Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AllMenAreIslands

Regulars
  • Posts

    293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by AllMenAreIslands

  1. If this were true, then why is every current form of government either totally collective, or geared toward the collective or as with the case of the USA, gradually deteriorating back to statist/collectivist rule over individuals where lip service is paid to individual rights but the actual government structure does not actually and never has actually and totally respected those rights? My thinking is that a new kind of government which truly acknowledges, respects and protects individual rights ought to incorporate that purpose into its name, so as to never forget it. Hence my suggestion of the term Individualism. I'm open to discussion on which form of the word Individual (individualistic, individualized, individual, just for examples) might be best. Part of this is a marketing concept. People now have the label "constitutional republic" in their minds as yet another system that doesn't work. Even the best example, the US government, is almost universally panned. The original achievement is fading if people can even identify what it was. I do realize that the true culprit is not "government" but rather the subjective laws that government is asked to enforce. Maybe Individualist Government doesn't really work as a name for it. I was thinking that since nobody is permitted to initiate force, not even the government itself, individuals are free to determine the level of government protection they need/want. Their individual rights are respected and protected under such a government. That was my thinking.
  2. Taxes should not be collected, period. Even the most basic responsibilities of government should be voluntarily funded, which means that the coercive tax method should not be employed for any purpose. On topice: this National & Community Service bill is simply a prelude to the draft. I am saddened but not surprised to see it being passed.
  3. Very interesting presentation. Thanks for posting it, JASKN
  4. It might have been better if they hadn't led off with the racist stuff, and had stressed the more rational perspective at the beginning instead of at the end:
  5. Fair enough. How about this for a guiding principle? The merits of the name change outweigh the problems and hassles that would be caused. The onus of proving one's case rests with the individual who desires the name change, and the mods/admins reserve the right to judge whether the individual has proven that the merits outweigh the problems.
  6. I would say the rule should be that each case will be decided individually. Just because one person gets to have theirs changed doesn't mean that everyone else who wants a nick-change will automatically be accommodated.
  7. I like "In Reason We Trust" and also "Non-Prophet Organization." Thanks for the link. Very interesting article.
  8. I already sent a PM on the day, but just wanted to add my birthday wishes to the thread. Hope the day was lovely, Zip. All the best for the year to come.
  9. I'm in full agreement, Zip! themadkat, I agree with you about bloody rackets.
  10. And how about the manner in which government is funded? The wall I run into in this kind of argument is that it's "impossible" to have a voluntarily funded government, that it's somehow a contradiction in terms. They're not created but rather recognized. I agree with you, K-Mac. Well said.
  11. Some websites permit name changes. Have you asked the Webmaster, Ryan?
  12. This sounds reasonable. So what is needed for acts of self-defense during an actual attack are guidelines, rather than hard & fast rules?
  13. Perhaps, then, the answer to the original question is "Both." Most people are born with the tools to become Objectivist but the individual must choose to be rational and so is self-made.
  14. The problem I was having seems to be all sorted now. Thanks, sNerd.
  15. Good to see someone going on the record like that, even if it is a dissenting opinion which won't change the result.
  16. Actually I agree but not for the reasons they claim. Rather, it will be by forcing everyone to adhere to some idiotic standards of what is allegedly "good for the environment" which will cause the collapse of our civilization.
  17. Zip, I think you're partly right, but it's perhaps more that because some people would not make choices in accordance with a particular agenda, everyone has to be forced. Crizon, my assumptions are borne out by the behavior of corporations, which seek to protect themselves by buying insurance of many kinds, by hiring lawyers to represent their interests, just for a couple of examples. Companies will buy the insurance if they understood that it is cost-effective to do so, for example, in order to fast-track their route thru the courts in the event of a dispute. Individuals are just as welcome to protect their interests this way. Making it desirable for individuals & companies/groups to buy court/contract insurance is how government can properly provide itself with funding. Don't forget - a rational government is one that is involved in the retaliatory use of force. A proper government is not involved in the provision of health, education, social security, road building/maintenance and so on. There's no need for a proper government to raise funds to provide those services because that is not the proper job of government. In any event, the onus to sell the concept of government services is on those who are going to provide the services. The root problem with today's government systems is that that step is not just ignored, it's completely thrown out. Government is permitted by law to steal from the citizens, to take its funding by force. Your "what-if" scenarios of morals changing or people preferring to spend their money in "other ways" are irrelevant. Even if it were true that all of a sudden, people would change how they live their lives, that is no justification for government initiation of force. Government is going to have to make do with what funds it can raise by voluntary means, whether by offering services at a reasonable price, or by enticing people to buy government lottery tickets for a particular purpose, or by simply asking for donations. People are capable of rational decisions and if those decisions aren't resulting in revenue for the government, then the government has to re-think its strategy. The only thing government cannot have the right to do is initiate force. It cannot compel people to support it, for that is what's wrong with the system now.
  18. Thanks, softwareNerd. I'll try again to send a couple of PMs just leaving a time delay between them and get back to you.
  19. AllMenAreIslands

    Abortion

    Trebor has done an excellent job of responding here.
  20. I didn't ignore your definition - I responded to you in the last post of page 1. I think we are closer than not to 100% slavery. I agreed with you that we do not have 100% slave conditions ... yet. However, even in America I do think it's only a matter of time. As for your second question, everyone is entitled to justice. The entity to provide justice OUGHT to be the judicial branch of government. However, first what is needed is just laws to guide everyone in their actions, and to guide judges in deciding who is right and who is wrong in a given dispute. I contend that the existence of legalized theft and legalized coercion via the regulatory arm turn the whole mechanism of justice upside down. The standard by which to judge has to be put right. As it stands today, EVERY government behaves in a criminal manner. EVERY government has taken for itself the right to use coercion, in the form of taxation and in the form of regulations governing just about every single aspect of our lives. As regards the issue of trade embargoes, I maintain it is not an action to be taken by "government." It is an action to be taken by indviduals. As regards whether the US or Canada or any other nation ought to invade - it should be a matter that is driven by voluntary individual contributions to such a cause. It may be a matter of principle but it is also a matter of economics, of costs involved, and of the issue being understood and backed by individuals. The government should not be permitted to commit theft to finance anything.
  21. I didn't used to have this restriction. Is it new?
  22. I agree with you, Zip. I am still agog at the claims that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, greenhouse gas, something to be worried about!!! Did these people not study basic biology in elementary school? Have they forgotten that CO2 is the lifeblood of plants? More CO2 is no cause for concern.
×
×
  • Create New...