nimble

I dont see how you can advocate allowing more than one government to operate in the world. If you concede that as long as men are consenting to a government then they can fraction off and create their own, what line can possibly be drawn to stop men from continuing to fraction off until each government consisted of one individual? I think thats ludicrous to allow such a thing.

Do all men under a particular government have to consent to the government in your idea of other moral governments?

If there is only one form of moral government, wouldn't that logically imply that there should only be one government which abides by that moral law? So why are Objectivists satisfied with multiple world governments? Shouldn't we fight for one minimal state government?

If you are asking why Objectivism hasn't won, is because the majority of people aren't philosophers. They implicitly accept the axioms of Objectivism (or I should say reality), but they don't explicitly accept them. Objectivism isnt the first philosophy to say A=A, or that reality is independent of the observer. I think the only reason it hasn't "won" is because of the large amounts of religious people, and that those who are atheists dont like the cultish aspects that are misconceptions of Objectivism. Even I have felt alienated by Objectivists, because I differ in the realm of politics, so because I do not accepts EVERY thing Rand wrote, apparently I am not an Objectivist, even though I believe and support all other aspects of the philosophy.

Okay, Im going to try to add to this debate. Patents and copyrights are legalized monopolies on certain IDEAS. You obtain a patent or a copyright because you are scared that someone might STEAL your IDEA. So you protect yourself legally. IDEAS are not SCARCE, in fact, any rational mind is capable of individually coming up with an already patented idea. If this is done independently, how is it STEALING? Really, I see no way that you can really steal an idea. The only way you can obtain it is by someone (the creator of an idea) giving it to you, by selling you his product. The rational way to handle the problem of keeping people from taking an idea they cannot create independently is by creating a contract, that when one agrees to purchase an item, they may not copy it. An example: If I buy Atlas Shrugged, and the terms of the agreement between me and the author or publishing company is that if i purchase this, I may not copy it. Then lets say I do copy and sell it. Not only can i be legally sued by Rand and her publishing company, but I can be sued by the person I sold it to, because I sold it to them under the pretenses that I wrote the book, which was fraud. This is a way to legally handle the situation without a government enforced monopoly.

Okay i'll go back and read it.

Would you like it if some TRULY free nation, viewed the US and its socialistic ways as a threat to their freedom, because we sometimes invade and interfere with things we shouldn't? So they launch a war and kill ALL AMERICANS with carpet bombs and nukes, simply because we weren't sufficiently uprising against our government.

Do you agree with the majority of stances the US takes on issues? How to handle schools? How to handle the economy? How to handle foreign relations? Yet, do you sanction "the evil"? Yes! But some of us choose to work within the system to improve things for the better. Now imagine you are under a regime that rules by force and fear. What options do you really have? I think its better to take out leaders and officials through covert ops, rather than full out war.

I understand where you are coming from, where there is no overt use of force, yet the threat is there. Like when a man holds a gun to you, he hasnt pulled the trigger, but you have a right to defense. However, I think full out war is a poor choice in most cases. I would prefer using special ops to stop these threats.

YES! Every collectivist government is a potential threat to the US and its freedoms. Should we go around killing all the country's men, women and children who may or may not be affiliated idealogically with their government simply because they live in some geographical area?

I believe that we do get a package deal, when you donate for a government. So, yes it can work. As for your comment directed at me, how did you draw the line of 50,000 men? And when you say "An army is a large number of fighting men which can be used in case of self-defense or pre-emptive strike." That is a bad definition. NO AMRY government or personal has the right to pre-emptively strike. NO ONE has the right to initiate the use of force.

No, but I intended to point out that his claim was hypocritical. He claims that because private protection can be used for evil means,, it should not be legal. All I asked is, why not complain about government for the same reason? Government armies have a legitimate purpose, and so do private protection agencies. And as for the indistinguishability of security guards and armies, the only difference is the number of "troops/guards" you own. And I dont think anyone can draw a distinguishing line.

Wow, nicely put

I dont see how private protection encourages anarchy? Do you think that malls should not be allowed to hire private security? Or that banks should not be able to have armed gaurds?

So you have problems letting a rich person control an army, because it might be used irresposibly? Why dont you have the same complaint against a government raising an army? It is not as if government has never used an army for "crooked means."

Why do you not believe in intellectual property? Even if you are libertarian, Rothbard has the same stance I have. If you stole someones idea in some way, then that is immoral. If you came to the idea on your own or through analyzing what is available without using force to get access to the idea, then it is your right to produce it.

Good point. I agree with you.

I dont see why we protect intellectual property at all. If some man in China creates a wheel and some man in America creates a wheel and both do so independent of one another, who has the right to stop either from producing the products of their minds? However, if someone steals an idea from someone else, and it can be proven, then you have the right to treat that person like any other theif.

No government can get unanimous consent, it is practically impossible.

Okay, property is a poor word. But at the same time, you effectively evaded the issue. If a child has rights, how can it be forced to act against its will without any repercussions to the parents?

I dont think that would happen, that isnt very economically efficient. However firing the employee might be more effective. Okay, would you like to tell me Miss Rand's theory, or at least direct me to a book?

Okay that makes sense. I'm still a little caught up on the idea that a child can make the decision to delegate its rights to the parent. We delegate our rights to the government through volition, the child does not. But what you said did make some sense. So keep going.

How so? Since when do children have the same rights as adults? If so, they would not be treated as property. When a child doesnt want to go to the grocery store, can the mother throw the child in the car and take him against his or her will? Yes. Because the child does not have the same rights as a fully rational adult. Can you sign a mentally handicapped person into a institution if you are the gaurdian, against the person's will? Yes, because they do not have the same rights a FULLY rational adult. Do you see how rights stem from rationality? You only have as many rights as your rational capacity allows.

Well in the case of a robot, if they are not programmed, and instead are reason based AI, then yes they will get rights, but their rights will be slightly different. It will be determined by their nature to survive. If they in any way are required to aggress us by their nature, then we have the right to self-defense. As for the dog, NO it does not have rights until it has the mental capacity to respect rights. And low mental capacity humans dont have rights either. Like a child for instance, their parents have all the rights and the child only gets the rights that it can respect.

I wouldnt say Ive ever read any thing that tries and succeeds to refute the philosophy. However, I have read many valid critiques of Rand's attempt at psycho-analysis. And I have read a few things that dispute a few parts in the politics of her philosophy. However, the philosophy as a whole remains pretty unscathed.