of its history. A critical mass of specialized producers, traders and teachers could not be found in smaller territories. Size conferred advantages. For example, more land to raise crops or cattle. And, very importantly, more tax payers, as population density was so low.

    Cities nowadays comprise universes in themselves. More than 90% of all exchange of information and goods happens within the tiny areas of cities. Armies do not need large number of soldiers as much as high technology, which is created at the cities. All innovation comes from cities, and all risks (included terrorist attacks or natural disasters) are feared inasmuch as cities are involved. It should be no surprise that presidents or presidential candidates in most countries were first majors of their largest cities.

    Nowadays, Houstonians cannot decide whether they should send or not their young citizens to fight in Irak. In the future, as I see it, they will be able to do so. But this entails a big cultural change which, by the way, is underway, but need to be put in perspective by Objectivists all over the world: the consideration of patriotism as a byproduct and not a driver of civic action.

    Let me use a Gospel story here (gosh! An atheist resorting to a Bible tale!). Jesus was preaching in a house and he was told to stop and take care of his mother and brothers who were outside awaiting. He answered: "My mother and brothers? I'm gonna tell ya who my mother and brothers are. All of those who follow my doctrine are indeed my mother and my brothers."

    One day, when the last government at Washington asks you to assist your fellow American countymen, you will reply: "My American countrymen? I'm gonna tell ya who my American countrymen are: those who live rational lives, wherever they happen to live."
  10. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from Rockefeller in Prisons!   
    I want to add that prisons, along with probably mental hospitals, are the gulags of the West; the concentration camps of the Welfare State.

    Probably a good percentage of inmates are not there for violating contract or other's rights; and as some experiments have shown it is simply too early to determine what percentage if any is getting better at psychiatric hospitals. Yet these Welfare State institutions mantain people against their will in a living hell of lack of privacy costing more money that could feed homeless elders, or lower taxes.

    In a Capitalist Society, there would be so manyu different governments competing that criminal activity would not be very useful. IF you don't pay at a restaurant or bar and end up in the black list, you'll end up banned from all bars in town except the shadiest one. And as such, there will probably exist one or more shady country offering services to outlaws who'd violate each other's rights and probably learn quick not to mess with the other nations / clubs.

    The Solution to Crime is to have enough countries so that criminals can be expelled, not concentrated, and deal among themselves. If Civilization is defined as creating more privacy between individuals, freeing man from men, then the more separated yet controlled the zones are the better. Like a system of dykes, ships (commerce) flow, but the water (masses) are fully controlled.
  11. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from dream_weaver in I think I might have to leave objectivism   
    Double post.

    But addressing self defense: Being Rational is also not being Dogmatic, and in Ayn Rand's words, avoiding context dropping.

    In a densely populated place under a decent government A.R. would not be pro self-defense as we are dealing with the context of Civilization.

    In an Atlas Shrugged Scenario (most of the real world right now), in the Gulch, isolated from an oppresive Government, self defense would probably be the default way to go.
    The above statement is not taken from any work by Ayn Rand and is not sanctioned by her estate.
  12. Like
    volco reacted to Drregaleagle in Gulching: Can we create an Atlantis?   
    I think Seasteading is the best hope for freedom in the short run. A successful micronation like the original Republic of Minerva could work if its founders were willing to fight for their freedoms. We should build an island and set up industry for export initially. If someone or some nation attempts to annex our country, we should respond with every available weapon.
  13. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from Jake_Ellison in Expats and Objectivism   
    In first place, I appreciate your tone. It certainly denotes reason in action and a happy spirit.



    Ayn Rand didn't go into politics, and insisted (Reference missing you should find it) that there was still a huge cultural work to do before "OBjectivist Politics". She defended Laissez Faire Capitalism, of course, but she also rejected The USSR and the UN. In fact I never heard a mention of her calling for World Government.

    Now what I was doing was speculating about that time when a real Laissez Faire ´Society could happen. Whatever little Ayn Rand suggested on specirfic Public Policies she did in regards to the United States of America.

    Since her heyday, Objectivism has become a lot bigger than America, and America has become a lot smaller in proportion. When Ayn was writing, most every country was a Communist Dictatorship, and the others Reactonary Dictatorships. The millions of American expats shopping around for governments didn't exist back then (well they were called soldiers). Times have changed.

    I remember what is it you are refering to: Ayn Rand's fear of Governments degenarating into competing gangs, killing each other. Well, maybe a little more good will, or bona fide while reading and you'd discover I didn't mean that; nor are the "new" countries such a Singapore or even Eritrea and Timor, that way.





    Yeah because they copied her ideas without aknowledgment. That was my point.

    And if you are going to make this more complicated for the sake of sport, then I'll just tell you what I mean:

    Ayn Rand was against the Fed. So are Libertarians. Princi'ple of no aggretion. Same there. etc, that's why I mean.
  14. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from bluecherry in Expats and Objectivism   
    *** Split from here - sN ***


    Any newbies reading my above point should take notice that Objectivism is no way a prescription for public policy; but a philosophy that shows the student how there's a more rational and integrated way thinking about the World.

    Thanks SoftNerd for again contributing to the image of Objectivists as keepers of the Temple instead of thinking creatures (worse when I know you are one). and btw, it is certainly not anarchist to have a zillion of profit driven governments. As for Libertarian, all Objectivist-agreed policies are.




    Maybe I did hijack the thread, but I want people to be able to vote with their feet a LOT easier than they can now. I don't call for any kind of Anarchy as I don't believe it exists (othern than as a fancy name for a tumult).
    I call for as many either states or autonomous or special regions (that is why I mentioned H.K. as well as Singapore). The smaller the better. And I explained all this because she asked about a Capitalist Society. Then we have to figure that out as it is certainly impossible as of here and now.

    In the specific case of America (while I am calling for Americans to finally mo0ve to the suburbs of the world, instad of remainig in the Inner City), I'd only imagine ultra federalism, Ron Paul Style. Who is (gut feeling) crazy.

    After all, a new way of more tranquil living did not arise in the city, but had people moving away miles away to the former pastures.

    This is a metaphore for America and Central America maybe, but as I keep insisting, there is a Hong Kong in China, there is a Walt Disney World Buenavista private zipcode in the United States of America. Singapore, a benign Fascist dictatorship, seceded peacefully from an malignous Islamic dicatorship just 40 years ago!

    I am proposing working and expecting more Buena Vistas, Hong Kongs and Even Singapores all around the World - as soon as possible.
  15. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from brian0918 in Expats and Objectivism   
    In first place, I appreciate your tone. It certainly denotes reason in action and a happy spirit.



    Ayn Rand didn't go into politics, and insisted (Reference missing you should find it) that there was still a huge cultural work to do before "OBjectivist Politics". She defended Laissez Faire Capitalism, of course, but she also rejected The USSR and the UN. In fact I never heard a mention of her calling for World Government.

    Now what I was doing was speculating about that time when a real Laissez Faire ´Society could happen. Whatever little Ayn Rand suggested on specirfic Public Policies she did in regards to the United States of America.

    Since her heyday, Objectivism has become a lot bigger than America, and America has become a lot smaller in proportion. When Ayn was writing, most every country was a Communist Dictatorship, and the others Reactonary Dictatorships. The millions of American expats shopping around for governments didn't exist back then (well they were called soldiers). Times have changed.

    I remember what is it you are refering to: Ayn Rand's fear of Governments degenarating into competing gangs, killing each other. Well, maybe a little more good will, or bona fide while reading and you'd discover I didn't mean that; nor are the "new" countries such a Singapore or even Eritrea and Timor, that way.





    Yeah because they copied her ideas without aknowledgment. That was my point.

    And if you are going to make this more complicated for the sake of sport, then I'll just tell you what I mean:

    Ayn Rand was against the Fed. So are Libertarians. Princi'ple of no aggretion. Same there. etc, that's why I mean.
  16. Downvote
    volco got a reaction from brian0918 in Expats and Objectivism   
    *** Split from here - sN ***


    Any newbies reading my above point should take notice that Objectivism is no way a prescription for public policy; but a philosophy that shows the student how there's a more rational and integrated way thinking about the World.

    Thanks SoftNerd for again contributing to the image of Objectivists as keepers of the Temple instead of thinking creatures (worse when I know you are one). and btw, it is certainly not anarchist to have a zillion of profit driven governments. As for Libertarian, all Objectivist-agreed policies are.




    Maybe I did hijack the thread, but I want people to be able to vote with their feet a LOT easier than they can now. I don't call for any kind of Anarchy as I don't believe it exists (othern than as a fancy name for a tumult).
    I call for as many either states or autonomous or special regions (that is why I mentioned H.K. as well as Singapore). The smaller the better. And I explained all this because she asked about a Capitalist Society. Then we have to figure that out as it is certainly impossible as of here and now.

    In the specific case of America (while I am calling for Americans to finally mo0ve to the suburbs of the world, instad of remainig in the Inner City), I'd only imagine ultra federalism, Ron Paul Style. Who is (gut feeling) crazy.

    After all, a new way of more tranquil living did not arise in the city, but had people moving away miles away to the former pastures.

    This is a metaphore for America and Central America maybe, but as I keep insisting, there is a Hong Kong in China, there is a Walt Disney World Buenavista private zipcode in the United States of America. Singapore, a benign Fascist dictatorship, seceded peacefully from an malignous Islamic dicatorship just 40 years ago!

    I am proposing working and expecting more Buena Vistas, Hong Kongs and Even Singapores all around the World - as soon as possible.
×
×
  • Create New...