Asimov

Probably one of the greatest resources that someone linked on here was the Ayn Rand Lexicon. I realize that the more I study Objectivism the more I need to learn!

I love you guys. Clear, concise and consistent statements. I can't thank you more for helping me understand certain dynamics that have been bugging me for awhile now. I should have posted this sooner! I have no further questions, your honor.

You would think, but that doesn't appear to be the opinion of socialists who are against privatized medicine. I don't see why the government is any MORE efficient at providing health care than anyone else, and considering the lack of competition to provide high quality care for a good price, it is probably less efficient because there's no ambition to make it better, no one to outdo them. I agree it is a pipe-dream mentality that everyone is going to be happy and healthy in some grand utopia. I am curious though, what about outbreaks of disease? In order to contain the disease, how would we deal with such an outbreak? Would the government be in charge of quarantines? What about vaccinations to prevent an outbreak of the disease? I'm assuming that the government, in its interest in protecting peoples rights would quarantine the infected population. I do have a couple questions relating to this, but I will start it in a more appropriate thread.

Thanks for your reply. I guess the corollary to this question regarding forcing someone to pay for another individual also relates to a nagging notion regarding the concept of protection. In a capitalist society, we would be forced to pay for police, courts and military spending in order to help protect us. Now, considering that it is never moral to force someone to pay for another is wrong, how does that not translate into the function of a government?

Do you have any examples that I could draw from? If I'm in a debate I can't just assert that it is so and be done with it. If you don't want to go to the work of finding something don't worry. If you do have any recommended readings regarding the economics of privatized health care that has been implemented and been effective, I'd appreciate it.

Hi everyone, One topic that interests me is the privatized/socialized medicine debate within different economical circles. I'm curious if there are any resources that deal directly with this issue that I could find online. That or if anyone on here has an opinion regarding the pros and cons of privatized medicine would be helpful. It's probably the one thing that keeps bugging me for some reason. Reading what some people who are for privatized medicine and how it could apply to a capitalist system, I see some good arguments. For instance: If socialized medicine was cheaper to do and allowed for higher productivity within a capitalist country wouldn't that make it the more rational choice to pursue?

Thanks, David, that was great. I didn't intend on giving the impression that the pursuit of happiness is what others think will make you happy. I appreciate yours and everyone else's response, it helped to flesh out some misunderstandings I had regarding principles.

Thanks everyone for answering my question! As to your question, that is one that I've been thinking about. Principle of Freedom - That everyone must be able to make choices and act on those choices in order to survive. Traders Principle - The voluntary exchange of goods between individuals for mutual benefit. Principle of Non-Aggression - Initiating force against another person is an act of coercion, which violates the principle of freedom. Principle of Property/Ownership - That people are entitled to the products of their labour. Be it what they create physically or remuneration for services provided. Principle of Eudaimonia - Everyone is entitled to the pursuit of happiness or human flourishing.

Is that you, Lightbearer? Hi! Taking a child out of an abusive home would be protecting its rights. I agree with you that children aren't looters.

As a society, there must be fundamental principles that will allow for maximal harmony and human flourishing. Would we call those fundamental principles rights?

What reason is there to accept that an ether does in fact exist, though? Science, by its own nature, will not exclude with any absolute sense the existence of something unless it has been falsified. I don't think the SR group is stating that the ether doesn't exist, just that there's no evidence for its existence. I could be wrong, though.