Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Phlegmak

Regulars
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Phlegmak's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

-1

Reputation

  1. No, it was fine, I just didn't take the time to put more thought into it, nor did I have the time to read everything that was already written on the subject. I'll read the stuff written about the subject here, and get back. By the way, in Atlas Shrugged, who owned the roads in Galt's Gulch, or whatever it was called? There were cars, so there must have been some kind of roads, perhaps just dirt. The drivers paid no tolls, seemingly. And also, in Objectivist utopia, who owns/runs the court system? In the responses above, the court system was mentioned several times.
  2. That's what I suspected. Any mention that Rand was wrong or that a certain something is better off not being private is instantly a bad idea.
  3. By the way, when Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, there were no GPS or any other kind of electronic tracking systems, and she believed that government should do nothing except protect the people. So it simply boggles the mind how city streets could be privately owned back then. Also, roads are LARGE. Competition is extremely hard because roads take up so much space. And the free market isn't going to help either, since consumers can't simply decide, "Ok, I don't want to do business with this road owner, even though his road is the only one going to where I want to go." And imagine the devestation to the environment if many different road companies competed with each other, by building roads all going from the same origin to the same target. It would make the New Jersey road system look pretty. And, back in the 60s, racism was common. No blacks on my road! No orientals are allowed on my road! And so on. It seems that only with some fancy technology could privatized roads be worthwhile. And then imagine the burden on the consumer if a bunch of different road owners in the same city decide that they all want to use different means of collecting tolls electronically from drivers. One company's device may interfere with another company's device. Bleah. I think Rand got it wrong with this. Roads have to be socially owned.
  4. I'm a bit puzzled at how Objectivists view roads. Right now, in the US, the government pays for roads. It's totally sweet to drive on a road without having to pay tolls all the time. People like me and you are taxed to pay for roads whether we use the roads or not. Rand never said that roads were a function for the government, so naturally they should be privatized. So then how are roads handled in Objectivism? Is it simply toll roads everywhere, for everyone?
  5. In that case, it seems like altruism simply doesn't exist. The kind of altruism you describe is slavery. I mean literal slavery, not any figurative slavery you may think of. Maybe being held against your will while your organs are removed to be implanted in someone else could also be altruism. Which is completely nonsensical.
  6. Of course it is. Most holidays aren't altruistic. I have noticed something in this and a few other posts on another forum by a like minded person. Being born and being raised by one's parents isn't a business deal. The parents raise children because of a certain kind of pleasure that is gained by simply raising children. I unfortunately don't have children so I can't speak about it much, but I have taken care of kids from time to time, and I've raised baby animals. It's simply a pleasure to watch them grow and teach them. As far as you doing something for your mother on Mother's Day, well, that's up to you.
  7. The funniest part about communists is that they're members of the bourgeoisie.
  8. Are you kidding me? Of course it is! Have you ever had a girl look at herself in the mirror and ask you, "Sweety, does this dress make me look fat?" You absolutely must say, "No, you look fine," regardless of the reality. If you say, "Yes," man, you're in for a world of suffering. If you've had an affair, it's definitely better to not mention it to your sweety.
  9. Forgive me if this has been discussed before. So what's the Objectivist stance on Linux? Linux, which I'm using at this moment, is a freely available operating system. You can download the CD images, burn them to CDs, and install the OS, all for $0. So far, I've used Linux on my computer for a little over a year, and I've paid $0 for it. Note that this isn't a technical discussion.
  10. You should add "think for yourself."
×
×
  • Create New...