StrictlyLogical

The trivial answer is to only spend money for proper purposes, and we know what those purposes are. However, money is also spent to cover prior obligations, for example the government borrows money from citizens with the promise to pay interest on that loan (savings bonds for example). The government also steals money under the promise to return a portion of it in the future (social security). The government has numerous contracts with individuals and businesses, which create an obligation to pay in return for goods and services. Sure, you can declare that the government has no right to make such promises and no person has the right to rely on such promises, because anyone should know that these are improper functions of government. The underlying premise of that thinking would be that a contract is automatically void if a party should know that it is morally suspicious.
Oh, also, we do not know for sure whether it is morally proper for the government to spend money enforcing contracts. That is because there is no existing pre-payment for litigation plan (i.e. the option of “buying enforceability” for property rights). We know that you have the right to have your contracts enforced, it is not determined whether you have to pay for exercising that right.
Clearly, the first step, which is strictly political, is to not authorize future improper expenditures. Dealing with past expenditures and the liquidation of existing booty to satisfy debts is a second and later step. Repudiation of debt is highly immoral, and is not under discussion. Evil acts have severe consequences. Youi, youj and youk all advocated the existing regime of “infinite government-supplied free stuff”, and thus bear moral responsibility for the severe consequences of government expenditure.

“cut payouts to the citizens and raise taxes on them.”
Ha, besides cutting the payouts, you almost sound like a mixed economy type….
Why not take a view through an Objectivist lens?
If what is moral and proper is a government wielding its monopoly on the use of force solely to protect individual rights, the broad category of “corruption and waste” properly defined includes any and all violation of the individual by imposition of force exceeding the metes and bounds of proper government fulfilling its proper role.
With that in mind, and keeping in mind America, even at her founding never met the high standard of an ideal laissez-faire capitalism, one could look at various aspects of America’s past, and conclude it should be better, i.e. greatly reduced or eliminated.
Countless departments, regulatory agencies, licensing bodies, every part of the welfare state, none of which are proper branches of government should be eliminated. All funding and government grants to any cause or NGO should be eliminated.  I have no stats but a proper government in broad strokes, should be much smaller than a tenth of what it is now, and in a free and prosperous productive nation such would  be able to shrink even smaller.
It’s not a question of reducing corruption and waste “in” government, but excising whole portions of so-called government because they themselves constitute corruption and waste.  Afuero!
That moral and proper exercise is the “real solution” to the problem.
 

A mathematician eventually changed careers to study this, James Lindsay,
https://newdiscourses.com/author/jameslindsay/
 
Woke is a form of Marxism.
 
 

It appears to me that this blog is being foisted upon us as though it were the official position of this site.
At the very least, it seems that what it says is given special sanction and endorsement by virtue of its special treatment, as no other blogs are automatically posted to the forum.
I suggest either the inclusion of other blog posters to balance the views of this single man… whether purported Objectivist or otherwise… and if not, I urge complete removal of any automatic blog posts.

Eloquent.
Here Stephen Hicks conducts a greatly reduced, Woke whistle-stop tour
 
 
 
 

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

You do realize an Objectivist forum (and America historically) are not gathering grounds for Socialists or Marxists, right?

SK
Imagine covering one slit leaving the other slit open and observing the pattern K1.
Imagine covering the other slit leaving the one slit open and observing pattern K2.
Now observe the pattern K3 with both slits open, it is neither K1 nor K2 and it also is not a sum of K1 and K2.
Without use of any science to speculate about what is "really going on" K3 is not K1 AND K2, K3 is not K1, and K3 is not K2.
To make K3 the electron needed to pass over, by, through a screen with two open slits. K3 requires as a necessity, electron passing + two open slits + hitting a screen.
 
How to put this into words is somewhat academic, but the electron interacting with and being processed through the TWO slits is what makes K3 and K3 is real.

Is P1 really true?  If the wave properties of the electron are important, can't it go through both slits?
 

With regard to knowledge of the outside world and the acquisition thereof there is no necessary contradiction between much of psychoanalysis and claiming we start as a tabula rasa with respect thereto.
If one were to hold that the human mind is structureless, bereft of any instinctual predispositions and absent any hard wired basic traits one would be wrong…. But as to “concepts” those are not formed and cannot be held or maintained in the same way as the “content” which we come with by default.  Concepts are formed afterward where there were none.. ie on the blank tablet of conceptual knowledge which we spend the rest of our lives accumulating.

With regard to knowledge of the outside world and the acquisition thereof there is no necessary contradiction between much of psychoanalysis and claiming we start as a tabula rasa with respect thereto.
If one were to hold that the human mind is structureless, bereft of any instinctual predispositions and absent any hard wired basic traits one would be wrong…. But as to “concepts” those are not formed and cannot be held or maintained in the same way as the “content” which we come with by default.  Concepts are formed afterward where there were none.. ie on the blank tablet of conceptual knowledge which we spend the rest of our lives accumulating.

I agree very frightening... the work of the actual courts and legislatures have not led us towards what we both agree would be correct and due regard for the 1st amendment, in a proper, individual rights protecting nation.

I do not believe in the concept of rights having exceptions.  All rights defined properly are absolute and have no exceptions... the so call exceptions are really simply events, actions, situations, what have you etc. which fall outside of the  actual area of the right.  Its like pointing to a map having an area purportedly showing what is your property ... but then saying this bit is really George's and that bit is really Ken's... in truth the map was drawn up wrong... draw it right and all of it, as indicated, is absolutely and exclusively (and exclusive of Ken's and George's) your property.  Concepts are the same, they can be sophisticated whether nor not they can be referred to with a single word, and just because we do not always have an easy way to express or summarize a concept does not mean the concept itself cannot have a "border" which is sophisticated.
So a right to freedom of expression means you are free to say what you believe, what you think, to joke about what you do not etc., not to commit libel for the purpose of ruining someone's career or life, nor a right to incite a stampede in a theatre by yelling fire when there is none... nor the right to threaten a person to make them believe you actually intend to kill them ... what is absolute is not the right to SAY whatever you want in any circumstance with no repercussion from the state... speech can be fraud, speech can be a kind of assault (serious death threats)... but if we are careful about what we mean, i.e. freedom to express one's opinion... then we have something which is an absolute.  I do not have all the boundaries of this concept "freedom of speech" determined... that is something proper courts and legislatures determine, in accordance with the constitution over many many cases and bills, over the years...
it certainly is less than you can say anything at anytime to anyone, but something more like you can express yourself without fear of government initiating force against you.

Tara Smith says something about this which is much better than how I try to explain it:
 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3166234_code955231.pdf?abstractid=3166234&mirid=1&type=2
Here is ARI referring to the paper:
https://ari.aynrand.org/tara-smith-pinpoints-confusions-in-the-free-speech-debate/
 
I will read the rest of your post later.

Our complex world is far larger than most people's ability to personally access geographically, and requires that we rely on communications, media, publications, etc. to perceive reality thereby or to receive claims by other people about that reality.
We live in an age where increasingly, media can be faked or simulated, photoshopped, AI generated etc.  We also live in an age in which civility and common decency for some has eroded such that brazen dishonesty and bias is rampant.  Of course everyone says they are unbiased or at least, telling the truth.
"Consensus", we here all know, is not a measure of reality by any stretch.  100 popular lies to evade reality are no more truthful, by virtue of how many or popular they are.  
The only thing in any society protecting whatever freedom they have from those who aim to reduce it, for any reason, is ABSOLUTE Freedom of Expression (within the proper definition of what that constitutes).
ANYONE advocating anything other than this should be regarded with the highest of suspicions.
 
........
A factchecker claims nonbias and truthfulness... such is profered as ... fact.  How does one "check" such a claim?  What organization or person is devoid of any possible bias, motivation, indeed personal experience?  Even were the entity to personally believe in their objectivity... those kinds of people are even more risky to trust because they do not see thier own biases, their own emotional hangups, their own skewed bias confirming thinking, and the more intellectual, often the more self-unaware...
I do not know of a model for any "central" single organizational fact checker, curator, claim debunker, etc. which has the kinds of checks and balances, that could satisfy me given all the concerns above.  The only "system" I could think of would need at minimum to allow completely disparate views and all of them, each allowed to present evidence (not merely links to other "opinions"), without moderation (which itself could introduce favoritism).  In fact even popularity (upvoting answers) could be a false-positive bias for truth... choosing or ranking any answer or any answerer are fraught with the same problem.


“Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?” -Groucho Marx
and we are living in a world where this has never been more relevant.
 
In the end I suspect there cannot be any solution better worthy of trust, and at the same time requiring diligent independent scrutiny, than everything which can be said and heard in a totally free market of ideas.

Courts and legislatures have, in accordance with the Constitution over many many cases and bills, over the years, determined certain things about freedom of expression. The most dangerous of those determinations regards defamation and its exceptions. It’s not too difficult to hold that many of these determinations are not proper, it is much more challenging to define what is proper and to objectively identify improper restrictions – or their lack. For instance, is the “public person” exception in defamation law proper; is it proper that a publisher has the same liability as an author for publishing lies? Is it proper that a newspaper publisher has less freedom of expression than an internet publisher does? Is it proper that a public school teacher be prohibited from expressing their religious (or non-religious) views at work, or that fundamentalists have no right to erect memorial crosses on public property? What is the proper definition of “fraud” whereby submitting fake certificates of electoral ascertainment to the Archivist constitutes fraud?

The US has a unique, and precarious, commitment to “Free Speech”. This commitment is under constant legislative attack (because most people do not support the First Amendment, they support their own right to express their own opinion), and the only serious firewall has – so far – been SCOTUS. But SCOTUS has not been particularly absolutist in its understanding of freedom of speech. “Commercial speech” remains a persistent exception to the First Amendment. There are substantial restrictions on actions essential to expression – contributions to politicians are at once vital to the ability of an individual to express his viewpoint, and also regulated by law. The contorted path of exceptions and exceptions within exceptions carved out by the courts should give every rational thinker cause to fear the ultimate collapse of the First Amendment as a rock-solid principle of American law. It has now become an annual event to determine what percentage of Americans think that the First Amendment goes too far – a position held by about 50% of Americans. I find that fairly frightening.

Our complex world is far larger than most people's ability to personally access geographically, and requires that we rely on communications, media, publications, etc. to perceive reality thereby or to receive claims by other people about that reality.
We live in an age where increasingly, media can be faked or simulated, photoshopped, AI generated etc.  We also live in an age in which civility and common decency for some has eroded such that brazen dishonesty and bias is rampant.  Of course everyone says they are unbiased or at least, telling the truth.
"Consensus", we here all know, is not a measure of reality by any stretch.  100 popular lies to evade reality are no more truthful, by virtue of how many or popular they are.  
The only thing in any society protecting whatever freedom they have from those who aim to reduce it, for any reason, is ABSOLUTE Freedom of Expression (within the proper definition of what that constitutes).
ANYONE advocating anything other than this should be regarded with the highest of suspicions.
 
........
A factchecker claims nonbias and truthfulness... such is profered as ... fact.  How does one "check" such a claim?  What organization or person is devoid of any possible bias, motivation, indeed personal experience?  Even were the entity to personally believe in their objectivity... those kinds of people are even more risky to trust because they do not see thier own biases, their own emotional hangups, their own skewed bias confirming thinking, and the more intellectual, often the more self-unaware...
I do not know of a model for any "central" single organizational fact checker, curator, claim debunker, etc. which has the kinds of checks and balances, that could satisfy me given all the concerns above.  The only "system" I could think of would need at minimum to allow completely disparate views and all of them, each allowed to present evidence (not merely links to other "opinions"), without moderation (which itself could introduce favoritism).  In fact even popularity (upvoting answers) could be a false-positive bias for truth... choosing or ranking any answer or any answerer are fraught with the same problem.


“Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?” -Groucho Marx
and we are living in a world where this has never been more relevant.
 
In the end I suspect there cannot be any solution better worthy of trust, and at the same time requiring diligent independent scrutiny, than everything which can be said and heard in a totally free market of ideas.

The present Democratic Party has had a radical shift. "Socialism" now, is "the real thing", well beyond a pale semblance of yesterday's 'soft socialism'.  (I know some Americans and roughly kept up with events over there). The Party is not in the slightest comparable with what it was; as some friends deserting the party say, "unrecognizable", with the JFK, or for that matter, Goldwater, era. Also my firm position has been that any "issues" (like abortion rights), are and ought to be subsumed under uncompromised individual rights. Promoting other "rights" in isolation is detrimental to that objective - ultimately to the pro rata "rights", also.  The Republican support ~could~ one day fully accept individual rights, the hard Left will never.   

A vote for Harris will mean increasing censorship, increasing regulation, and decreasing scope for individual rights. And that's just for starters.
The Left feels entitled to their own "facts," and they are willing to impose their "facts" by force. They are unwilling to compromise. They are willing to smash the existing system to make room for their new one. They will continue to use censorship to conceal any evidence that they are wrong (or evil). Anybody who disagrees with them will be treated the way the medieval Church treated heretics. The burden of proof will always be on the heretic. (By contrast, the fundamentalists on the Right are a shrinking minority, who still find it necessary to compromise in order to get elected. The Right as a whole is still influenced by Locke; I think the spirit of Locke, unidentified, is what the conservatives are trying to conserve.)
I think the Left is unlikely to leave abortion to a woman's individual choice, since they oppose individual choice in regard to literally everything else, except when such choices can be forced on others at the expense of the recognition of reality. They'll figure out a way to make abortion their choice, not the woman's; they'll probably oppose abortion when it's sensible and only support it when it's absurd.
The Left will alter the Constitution or interpret it out of existence, so that they can stay in power with no accountability.
Once they are firmly in power, there will be no legal obstacles to totalitarianism.
Or you can vote for Trump.

So it has a name. Cloward-Piven. The insidious movement by a relatively minor element to take control over America, signs of which I have been noticing for ten years, on the outside.
It's now time to get over the personalities, "style" and foibles and even stated "policies", of the next possible leader and to return to fundamentals and get priorities straight.
What do they represent?
Simply, I see two terms of a Democrat in office producing a Socialist White House. While not yet a dominant 'socialist USA', for there will be stern resistance.
"Clearly, lesser evil than Trump": this zero-to-hero candidate, the attractively giggling Kamala, having been obviously primed, rehearsed and groomed for live appearances , if successful, would be under firm control of her far-Left puppet-masters, I have no doubt. The power of the media has elevated her in the matter of weeks and would go on playing soft ball with her afterwards.
( I admit my single lasting impression of Harris, happily enthusing in interview about the BLM riots (sorry, "protests") - and that they must continue throughout those elections. This, an AG, on the side of law and order, stoking up disorder or violence for the political dividends?)
The luxury of a moral, political choice has all but disappeared, turned into "emergency ethics".

Roark exists in a world without John Galt, in a world without Ayn Rand, in a world which had not discovered Objectivism, and also Rand had not completed her philosophy to the point one could call it Objectivism... that likely happened during the writing of Atlas.  It would be unlikely then that Roark would know Objectivism or act completely in accordance therewith.  He does at least in some respects have a sense of life akin to an Objectivist, at least in some realms of action and thought.

That said, even IF Rand had completed her philosophy beforehand, say had written The Fountainhead after Atlas, there would be little reason to write another character who was a perfect Objectivist and in fact one might argue, it would be inappropriate to the vision and purpose of that new work, while John Galt is the appropriate character for Atlas any other work requires some different character.

An artist creates admirable and unadmirable characters with strengths, quirks, and shortcomings which may change over time, but focuses primarily on a plot which illustrates the person's character in action and the consequences of those actions i.e. illustrates relationships between a person's identity and his actions, and his actions and reality.  There is no need for any protagonist in any book outside of Atlas to perfectly exemplify the entirety of Rand's philosophical and moral framework... that would be another book with a John Galt...  what her aim would have been (I conjecture) is to write a different story in which a different protagonist is simply someone different, and the actions and events flow from the virtues and vices of the characters in a way which is compelling and meaningful, and hopefully he learns something along the way (or at least the reader does).
 
EDIT:  I am of the view that Roark did not act rationally in that moment but acted passionately.  It was more than punching a man in the face for insulting one's wife... but I take it in that vein.  He is not a perfect Objectivist, but he is a great character... a pattern which I find very true in the real world as well.

Don't answer these trolls with even legitimate answers guys, mass report them for their designed nonsense. Don't give  lying trolls the benefit of the doubt. Think deeper that what they are actually doing instead of asking honest questions is making the Forum look bad when legitimate non-trolls with honest intentions comes here.

Ayn Rand opposed imposition of forced charity which is what welfare, when mandated by Government, is.

The freedom she espoused is consistent with voluntary individual, social, and cultural action, including generosity, charity, encouragement and rehabilitation/training initiatives, and by implication would require Government NOT to interfere with, regulate or tax, such welfare, community, charity work.
Far from banning the citizenry from being as generous and charitable as they wished to be, she posits the only system in which the citizens would be entirely free from interference to do so.

It all boils down to a question of force versus freedom.
 
Since you clearly believe in charity and the welfare of others... I encourage you to devote some of your personal time and money in direct support of it.

It is not hypocritical to take steps in order to get back monies she paid in taxes, of numerous kinds, direct and indirect, over a great portion of her lifetime.