Tom Rexton

I believe this ought to be in the Introduction Forum, but regardless, welcome to the forum. Regarding your disability: In the world for which Ayn Rand (and we) fight for, you would have the greatest chance of survival. Whatever fallacy you may have imbibed about capitalism being a Darwinist social system in which "the strong survive and weak perish" is wrong. It is precisely capitalism that allows the weak to survive. In an anticapitalist world in which the mind is throttled, forced and negated, only by brute strength can men survive; but in a capitalist world in which the mind is free, it is primarily by thinking that men survive--and flourish. ---[edit, added the following] I would also like to add further than in capitalism, the competition is intellectual--it is a competition of ideas, with the right ideas winning. In an anticapitalist society, the competition is over who can wield the strongest FORCE, i.e. who has biggest gang with the most brutal weapons.

Is anyone in ARI literate in Chinese?

The road owners who managed such system would LOSE money--they would go bankrupt and would be forced to sell their business of road-ownership and management. They are running it for profit, are they not? The profit-motive acts in such a way as to provide the best to consumers (according to consumers' judgment). Don't make the mistake of thinking that toll booths at certain points on the road are the only means of payment. It is very likely that the following system (or something like it) would instead be implemented: each car would be equiped with some sort of device such that when the car enters a given private road, sensors on that said road would register that car, its owner, the time of entry and exit, the number times it passed through the road, and send electronically and automatically to some computer database that information, which will be compiled until the day when payment is due (probably at the end of each month), at which time a bill is sent to the car owner, who must then pay his use of the road for that month. The car owner can be charged with a given toll each time he uses the road, but he doesn't have to pay for it every time. Instead, those tolls will accumulate in the computer database over a period of a month, at the end of which he pays for all of his use of that road in that month in a single payment. Other means of payment are of course, possible. Car owners who anticipate daily use of the road might have a pre-paid plan in which they pay the road owner a fixed price which will give them unlimited use of the road for a certain period of time. This kind of system would easily and completely eliminate the need for toll booths at every point of the road where ownership changes. It's just like the internet use we have today: in most developed countries you pay a fixed price for unlimited use in a given period of time (usually a month). In many developing countries you pay for every minute or hour of internet use. [edited, clarified the penultimate paragraph]

Which of course, begs another question: why do you "own" yourself and no one else?

Well, here's a consolation for ya: I don't intend to own and operate any road should the remote possibility that the government will privatize them materialize. I for one have no problem putting my trust in millions of self-interested, rational businessmen, engineers and scientists who for the past 300 years have continuously come up with unexpected and ingenius solutions that propelled economic progress to such unimaginable levels despite the incredible impediments imposed by governments world-wide. Ahh, the power of free minds! Besides, if roads become a mess, there's always the flying car option--which is closer to reality than you may think. To repeat an apt bromide: the possibilities are endless...

I think that she meant to answer the rape charges as if she were Domonique--her screename, afterall, IS Dominique. So she assumed the character and answered likewise: "I enjoyed every minute of it [Roark's taking of her]" . Get it?

Why should big companies try to "snuff out" the small businesses? Remember that competition exist only between firms providing the same or similar goods and services at the same general location (if they are small to mid-sized firms). It would be ridiculous for, say Walmart, to "snuff out" the restaurants and gas stations along the road it may own, if it could make even more money renting it to them. Why couldn't big businesses who own the roads profit by "renting" it to the small businesses? And why should roads be owned by big businesses who compete with smaller business? Wouldn't it be more likely that a business will own and operate roads only? If so, it would be even more ludicrous to "snuff out" small businesses along it because that would destroy the very reason for driving on the road in the first place--to get to those small businesses--and thereby destroy any possibility of making money off the road!

So do you think that roads should be privately owned?

Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that just because a certain service may be inefficiently provided for by a private business compared to government, that is in NO WAY a rationale for government-ownership of businesses that provide such services. Efficiency is NOT a justification for violating rights, or for allowing the government to act beyond it sole purpose: to protect individual rights. Your argument that efficiency (in providing non-defense services) justifies government intervention and involvement is a very dangerous premise. It could be argued that many services, such as healthcare and education, could be provided for more efficiently by government, and therefore government should provide such services. ----------[edited, added the following] I have a specific question for Sherlock. My argument against government-ownership of roads is not based on concrete scenarios postulating the operations of a private system of roads; it is based on the following principle of Objectivism: The sole purpose of government is to protect the individual's rights. In order for the government to own and operate roads to provide an efficient transportation infrastructure, it must be first established that the individual has a right to such efficient transportation infrastructure at the expense of other individuals. I sincerely believe that the individual has NO SUCH RIGHT. I am rather scornful of people who believe otherwise because the notion seems downright deleterious to me--just like the notion that people have a right to healthcare, education, job, welfare, etc...

Gee, and that's your rationale for government ownership of roads? Of course people don't always act rationally--on any and all business activities. One can always come up with examples of corrupt business deals and practices. But does that justify communism? Government is far more prone to corruption and irrationality--not to mention despotism.

What confusion? Whose? Or is it that you cannot conceive of an efficient method of establishing a private system of roads? What makes you think that because you cannot conceive of an efficient private solution, no one can and therefore the government should intervene? What makes you think private entrepeneurs would opt for the multiple road scenario? Saying that redundant roads might exist is like saying redundant production plants may exist and waste resources. Have you forgotten how the market system works to make the allocation and use of resources as productive as possible? What makes you think that the only way to pay for roads is to pay tolls as you drive on that road? What makes you think that no one could possibly come up with an efficient solution? What makes you think profit-seeking entrepeneurs would rationally restrict the kind of vehicles able to travel on their roads, especially if it resulted in very limited through-traffic and thus reduced revenue? Why? Humanity as a whole owns nothing. Only individuals have property. Remember, groups have no rights apart from the rights possessed by the inidividuals constituting the group. If humanity truly valued the park so greatly, it would be far more profitable for him to make it into a park rather than a gold-mine. Do you know by what proccess consumer demand makes certain business activities profitable while others not? Or more profitable than others? What in the world makes you think that private entrepeneurs would plunder and destroy natural resources so that they will have nothing left in the future? This is totally against their self-interest. This if for the same reason that privately owned forests and lands are the best-kept and least plundered and wasted. No. One major suggestion: read up on economics. Your arguments on efficiency and wasteful competition and resource use sound too much like many common, fallacious anti-capitalists arguments. Ever heard of Marx's phrase "anarchy of production"? which he used to argue for CENTRALIZED economic planning--i.e., for communism, because he thought capitalism is wasteful and disordered, and that government control and planning would be ordered and efficient? Specifically, I'd suggest Reisman's Capitalism. (It's free for download as a PDF)

Why presume that that is the only way a private road system would or could work? Why presume that private entrepeneurs, engineers and scientists could never figure out a way to efficiently manage a private road system because it "boggles [your] mind"? You ought to know better than to declare a problem unsolvable by anyone--even by the conjoined knowledge, intelligence, and initiative of millions of businessmen and scientists world-wide--because you cannot conceive of a solution. Do you know how millions of private entrepeneurs manage the mind-boggling international system we call "the economy"? Think about the production of cars, computers, and other incredibly complex products. How in the world is the production of complex goods--whose thousands of parts come from and are assembled all over the world, and whose production takes years to complete--coordinated and accomplished by millions of businessmen world-wide? Roads, or any other form of infrastructure, are no different in principle. In any case, efficiency is no justification for the violation of rights. The government cannot act contrary to its sole purpose of protecting individual rights, just because it judges that certain individuals are providing certain services inefficiently. The same could be argued over health-care. If the government did't provide or regulate health-care, wouldn't all kinds of quacks become doctors, blah, blah, blah?

It seems worthless. She might as well have assigned Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. But what is it exactly do you want to understand about this period of US History?

*bump* --need more than just 53 votes!

I believe Ayn Rand herself paid income taxes. She certainly didn't avoid it in order to make herself a self-sacrificing martyr. Her life's purpose was to portray (in literature) the ideal man. This she could hardly have done in prison.

Read this interesting story here. In sum, he wants to be discharged as a "conscientious objector" because, having witnessed the brutality of war, he realized that war (in general) is unnecessary. (!) Some disturbing quotes: "People say, 'You're abandoning these soldiers that depend on you,' and so that weighs on you," he said. "But what's worse? Going over there and participating in war, or maybe doing something that can help people figure out that you don't have to go to war?" "Some people may be born a conscientious objector, but sometimes people realize through certain events in their lives that the path they're on is the wrong one," Benderman said. "The idea was: Do I really want to stay in an organization where the sole purpose is to kill?" ------------- I do hope this is just a rare (perhaps the only) case.

Well, I must admit the concept is rather vague to me. The economic textbooks do not help as they do not even define it. The dictionary provides a definition that I think is closest to what I (and most economist) mean: A level of material comfort as measured by the goods, services, and luxuries available to an individual, group, or nation. I think "living standards" is a narrower concept, included in "quality of life". It emphasizes material living conditions, rather than "happiness". For instance, a man who lives in a large house by the beach, with several fancy cars and all the modern amenities, is said to have a "high standard of living", regardless of of whether he is happy or suffering emotionally. On the other hand, Howard Roark in his early career could be said to have had a "low standard of living" because of his low income and spartan living quarters.

If you're somewhat familiar with Austrian school of economics and have also read Reisman's tome Capitalism, then you probably also know that GDP is not in any way a measure of the volume of production--only total expenditure, and mostly consumption expenditure at that. In other words, spending is not a measure of output. Even adjusting nominal GDP into "real" GDP via the GDP deflator is grossly inaccurate because of the inaccuracy of the price index. Which leads me to conclude that GDP/capita may not be an accurate measure of living standards at all. It indicates, for instance, that several welfare-statist countries in North Western Europe have, according to GDP/capita statistics, the highest living standards in the world, despite the fact that more than 50% of that GDP/capita is GOVERNMENT expenditure, that some 40% to 60% of their income is taken away as taxes, that consumer goods prices are many times higher than they are in the US because of sales taxes and tariffs, and that health care is a government-run industry. Do you know of any measurement other than GDP/capita that has been taken that more accurately measures comparative living standards (don't mention the UN Human Development Index )? If not, can you think of a more accurate measure? Or perhaps the more fundamental question is: can living standards be measured at all (i.e., quantitatively, not qualitatively)?

*bump* I'm bumping this because there's only 44 votes, and I am certain there are far more than 44 members! So for the other 1031 members who did not vote yet, please vote!

I believe many have implied here that when we dicuss certain subjects in light of Objectivism, that we discuss them according to their Objectivist defintion, which is often far more accurate and sometimes contradictory to the conventional definition. Your use of "reason", "volition" and "environmentalism" is leading to fruitless arguments among us. Let's first settle on a clear definition of the three terms before we discuss Environmentalism any further. And, as I have infered from one of your previous posts before, I stated you knew very little of Objectivism. Your statement that "Objectivism claims it is okay to treat animals in any manner" is another indication of such ignorance. Objectivism makes no such claim. I will suggest one last time: read the core Objectivist corpus before going into detailed discussion and argumentation on fudmental concepts of Objectivism such as reason and volition and on the political view of Objectivism with respect to such ideologies as "environmentalism". Specifically, I would suggest that you read the entry on the terms "volition", "reason" and "environmentalism" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Do you know what is "reason", in Objectivism? No, it's NOT the ability "to learn to perform a task". If you think so, then my suggestion stands: read the basics of Objectivism. No, I don't have to prove that animals don't have the ability to integrate into concepts the perceptual data provided by their senses, and then combine such concepts into propositions and sequences of propositions forming strings of logical thoughts. You do. And I don't believe insults are acceptable according to the forum rules: "(2) This forum will not tolerate personal insults or other posts devoid of intellectual content. Examples of personal insults include sarcastic comments and accusations of irrationality or immorality. If you disagree with another poster, attack the argument, not the poster. If you think that a poster is behaving in an irrational or immoral manner, contact the moderators. Likewise, all posts must add to the discussion rather than merely express agreement or disagreement without explaining the writer's reasons."

You forgot to mention the one essential, distinguishing characteristic of man--the attribute that distinguishes him from all other living beings--and with that omission ironworks soundlab was all too easily able to cast doubt on Objectivism: REASON That ironworks soundlabs had to ask what differentiates man from animals reveals how little he knows of Objectivism, so I would suggest that he immediately read up on some essential primers before seriously doubting any aspect of it.

This poll is very recent (started last night)--so only a very small fraction of the main posters have participated. I've also noticed that most foreigners, except Europeans and Canadians, tend to be less active in these forums than Americans. Perhaps it's the limited Internet access or busy lifestyle--I'm not sure.

One of the more complex aspect of Objectivism that I have discovered is the distinction between the coercive acts of governments against another, and an individual against another. Initiating force against an immoral individual is a violation of his rights. The reason is that, insofar as this immoral individual himself has not initiated force, he retains all of his rights. On the other hand, using force to oust a government which has no legitimate claim to sovereignty is not an initiation of force. The reason is that governments who persistently, systematically and extensively violate individual rights act against their sole purpose and thereby abdicate any claim to sovereignty. (read "Collectivized Ethics" by Ayn Rand in The Virtue of Selfishness and the "Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776") Why don't you read Ayn Rand's essays "Man's Rights", "The Nature of Government" and "Collectivized Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness in addition to the numerous threads in which the Iraq war and the War on Terror in general have been discussed.

I would agree mostly with you, except your characterizing Benjamin Franklin as a "less important figure". I think you ought to review your knowledge of the period 1763 - 1789 of US History as well as to get yourself a decent biography of Benjamin Franklin. There's no way a man who was a great stateman, prolific inventor, brilliant scientist, succesful businessman, and--to top it off--one the most significant Founding Fathers of America, be any "less important"!