MichaelH

I apologize if this is a repost; I can't find the original link to this on the forums. A Tax Lawyer Explains Tax Havens I'm confused about what constitutes evasion as opposed to minimization. The law says it's OK to arrange your affairs to minimize the tax you pay. It's not OK to "evade" taxes. The closest I can come to seeing the difference is: evasion involves a lie about the funds you're sheltering. Is my understanding correct?

I don't agree with what Ayn seemed to be saying: that people without purpose are intentionally destructive. I believe they can be accidentally destructive. A person with a purpose creates long-range plans and goals. Those plans usually involve other people. (The effect you can have in isolation is limited. Thomas Edison had a lab workers; Hank Rearden hired men to work in his plant.) If those people have no purpose, you can't know what whim or stimulus will make them move at random. This makes them difficult to count on in an organizational sense. They're working with you one moment, gone the next. Even if they are effective workers while in place, they leave gaps that must be filled when they leave. If they leave at a critical time, that can be very destructive.

You're right on describing Answerer tendencies. I had to learn early on as a professor that there are several valid answers: 1. Yes/Technically correct response. This is my favorite! 2. No. This is hard to say for some reason. 3. I don't know. This is usually phrased as 'I don't know, that is a good question, I'll have an answer for you by next class.' 4. Query for further information. I'm a natural at #1 and #4. It has taken me a while to develop #2 and #3! I used to think that always saying yes would make people like me, but it turns out being able to say "no" is important too.

And in 3...2...1..April Fools' day claims another victim. D'oh! For what it's worth, The Onion succinctly describes California's plan for getting out of the economic crisis: build more houses!

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education...0,4538366.story Within the context of the government's recent actions, this person has a point. If banks and auto makers are getting bailed out, why not bail out everybody? After all, the more magic paper we print, the better the economy will be! This article highlights the flaw in the government's plan. According to the government's actions, we only need to do two things to fix the economy: 1. Print lots of money. 2. Spend lots of money. According to this plan, it does not matter where the money gets spent, so long as it gets spent. Federal stimulus funds are even being spent on clowns and magicians. I'd like to state the problem so my post is not misunderstood. The government should not be giving bailout money to anyone or any company. The actual solution - real savings and personal accountability - is not on the government radar at this time.

Unfortunately, politicians have good reason to support the bill, especially if it will be overturned. They pass the bill, knowing it will be struck down. They don't actually get to enforce the tax, but get to say they have "done something" about the issue. They still get an image win with the American public. Ugh. [Edit: The public is more reprehensible here for supporting the tax. The politicians try to do what the people support in order to get re-elected.]

I hope the rhetorical retreat is too late. They have already shown what "free" government money entails. When the government tried to take away the golden parachutes, they sent a clear signal to executives everywhere. One can only hope the executives are paying attention.

I was asking myself the same questions earlier in this thread. You are absolutely correct that accepting slavery is not living as a rational human being. However, there may not be an alternative to slavery. The government is not just one person with a gun; it is an entire system of people back by guns. You are not morally obligated to dispose of your life simply because the evil system exists. You may choose to do so, but that is the one of the few choices you can actually make in such a situation. I think the most appropriate AR answer is in "We the Living". As she put it, "all the characters of stature are destroyed", because "otherwise the book would show that freedom is inessential". [citation needed!] The point of the book is not the lack of morality of the characters who are forced to compromise to survive, but the evil of the system. Ayn wrote an essay about how to be rational in an irrational society; I will see if I can source it tomorrow. If anyone else would like to post from it, now is a great time!

The difference between the scenario you quoted and taxes is who does the bargaining. Scenario A: The government walks up to you and says "I have a gun and you know it. Give me x% of your income or I'll take everything you own and throw you in jail." There is no rational choice involved here. You do what the person with the gun says. Your response is, effectively, "You are not right to do this, but here you go." Scenario B: The government walks up to you and says "I have a gun and you know it. Give me everything you own." You say, "Instead of taking everything, how about just taking x%?" You are now bargaining, and surrendering your principles. In scenario A, you are rational. In scenario B, you are sanctioning. This seems clear. Scenario C seems to be what the OP had in mind: The government walks up to you and says "I have a gun and you know it. Give me 15% of your income." You say "Instead of taking 15%, how about taking 10%?" This is bargaining and surrendering your principles. No matter what, the government has a gun. You are not acting as a free rational agent here. The percentage isn't what matters. Your response to the demand is what matters. [Edit: changed "compromising your principles" to "surrendering your principles"]

The forum tends to focus on things that need fixing in society. That's appropriate; we need to know what should change so we know where to focus our energies. However, there are things going right in the world, and the iTunes store is one of them. To have access to the iTunes store, a user must: 1. Have a computer 2. Have internet access, ideally broadband. 3. Be sufficiently technically competent to navigate to music and buy it. For all practical purposes, every iTunes customer also has The Pirate Bay available. They could download an unethical/illegal copy of their music without paying, but instead they pay. And at $1 to $1.25 a song, they paid $3.34 billion dollars in 2008! This is money that goes to Apple, the labels and the artists, reimbursing them for the effort, expense, and risk involved in creating and distributing music. It's good to know that not everyone and everything is broken. Hooray for iTunes customers!

The previous post is an embarrassment to Objectivism. We agree that mandatory service is a reprehensible idea, that the proper role of government is the protection of individual rights, and that a philosophical revolution is needed in this country. I have no issue with that. "Purportedly" wrote books?! If you claim they didn't write the books, claim it, then back it up. Don't hide behind weasel words. Calling someone a "dilettante of art" because they wanted to become a ballet dancer, then using that to relate them to Hitler, is a distortion worthy of a Toohey.

I don't think Ford set this up intentionally. However, I think Ford's upper management realized the bailout funds would come with a great deal of government control and interference. (AIG is just now discovering this. You gave us money, now you expect to tell us how to spend it?!) It will be interesting to watch how the bailed-out companies fare when politicians are running things.

I'm afraid there is no such thing. You're asking for proof of a hypothetical situation. Such a situation is hypothetical because - by definition - it doesn't yet exist in reality. Let me try a few examples to show why such a question doesn't work: "If we closed the CDC tomorrow, where's the proof that everyone wouldn't die of flu the next year?" "If everyone became vegetarian, where's the proof that we wouldn't all live to be 100?" In my understanding, the correct response to such questions is to put the burden of proof on the asker. They are suggesting a possible future; it is up to them to defend it. "Why do you assume companies will promptly start turning out tainted food? What company would want its name associated with products that poisoned its customers?" Also, a lot of people stop buying a product when news of contamination is reported. Once the FDA assures people the product is safe again, purchasing resumes. In a free market, companies would not have the fallback of the FDA and would thus have a motive to maintain quality standards, and respond quickly and publicly to any quality issues.

Great post! I've been gradually losing the motivation to do anything. (I said to my spouse this morning, "I don't want to be awake.") This post highlighted part of the reason why - my life has become pain-avoidance instead of value-seeking. Thank you, Ifat!

People are not pure good or pure evil. Your mom exhibits some irrational behaviors and she has also done good things for you. This is why you can't just pronounce a verdict of "evil" and walk away. This does not mean people (like your mom) are gray moral mush. People have distinct bad and good parts. Ayn said, essentially, you have to work with the good and distance yourself from the bad. Others have pointed out you can't control your mother or your brother, only yourself. The fact that you became a responsible person in the same environment that fostered your brother is a credit to your independence. The objectivist solution would be to enjoy your relationship with your mother for what it is. You do not have to approve of your brother's choices or your mother's treatment of him. Once you have voiced your moral disapproval - and you were right to do so - further objections will not be productive. You might want to meet your mother in neutral locations so you don't have the antagonism of your brother nearby. Your mother is only evil to the extent that she evades reality and embraces irrationality.

THANK you. Every time I hear arguments against improving production because it will "cost" jobs, my blood pressure shoots up. Employing people is not the point of production; at most it is a by-product. Before mechanical cotton harvesting, hordes of people were bent over in fields in the blazing heat, picking cotton by hand. Would anyone seriously argue that we were better off when thousands of hands were blistered and bleeding, creative minds anchored to menial labor, just so society could have clothes?

This is a good idea, but I'm not sure a credit card is the best way to do it. Does your bank have an online bill payment option? Washington Mutual has a service where you enter who you pay bills to, then each month it's just a question of saying how much to pay and when to send the check. It reduces bill paying to, as you say, about 5 minutes a month. (It's literally just, $50 in the box next to X, $45 in the box next to Y, etc., and then "send right away". The checks are printed and mailed by the bank, automatically. Done.)

Focusing on the actions of "you" in each case is quite beside the point. Each of these situations would qualify as an emergency under Objectivism, and "you" in each case are not to be judged by the same standards as someone making a decision with time and level-headed rationality at your disposal. "You" are being put on the spot and forced to choose between several life-or-death options, none of them good. Exercising moral judgement on the person who is doing the wrong thing, no matter what, through no fault of their own, is madness. Focus on whoever is tying people to Trolley tracks!

Objectivism is quite explicit that any person should be free to trade with or hire anyone else, under any (non-force) terms they agree to. If an employer can get the job done cheaper by outsourcing to country Y, they don't have a moral obligation to hire people in country X. There may be other benefits to workers in country X that make them a better long-run business decision. They may be more educated. Customers in country X may prefer dealing with people from country X. They may have higher standards of quality. In an Objectivist world, businesses would look rationally at their individual situations. A likely outcome is one company outsourcing, and the other hiring locally. The decisions of consumers over the next few years would determine which method was more successful. (In reality, a lot of business managers are second-handers. That is why there is usually a wave of outsourcing, even in situations where it does not make sense to do so. The principle is still the same.)

My best response to this follows, and it is completely consistent with my current understanding of the situation. The Hamas charter calls for Muslims to militarily attack Israel. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas) This is not just political maneuvering for popular support, it is one of the main reasons Hamas exists. Hamas is an organization dedicated to the use of force to violate individual rights. No actions taken in that direction are justifiable. At this point, we should move on to a separate thread. We have thoroughly established that Israel killing Palestinian innocents as collateral damage is morally justified here.

Welcome! It's important to know what you want to do and have a plan. So many people leave their parent's home with only vague ideas of what they want to achieve and how they'll get there. It's refreshing to see not everyone is so ill-defined. If you're looking for a next step in Objectivism, I highly recommend Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff. (On the forum we just call it OPAR.) It gives you a rigorous overview of the entire philosophy in a very straightforward format. It is not a one-night or even a few-day read, at least for me, but is definitely worthwhile. Please don't be afraid to ask questions as you go. Good to have you on the board!

Your blog post is dead-on about why activism: 1. Is important 2. Must be public I (and presumably others) have been almost suicidal for want of a positive philosophy, a view of mankind as noble. Religions teach suffering and sacrifice and original sin. Without a counter to this view of the world, it's no wonder a lot of teenagers commit suicide. There's a reason a lot of suicides are bright and gifted teens. If all there is to life is suffering for others until you die, it makes sense to end it early. Edit: Supporting the ARI is a good start. Thanks for reminding us how important this is!

1. Claiming Objectivists as Libertarians gives Libertarianism a philosophical legitimacy it does not deserve. As others have mentioned, Libertarianism has no grounding. It's just a vague collection of ill-defined goals. When they claim "objectivists are libertarians", they imply a sound base. Why did the government think it was so important that Rearden voluntarily sign over his mills? Because it gave the process an air of legitimacy it did not deserve. This is the same type of lie, without the force behind it. 2. Claiming Objectivists as Libertarians furthers Libertarians' political goals of group membership. Libertarians who might be curious about Rand are told, "Oh, Objectivists are Libertarians". Any further questioning seems unnecessary. It also implies Objectivists are no more deeply grounded than Libertarians, so why search for deeper meaning? This is as deep as it gets: moderately smaller government, individual freedom. We know better, which is why both sides keep saying opposite things. Edit: 3. Probably the most common reason in real life: Libertarianism is defined as essentially "smaller government and individual freedom". Libertarians look at what Objectivism mandates, and say "oh, you're for that too. You're one of us!" This has a lot of parallels with modern Christianity, where most practitioners have little to do with the details of the Bible or Judaism. If one believes in being kind to their fellow man, and living a "basically good" life, most people would consider that "Christian". That the word has a more precise meaning is lost on a lot of people. ("Basically good" has been left intentionally ill-defined, because that's how it is in their minds.)

This sounds awfully second-hander. "We can't do this - what will people think?" If AS gets to #1, articles will be written about it. More people will notice the book. Many will buy it and possibly read it. Their reactions are their own; I wouldn't presume to dictate. Although I agree a sustained publicity purchase by, erm, "the faithful" to keep the book in the #1 slot would be dishonest, I don't see anything wrong with deciding it's in your own self-interest to help promote Ayn's ideas by buying a copy on her birthday.

Megan has hit the nail on the head here. Ask an objectivist about their deeply-held beliefs, and they can list them quickly. Ask for justification. It is usually given without venom, and they can answer reasonable questions calmly. (Unreasonable questions may be another story...) Now do the same with a deeply religious person. Unless they are trained in theology, you will probably get a core belief plus a few ill-defined responses. Start probing and asking questions. You'll be amazed how quickly the conversation stops, ending inevitably with "well, that's just what I believe". The more you explore the baseless nature of these beliefs, the more you are resented and the beliefs stand unassailable. The reason for this must be inferred, but I believe it is because the people feel they would have nothing if they didn't have this! I believe this is the terror to which Ayn is referring.