redmartian89

Thank you. I am in high school right now, and I am going to work toward an engineering degree. I have read about all the books I can on engineering, space colonization and Mars proposals (so far, I'm up to about a dozen books).

That brings up a good point. But if the state is the only legal beholder of force, and all relations with the state are voluntary (meaning, no forced taxation or draft), what distinguishes it from any other corporation? Why would it be inconceivable to have the law established by oath: for citizenship, you must vow not to initiate force on others; and then have it enforced by private agents? You raise up "buying the law" in the market anarchist idea, but in an Objectivist, minarchist setting, the same can happen with "who gives more to the police station" or "who builds the best army base". Why would the market anarchist (MA) society have more corruption then the minarchist one, if both inhabited with rational people.

What about a loosely organized group of free-trading US state-size "nations"?

In an Objectivist society, why not go the entire path to privatization and close down the state-run police, army, and courts? It seems to be the case for Galt's Gulch, why not apply it in a new society either in America or perhaps elsewhere (revolutions not withstanding)? Arbitration for corporations already replaces costly state-run court cases, and security forces already exist for private houses and corpoorate buildings. And since all forms of initating force have been abolished (in the Objectivist society), why not simply extend the reach of these voluntary contracts to these 3 functions? I know that Miss Rand said very explicitly that police, military, and the courts are the only jurisdictions of the state. But she also said that political power (that of the state) is always forceful, never voluntary. Why can the state's functions not be privatized? Or is this statement not valid anymore (such as Rand's statement of the "immorality" of homosexuality)?

A friend of mine quite recently proposed a "solution" to abusive and neglegent parenting. He proposes that the state raises kids till the time they reach adulthood, through a new regime of education. I told him that this idea runs counter to freedom, capitalism, and selfishness; but he counters that it is. I told him that the idea was statist to the nth degree. He counters with "what about the abused kids?" and I said "let them work it out by the child protection laws and they'll support themselves" I also mentioned that the kids not interested should not be forced to continue with it, but he disagrees, claiming they cannot make their own choices. I cannot explain it fully, but the idea sounds way too much like Brave New World. But this technique, as far as I know, remains untested. I am conflicted over it because, on the one hand, there are really good parents out there and freedom of choice in education is part of liberty, but, on the other hand, the abuse of kids by parents is a breach of rights as well. On Tuesday, a 20-yr old mother came home to see her 1-yr old stabbed to death by the kid's great uncle in order to "get rid of demons" in the child. Would this new regime solve this problem? Any Objectivists here support this idea? Am I being elitist in not supporting this "equalizing" idea? Is parental abuse necessary cause for a new governmental agency, or should this idea be run by businesses, if at all?

I am Michael. My ulitmate goal is to be a self-employed astronautical engineer working on the first Martian settlements. I have been interested in Objectivism since about 3 years ago. Over the summer I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.