Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

OA1982

Regulars
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    Married
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Ontario
  • Country
    Canada
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

OA1982's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Rule one. It, and its meaning, are good things to keep in mind when dealing with others.
  2. I did enjoy this book for its ability to tear into religions specifically, but like Matus1976 found the lack of opposing philosophical backing to be fairly glaring. As DarkWaters said, he tends to rely on secular altruism in many cases. Its an enjoyable read and has a few nice factoids in it, but I wouldn't go so far as to say this is the best book ever written, even on this subject.
  3. The main obstacle I see to aboliting compulsory education is the increasingly prevalent attitude that it is the government's job to protect one from oneself. Obviously, the problem is that it is not, in fact, the government's job to do that. The only way to really advance the abolition of public schools is to change the attitudes of those who believe that the majority of individuals would opt not to send their children to school, or opt not to attend school themselves. Additionally, the idea that the disparity of wealth created between those who choose to educated themselves or their children is harmful would have to be combatted successfully. Just because it has been done, doesn't mean it's been done justly, or rationally. I think the quote accurately reflects a rational definition of harm. Whether or not such a definition has been adopted by a government considering a bit of legislation is another question entirely, and usually will depend on the government in question, and the individuals' goals in proposing that legislation. As to whether a government has the right to force its constituents to do something they don't want to do when the degree of harm caused by that action extends beyond the physical, they do not. Do they do so anyways? Yes. For example, the Transfer Payments program instituted by the Canadian government. In this program, the government harms a portion of its constituents for the benefit of other constituents, by routinely (read: annually) stealing millions of dollars from them and giving those dollars to others who can or will not produce those dollars for themselves. Given that those dollars would otherwise be used to improve the lives of those who were stolen from, that is a form of harm being levied on them by government mandate. In this example, some of that transfer payment money goes towards government mandated education (probably, anyway, since it's actually given with no restrictions on how its spent).
×
×
  • Create New...