AllMenAreIslands

I liked the response very much! I like how you repeated the words chosen by the original letter writer ("working together") adding in the key word "voluntarily" that he'd left out. Excellent response.

The real reason taxation is wrong is that, in the U.S.A., it ruins my birthday.

Are these "Buy Nothing" people also turning off their lights, their fridges, their heating (or cooling) and not eating or bathing either? Of course not! They'll all be turning on their computers to congratulate each other on how they didn't buy anything, even though they just consumed electricity to tell everyone so.

Thank you, Tenure. That does indeed clear up the confusion I had. I did not realize that infinity meant having no identity whatever. I've printed out the article and been reading it. It still seemed a little confusing; you did a great job explaining things. I can see that's it not a matter of synonymous terms (infinity, eternity, unbounded) but actually a matter of choosing the most precise term for it.

Sorry - I should not have posted to this thread. I'm moving my post over to the other discussion on this topic in The origin of the Universe.

Interesting title, aristotlejones. What is Mr. Lerner's premise? Is he actually contending there was no Big Bang, or just saying as I do that the Big Bang isn't the commencement of "Everything"? edited to add: 1. Okay, EC, I've begun reading that article and I could not get past the part where it is asserted that infinities are impossible. Says who? And why? I don't buy the concept - it makes less sense than the idea that there is no beginning or end to Existence itself. Sorry. Accept that the Universe IS infinite in the sense that there is no end to it, no beginning either. That is not to say that discrete entities are not finite, for clearly they are. 2. I put this in another thread, but it was an old thread, so I'm putting my post here in the more up-to-date thread. It's on-topic, in discussing "infinity" aka "forever." Forever is where the Universe lives. The matter itself, in different configurations, is recycled endlessly. Matter changes forms, but cannot cease to be. Scientists working on interpreting the data should not even think of answering the question "How did the Universe begin?" It is an improper question. The proper questions are when did this entity come into existence - this planet, moon, sun, solar system, galaxy, etc. Even the amount of material exploded in a big bang, huge as it may be, is not ALL of existence. If scientists were working on the premise that the Universe as a whole did not have a beginning, I think they'd find it easier to resolve the dilemmas that some of the data present. At the moment they are trying to include ALL data encountered into one umbrella, one "Big Bang." So of course they're finding it hard to do so. But it does mean they've finally reached a point where some data doesn't belong in "our" big bang, but in somebody else's big bang (or some other method of star/planet/galaxy creation.) It was only a matter of time & expanded space exploration that there would be data which seemed at odds with our wodge's Big Bang timeline.

Heh. And here I thought my avi was helping illustrate my nic. No, I do not accept that definition. Time is infinite because it is unending. I hold that the nature of the Universe IS that it is infinite in time. The Universe is eternal, as in, it has existed and will exist "forever." The existents of which it is composed will change over time, but the fact of existence itself will always be there, hence it is infinite. That is why I reject the Big Bang as an explanation for how EXISTENCE came into being. It explains how this particular wodge of space was created but it wasn't created from nothing but rather from a huge explosion (Big Bang) which itself was the result of a black hole that was a star collapsing and drawing into itself as much as it could until it could hold no more. I hold that that process of expanding and contracting is eternal, hence infinite.

I'm in Canada, and we had an election just before the U.S. (with only about 2 months of electioneering instead of about 24). In my riding, the incumbent is what's called a New Democrat, which means he's a bit more socialist than the average contestant. And he won handily. So my vote for one of the others wouldn't have changed things. I wrote-in voted by crossing out the name of the guy who was running as an Independent and inserting the words The Individuals' Party, My dream is to create The Individuals' Party and market it worldwide encouraging people to vote for True Freedom - meaning the kind of freedom you get when you choose rational government and objective law. Maybe it's a bit of a pipe dream. What do you think? Is it better than "No Confidence"?

I love my tattoos - I chose them for things that will always be important to me. For example, I have an island scene on my chest, right side. It's a symbol of Objectivism (and note that I got the tattoo before I thought up my online nic.) I also have a pineapple on my left arm, a symbol of healthy eating and a lifelong commitment to it. The other two tattoos I have were "test pieces" to see how I liked having tats. They aren't very visible.

50 years old and not scared of computers! (I should hope not. Fine way to earn a living.)

My parents were raised in Jewish households, my dad in a kosher Jewish one. They decided to raise us atheist, so I added to the Atheist vote. However, when your background is Jewish you tend to pick up the culture - the Yiddish expressions etc. We just didn't go to what's it called - synagogue! Didn't have the rite of passage at 13 etc etc. But... they were pretty committed to socialism, so they're less than happy with my interest in Objectivism. Oh well.

"Accepting the consequences of pregnancy" does not necessarily mean bringing a child into the world. Dealing with the pregnancy by having an abortion engenders consequences too - for example, dealing with one's thoughts & feelings after the procedure. After having had an abortion, one might years later experience regret or sadness at having had the abortion. Those are all consequences to be dealt with and which a woman should consider at the time she learns she is pregnant.

I've been reading Ayn Rand and other Objectivist authors since 1982. Actually, that's just over more than half my life!! Very happy to have found this site - big thanks to SBP2009 for steering me over here.

Yes, that's what she meant.

Definitely the main problem is lack of nomenclature. It is simply idiotic to talk about "baby universes" when what one is trying to refer to is the amount of space occupied by the contents of a single big bang, post-explosion. The axiom that "Matter changes its form but cannot cease to be" is what made me realize that the Big Bang didn't bring the Universe into existence. The Big Bang that was responsible for our corner of the Universe only gave rise to one wodge of space. A wodge among many. Yeah. I figure "wodge of space" is a better term than "baby universes." A wodge of space is the amount of room needed for the product of a big bang. Although it will be a fairly long time before we're able to measure a wodge, we clearly need the term in order to discuss in a rational manner the life of the mass of material that explodes in a big bang. Reason says that a black hole is a big bang in the making. When enough material is absorbed into a black hole, it turns into a big bang. Therefore, there is no beginning and no end to the Universe. A given configuration of material in a wodge has a fairly hefty lifespan, but it's not infinite. Each time a wodge returns to its black hole state, it is probable that next time the material explodes in a big bang, the configuration will be different. The Universe is infinite because the material of which it is made is constantly being recycled. Makes sense to me.

A thousand miles across? That sounds kind of teeny tiny. Looks like people have lots of ideas of what constitutes a black hole. It sure sounds to me like there'd be plenty of room in the great Outer Space for lots and lots of "big bangs" capable of sucking in, then giving birth to, new galactic clusters every other fortnight, at least.

Not replace - restore. The original social contract was made among all rational men, to refrain from initiating force and to put the means of providing for individual self-defense into the care of the objective collective, by means of having men and women who would act as impartial judges according to rational rules of engagement. That contract was broken a long time ago because it seems the vast majority of people hold themselves in such low self-esteem that they don't believe themselves capable of providing for their own lives and happiness, so they grabbed hold of the gun to hold hostage the relative few who do consider themselves capable and get on with the business of living. The truth is, the "good life" of a rational human being is available to everyone who makes the decision to live like a human being. Actually, that's true. Given the nature of the "social contract" as written, I'm now not surprised that people were continuing to vote Republican or Democrat even though it's long been known that there's not really a fundamental difference between them. it has been shown that Americans have reached a new level of apathy when it comes to politics. When it makes no difference which one is chosen, the country steadily slides towards an abyss that is becoming increasingly inevitable. This is how screwed up things are. People would rather endure another Great Depression, where they can all have permission to be victims and hard done by, rather than choose to be responsible for themselves and making their lives enjoyable and prosperous for themselves. Hmm and I think we've stumbled across the hole in the chain-link fence. What is "work towards the general interest of the people"? That doesn't sound like "concerned with protecting individual rights against the initiation of force," now, does it? This vague bit of sloppy language upon which the busybody characteristic of the nanny welfare state has been built ought to be excised entirely. What is meant by "the general interest" of the people? Hasn't that been taken to mean just about everything a person could want in the course of his lifetime? The government isn't supposed to be working towards our general interest, it is charged with the task of protecting our right to work towards our own specific interest, providing we do not initiate the use of force. Actually, now the thought occurs that the whole debate about what are natural rights is to distract from the true intent of smuggling in the sloppy language about "working toward the general interest of the people," which as we can now see means setting up nanny welfare states intent upon dictating to each member of the group what his or her tasks shall be (as if we were insects in a hive.) I would have that that the meaning of rights was perfectly plain and by consequence that the true purpose and raison d'etre for government was to be the means of self-defense, each individual foregoing taking matters into his own hands in most situations and relying instead on an impartial government to hear the facts of the alleged instance of the initiation of force and decide who is telling the truth about what happened. (I say most instances, because if someone barges into your home, chances are there won't be time to call for assistance and one may have to take immediate action.) The point of government is to protect our rights to our lives and the product of our effort to earn and make our living. Property rights are part and parcel of the right to life, for they are the right to earn and keep the means to sustain our own lives, which effort each of us must expend in order to actually achieve remaining alive on a day to day basis. Taxation IS confiscation of the means of individuals to support themselves by their own effort. It IS theft - no doubt about it. Paying for government services must be on the same basis as any other transaction between two or more individuals - exchange of value for value. An Objectivist society would be more vibrant, more alive, more full of choices and options. It might seem more chaotic and disorderly to someone who doesn't know how to evaluate the options and consult their own preferences, desires and interests and select accordingly. There is a lot more for each person to concern themselves with. There's a lot more living to do. It might be too hectic for some, and they are free to do less with their lives. They just aren't permitted to prevent others from doing more with theirs. One doesn't need to cede rights; it's more of assigning them. Rather than behave as judge, jury & executioner, in a proper society that does protect rights to life & property & pursuit of happiness - it is in all our interests NOT to take the law into our own hands. However, when government is used to abridge our rights as a matter of routine, it cannot be trusted to protect our rights when another individual decides to abridge our rights as well. The gradual intervention by government into our lives is killing the fabric of civilized society. It's not the disintegration or rather, the change of the nuclear family. It is the disintegration of the principles of justice and the perversion of the role of government that is sapping our so-called civilized world of its essence. Helpful comments in their way. Thanks.

I think most people have a problem with the idea of abolishing taxation because they immediately leap to the (wrong) conclusion that one is advocating anarchy. One is not. The purpose of government is to protect individual rights against the initiation of force. There is no justification for the government to then become an initiator of force. When it does so, it is abusing its mandate as the legal use of retaliatory force. When it abridges citizens' rights (even in order to obtain funds to pay for its proper functions), it destroys the meaning of rights, justice and rational government. While many people proclaim themselves "willing" to pay taxes to achieve X or Y objective, their willingness is irrelevant. Were each person's consent required for each and every amount paid toward proper government services, we would not even need to call it "tax." "Tax" should not be confused with "Costs." The proper costs of a rational government can be raised voluntarily by citizens in their individual capacity and in their capacities on behalf of corporate entities. In fact, Ayn Rand's idea about contract insurance is one I would like to see numbers and figures developed for - as in, how much money would be raised when corporations are routinely insuring the many contracts they enter into on a daily, weekly, monthly basis? How close would it be to covering every proper cost? Based on the ability of insurance companies in general to earn vast sums, my sense is that contract insurance would create surpluses in government coffers.