Ishinho

DM - As between the driver of the rear-ending car and the driver of the rear-ended car, the former has greater culpability because it is his vehicle that caused the accident. I agree that the company should be held responsible for defective products. What about an unplanned pregnancy (that results in live birth) due to a defective condom? Will you disclaim responsibility for the child and tell the child to seek support from the Trojan company?

DM - It seems like your saying that, unless you intend the result, you cannot be held responsible for your actions. "I didn't mean to get her pregnant - I used a condom - therefore, I have no responsibility whatsoever." "It was my car's fault due to mechanical failure. I didn't intend to rear-end the other car - therefore, I have no responsibility." In both cases, the law would hold you responsible and I agree that you should be held responsible. If you were the driver of the car that was rear-ended, and the driver of the other car (that did the rear-ending) explained to you that the accident resulted from mechanical failure, would you say to the other driver: "Oh, I see, it's not your fault, you have no responsibility - please be on your way. I will pay for the damage myself." How would you handle that situation (and I don't want to hear about "no fault" insurance because that is avoiding the point; besides, making a claim would probably increase your rates, and you probably have a deductible to meet, so the accident could cost you plenty)?

I agree with you. Unplanned pregnancies are simply accidents, but hopefully with more joy in the initial process than an auto wreck. But in both cases equally, the people involved must live up to their responsibilities. In my opinion, the fact that two people created another by accident, as opposed to planning, does not alter their responsibility to care for the child. This is one area where I agree with the way the law is written (in my state - Illinois). Regardless of the marital status of mom and dad, both parents are legally responsible for the child's welfare, which often means financial responsibility. The right to assistance belongs to the child, not the custodial parent. Adoption is no different than a planned pregnancy because I have never heard of someone accidentally adopting a child. It is a thoroughly planned process. The reponsibility for the child's welfare is the same. I think these principles are in accord with what I understand Objectivism to be; i.e., you are responsible for the consequences of your actions, whether it is by accident or on purpose. Some actions simply involve greater consequences and responsibility than others.

I think you and SoftwareNerd are giving drug dealers WAY too much credit. Drug dealers do not resort to illegal means of maintaining their business because they cannot claim protection from police and the courts. They do so because that is how they live their lives. Do you really think drug dealers would sue each other for breach of contract (or some other civil cause of action) if only the courts would protect them? I highly doubt it. They would much rather simply dispense justice at the end of their 9mm. If drugs were legalized, my guess is that the vast majority of the current drug dealers would not begin to run lawful businesses because they have no desire to play by the rules of lawful society. They would have no idea how to run a legitimate business and would fail miserably. They know only physical force, intimidation, and fear tactics. I am guessing they would instead turn to some other illegal trade, such as prostitution, black market gun sales, etc. The response of drug dealers to legalizing drugs has no bearing on my belief that drugs should be legalized and people should be allowed to make their own choice about drug use. If someone wants to ruin their life shooting heroin - have at it - but don't ask me to pay for the rehab and other costs associated with "getting clean".

I can only wonder how much more generous we would all be if we weren't losing so much of every dollar we earn and spend to taxes. I think you've hit on an important point. We "give" (read: are forcibly deprived of) tax dollars to subsidize countless social service programs that we would not otherwise voluntarily support. Thus, we feel that we have already "given" so much, why volunteer more. I believe there are many, many causes worthy of support that should not be funded by the government, but they are. If I didn't see so many of my tax dollars wasted on funding arts and other activities that are wholly the province of the private sector, I might be more willing to contribute to the causes of my choosing. By the way, I do raise money for cancer research, but only because I value the group I contribute to and the work they do.

I might be willing to help so long as the details (how much time, money, etc.) are left to my decision. I may decide to devote my efforts to raising money for Leukemia research instead, or some other worthy cause. I think my original post has been misunderstood. I'm not advocating for "forced" donations. I was simply trying to figure out how such causes are seen under the Objectivist theory.

I do believe that most people feel that this is the right approach, but I'm not sure that most people would actually do anything about it. "Passing the buck" is almost tradition. Don't get me wrong, it burns me to think that my taxes are paying for special services to people who are "needy" for whatever reason. No one is entitled, or has a right, to their own apartment (in contrast to the protester's statement), and no one should be compelled to contribute their "property" against their own judgment. I guess I'm just unsure of the level of "benevolence" out there. Agreed.

If I understand you correctly, if no one volunteers assistance, severely disabled individuals are left to fend for themselves under the Objectivist viewpoint? This would be my understanding of Rand's description of a "true" capitalist system.

What is the Objectivist view towards the disabled (physically, mentally, or both) who are incapable of taking care of themselves? According to Rand, the government has three legitimate purposes: police, military, courts. None of these provides for any kind of social services. Does this mean that a severely disabled individual lives at the mercy of voluntary action taken by those who decide to provide charitable assistance? Assume the disabled individual is "alone in the world" without family or friends to provide room & board. This question came to my mind as I read an article in today's Chicago Tribune about a group of disabled individuals who staged a protest in front of the American Medical Association's headquarters, demanding that the AMA support federal legislation that would provide greater assistance for disabled individuals so that they can live alone rather than in an institution. One of the protesters was quoted as saying "a person has a right to decide where to live." I agree, but my question is "at whose expense?" I'm fairly certain of the Objectivist viewpoint about this issue. However, there are those that are incapable of choosing their clothes, let alone where to live. What is the Objectivist viewpoint about this? Thanks.