Yes

I'd like to comment on one aspect of Paul McKeever's response to Jack Boulogne: It is a weakness of Mr. McKeever's argument that he has to try and define the vague notion of a "perfectly laissez-faire system." And, as such, draw the observation that it would be an anarchistic one. The idea of a system based upon no government control or intervention of economics does not mean that government cannot be authorized by its citizens to protect the rights of its businessmen. Government control clearly indicates the control of trade, i.e., regulation of foreign trade, regulation of interstate commerce, price controls, tariffs, which mainly have the purpose of forcing the businessmen to "contribute" monies to government- that's what taxation is all about.

So would Jefferson. Jefferson was the most progressive President we ever had- and the most intellectual. A true Renaissance man, he also designed and built edifices. However, either Washington or Jefferson would be a better president today than any president we've had in my lifetime (which began in 1948). Footnote: I do think that George Washington was worth a celebratory holiday, and the renaming of his holiday as "President's Day" was a puzzling act of Congress.

Absolute bull. Fatah is the major party spawned by Arafat, responsible for the killing of many Israelis; the "fact" that they haven't killed an Israeli in 10 years does not excuse their atrocities and legitimize them.

Iran is the world's second largest producer of oil in the world. All the oil they need to generate their power is at their disposal. Yet they insist their nuke program is to generate energy, and they deny that they plan to produce weapons? Who are they kidding?

Nice of them to set up a site that Israel can send a missile to destroy. Hamas winning the elections is an obvious travesty of the election process. But the opposition was the other predominant terrorist group, Fatah.

I agree. But the Muslim fundies are offended as no one there has the right to criticize their beloved prophet in any way. So they manifest this anger and outrage the way any uncivilized group of animals might- by rioting and killing. Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Muslims in the "eastern world". They stood by while thousands of innocent Americans were cold-bloodedly slaughtered on September 11th. So if they wish to slaughter each other over cartoons, then I'd just as soon let them.

The other criticism I have of The Fountainhead is that, for some inexplicable reason, the movie starts with Roark relegating himself to the quarry run by the Francons. I realize that Rand wrote the screenplay, but for me, it misses some valuable content of the original book. I also found Gary Cooper to be a disappointing effort in this movie. However, Raymond Massey's Gail Wynand and Patricia Neal's Dominique were superb!

Strongly inclined to agree with that I used to term it "hard rock." -the kind of music that relies on high volume, distortion, and a thunderous beat. Hard Rock is a broader, yet focused category that includes such bands as Cream, Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Iron Butterfly, etc. I don't recall the term "metal" prior to 1971, when a group like Black Sabbath was termed by a music critic as being "heavy metal." I'm not sure what black metal or pop metal really means, and who are examples of that form of noise.

If you offered a link to an article on the Web, such link still cannot be differentiated by color from the text body. I think this is a major flaw that the admins at that forum could, and should fix.

Besides, she sat on the Board of Directors and was a major shareholder for Taggert. Great aspect of Atlas Shrugged - Rand's keen understanding and insight as to big business coping with the challenges of the mixed system.

Certainly, I'd be open to any logical suggestions as to how it is we pay government to protect our rights. A definite step in the right direction would be to pare government down such that its sole purpose would be to protect our rights. I see nothing but positive consequenses arising from this- including a substantial amount of tax dollars the government will no longer be able to steal from us. Hey, I can dream, can't I

Are you sure? SOURCE That supports my argument.

I read Atlas Shrugged and having been profoundly interested in that aspect of the book, I have to disagree with you regarding Rand's characters not relating to real life. Rand was very specific in The Romantic Manifesto when she wrote that her characters wanted to not only be extensions of her literary art but also relate to real life- hence her self-labeling "Romantic Realist." The characters of both James and Dagny Taggart could be found in any particular large corporation. And their corporate relationship to each other is also reality-based.

The 10 minute posting thing did me in. Have they corrected this in the new forum?

Dare I go back on topic? In the mixed system, even the right to own property is compromised by taxation of such property. It was further compromised by the Supreme Court decision recently that validated the seizure of property in New London for the sake of Pfizer. So if the government decrees that your right to your property is trumped by a higher public purpose, as determined by the highest court in the land, then they can seize your property. Much is wrong with this picture!

Intellectual property is the domain of an individual; in some cases it could be the domain of a private entity, i.e. corporation which has the patent to a product or service. The statement of "US intellectual property" then is a bit misleading as it implies that such property is the domain of the American government, which it is not. In any case, I perceive the solution to this problem to be that the American corporation whose intellectual property was violated overseas by another company could attempt to file due process either in an American court, and hope that the foreign country would honor such judgment, or file due process directly in such foreign country. Here's an example of how Starbucks won such a case in China.

Monty Python's Flying Circus

All of that is true, but that does not support your argument that businesses do not pay taxes, now, does it? See my profile for such information.

Now, keeping those hard facts in mind, how is it that the employees and their union can share in this loss? After all, the unions demand profit-sharing and to share in cash surpluses, right? My thoughts- the MTA should seek to lay off a multitude of these employees!

Gags, your assertion that the business itself doesn't pay taxes is not only patently false, but, as an independent businessman, I take offense to such statement. First off, the amount of such "tax" that I may pass on to my clients is going to be limited by what the market may bear regarding what I can charge. Also, any such increases in my costs would be passed on to my clients, but, even in that case, such increase in fees would be tempered by what I perceive whatever tha market might bear. This is true of any business. It is important that, in any discussion of taxation of business and its effects on the cost increase, that you show an understanding of the way the market works, which you have not. In any case, business pays taxes. Lots and lots of taxes.

If one exercises the choice not to pay the businessman, it is because an agreement was not consummated to trade goods or services. With government, an agreement was consummated by the citizenry to have the government protect the rights of each individual citizen. Therefore, payment is expected by the government for such protection of our rights. Therein lies the difference, I think, between dealing with a businessman and how one funds government. My argument- once you authorize the government to protect your rights, you are expected to pay for such government duty. No free lunch. One way government tries to fund itself is through the sale of bonds. Now government, at maturity, has to pay back such bonds, does it not? And, with interest. So the government has to get some cash flow to do this from somewhere. The process of government existing for the sake of protecting our rights, and being paid voluntarily for something we contract the government to do, still puzzles me to this day.

When you approach a businessman for goods and services for your consumption, you negotiate a value for such services or goods that is supposed to be equal to the value of the goods- in other words, an exchange. When you approach the government.... in the form of authorization, or however you wish to call this, should you not be expected to pay a price for such? And what if the government claims you did not contribute, voluntarily or otherwise, an amount that represents such value? Now Gags, I did go to the thread on this subject you linked to. Unfortunately, I did not read nor discover any thread of compelling evidence nor logical argument as to how to properly and appropriately finance the government for its citizens' authorization that government protect the rights of its citizens. Let's face it, this is a very complex issue to answer. I really, truly wish that I could furnish such an answer, short of dealing with the government in a similar manner that one deals with business. Business does so pay taxes. That statement is patently false.

But, how is it different to pay the government for their protection of your rights, than paying a businessman for rendering a service or selling you goods?

ABSOLUTELY! We are in business to make a profit, and we earn an income. Wealth can be obtained either by earning an income or by inheritance- or both. Wealth is cumulative. In business, income can vary from year to year. Thus the amount of contribution to government we businessmen can afford is going to vary. What if a businessman loses money in a particular year? What is his obligation to government at that point? That is why I made that statement. I am speaking from the point of view of those who run businesses. I regret not having clarified that. My opinion- it is the businessman who is the main source of products and services, who is the main source of income. The employee merely contributes to the production of revenue in such business, and from such revenue draws his wage, so why is it that he/she should be liable for contributions to the government when the business he works for does so?

The issue then becomes "By what tangible standard should government collect what is due for its task of protecting our rights?" The standard of "wealth" does indeed relate to ability to pay, as the wealthier are more able to pay..... more money.... to the government for such protection. Yet the standard of "income" is far more tangible, and those who disagree have no concept of what it is like to run a business. So Gags, I disagree with you. I also disagree that contributions to government based upon one's ability to pay is an element of Marxism. Please furnish tangible proof that one does not have any obligation to pay the government for protecting our rights, under capitalism or any other system other than Marxism.