AmoProbos
-
Posts
49 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by AmoProbos
-
-
^^Couldn't have put it better myself, under Rand's ethical guidelines it all comes down to what constitutes a "free willed, rational individual" and if there are different degrees of being rational that are to be treated in varying ways. And as the above poster brought up, how would we gauge these objectively? Perhaps Rand meant to leave this to us purposefully in hopes that further research would help illuminate the foggier parts of this whole debacle. Perhaps she had not thought of the more troubling aspects of the issue and assumed a clear distinction was prevalent to all rational actors. In any case, it is up to us to account for the lapse, a lapse that once filled will without a doubt define the entirety of Objectivist ethical practice.
I suppose our work is cut out for us, then.
-
I am under the impression that most, if not all, driving laws are, with regard to objectivism, unethical and impinge upon the rights of motorists. As an example, I submit speed limits as, at least on a public road, unethical. Should I not have the freedom to drive as slowly or quickly as I see fit, according to my own personal motive? And if, by chance, I slam head-on into another vehicle at 140mph of twisted metal and torn flesh, should I not be responsible for the damage I've caused? My point is this: Aren't speed limit laws implementations of that evil principle of equating the potential with the actual? I could drive 90mph and kill a child, yes; I could also drive 165mph, without a limiter perhaps, and cause no harm or injury to anyone. For the same reasons that I should be allowed to build, maintain, and use a weapon, shouldn't I be free to speed?
Of course, this all applies to a public road. I understand that if roads were privatized, it would be up to the owner of the road, in agreement with the motorists.
And I realize that my post is only vaguely related to the specifics of your post, but I thought this was an appropriate topic in which to begin this dialog.
-
My girlfriend and I discuss this, at length, constantly. On a fundamental level of definition, what the hell is a minor? I agree with the OP's statement - that there are "minors" who make rational decisions and employ the faculty of reason. I shy away from discussions of a "line", or a certain age at which we become fully rational, simply because that seems to evade the still unresolved issue of definition. If a minor is defined as incapable of thinking rationally, then a child who does think rationally is not a minor, and should therefore be afforded the individual rights and freedoms of an adult, right? I suppose the real question at hand regards the measurement of rational faculty. How, and by whom? What determines full rational faculty, and who, officially, determines it?
-
A state of war between nations is not the relevant consideration: what matters is whether a person is assisting in the initiation of force. For example, providing technical assistance to North Korea so that they are able to launch their nuclear bombs and hit the US or Japan would itself be part of the initiation of force. The same goes for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" -- thus supplying the North Korean government with food aid in order to help them evade the reality of their brutal policies is initiation of force. It is exactly analogous to giving a burglar the tools that he needs to break into your house, on the excuse that the man needs some tools.
What defines an aggressor? At what point does someone become labeled as such, so that voluntarily doing business with them poses the possibility of a threat?
Obviously, I could sell wheat to my neighbor. If my neighbor turns that wheat into a wheat bomb, and kills everyone in my neighborhood with it, am I at fault as well? Have I initiated force? Not directly, no. But, according to your post, by extension, I have. The only difference between my scenario and a scenario with someone deemed an "aggressor" is... what exactly? This is so reminiscent of Minority Report to me. I need some clarification, Dave.
-
In what way are you like this character?
As I've prefaced above, I am by no means well into the story. But from what I have read thus far, I seem to echo Keating's comparing his skills to those of his working counterparts and superiors. Tyco has added that Keating takes credit for Roark's work, which I have read an instance of already. In that quality, I am unlike Keating. I see no desire to take credit from another's work. It would feel like both stealing and lying; indeed, it would be intellectually (unless the person gave permission).
I think claire made a great point. There is no harm in pursuing the qualities of the characters from Rand's works, but there is no sense in expecting to become Galt, or, in this case, Roark. That is as senseless as expecting 100% yield in a chemical reaction.
-
I've tackled Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and Philosophy: Who Needs it?, and now, acting as AS's opposing fictional bookstop, I'm conquering The Fountainhead. Conquering, however, is an inappropriately brazen term. I'm only reading intermittently, but enjoying it thoroughly.
I find myself constantly comparing myself to the characters in the story, as I did in AS. I realize that each prominent character represents a philosophical analogue, and I am always curious to see how I stack up in comparison. Though while I was hoping to find myself similar to Roark, much to my dismay, I see myself more clearly as Peter Keating. What's worse, I'm seeing (only, at most, 50 pages within the text) the disgusting outcome of his character. Could someone, without providing any plot spoilers, please remove the fictional dressing upon Keating, and explain his philosophical faults? Other than that he derives his own personal value upon the opinions of others. Or is that it? I place a high value upon myself, but I can't help but notice that I also derive a certain value from the opinions of others. Whatever my philosophical fault may be, I know that it is rectifiable, and I only need a bit of knowledge. So what, in essence, is a Keating?
-
I'm back, and I am unqualified to counter this argument. I posted the Yaron Brook/Don Watkins article "Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures", and this is the rebuttal:
I scanned this and it's your usual anti-government, mostly fact-free, free market worshipping propaganda."government-licensed rating agencies, which gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities, creating a false sense of confidence"
This is true, but trying to blame the government for the irresponsibility and dishonesty of rating agencies is patently absurd.
"In the face of this long list, who can say with a straight face that the housing and financial markets were frontiers of “cowboy capitalism”?"
You mean that short list of sound bites? Yes. It's actually pretty easy to put most of the blame on the private sector if you aren't blinded by ideology, as you clearly are. Your "long list" is actually rather short and is largely a list of popular misconceptions.
"the Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to lend money to low-income and poor-credit households"
Feel free to produce one iota of evidence that any lending company made a mortgage they didn't want to make. You can't. Lenders loved making those loans because they were so profitable. The following was posted in another forum by someone else, and it provides a much more accurate picture of what happened than your nonsense:
******************
1. The congress created Fannie and Freddy many years ago to encourage home ownership. They weren't direct lenders, but would buy loans from S&Ls (remember them?) and banks who originated home loans on fairly conservative terms. The terms under which Fannie and Freddy were willing to purchase required hefty income ratios and down payments, and also limited the amount that could be borrowed.
2. This created a market for borrowers who could not qualify for conventional loans. The first big group were "jumbo loans", loans that exceeded the upper limit of what Fanny and freddy would accept. They also had "no documentation" loans, loans that had substantial down payments but didn't require borrowers to prove income and assets. These carried marginally higher interest rates, due to the higher risk involved. World Savings and Countrywide Financial led the field in originating these loans.
3. Since the originators of those loans couldn't sell them to Fannie and Freddy, they had to find a way to sell them to other investors. Sombody came up with the idea of bundling these loans, all of various levels of risk, into an investment pool, and then selling securities from that pool of money. They were able to get Standard and Poor's, the investment rating agency, to rate these as triple-A investments. Investment banks, seeing high yield securities with AAA ratings, gobbled them up.
4. This created a demand for even more of these securities, which encouraged the banks to orignate more loans. As they wrote more loans, the terms they accepted in originating the loans became looser and looser. "No-documentation" loans became known as "liar loans". Underwriters were encouraged to look the other way more and more. Why? Because the banks knew they would have no problem unloading the bad paper. The market for these securities was almost unquenchable. Even though the loans coming in the front door were getting riskier and riskier, they were still going out the back door faster and faster in the form of AAA securities.
5. Then the recession hit. The houses backing the loans they had floated, with inflated prices driven up by easy financing, started losing value. A lot of the loans, written as adjustable rate mortgages, started hitting the higher rates that were inherent in the loans, and the people who borrowed the money couldn't sell the house for what they paid for it, nor could they afford the payments. The loans went into default. All those securities, which were backed by the bad loans, which were backed by the devalued houses, lost their value. Since the banks were carrying these securities as assets, they themselves had borrowed money against those assets, and so were now in a position to default. The whole house of cards came tumbling down.
6. How was fannie and freddie involved? Not really that much. They pretty much ignored the sub-prime market until 2004, and then started buying the securities. They took a hit on the securities, and, although the loans that made up the majority of their business were fairly conservative, the housing that backed those loans were devalued by the crash of housing prices. Consequently, they ended up needing a bailout, but haven't had to pull as much money as they originally thought they needed.
Now, people should pay attention here. This was all done without any government agency encouraging anybody to buy those houses or any bank to write those loans. Government was NOT the culprit in this part of the story.
Was there a failure of government? Yes. As far back as 1999, community groups were complaining to the Federal Reserve about the predatory lending practices of these lenders. The fed did nothing about the problem. They were only paying attention to conventional lenders, and pretty much ignoring banks like world Savings and Countrywide. Further, the Congress abolished the Glass Steagal act in 1999, which basically deregulated the investment banks who were buying up the securities and borrowing against them. Some of the banks were leveraged by as much as 40-1 against those securities. AIG, the insurance company had gotten in the business of selling insurance policies called "credit-default-swaps" against the failure of those securities. When the securities failed, AIG lost billions. That exacerbated the collapse. The upshot was the massive bailout engineered a year ago.
So, this isn't about any special effort on the part of congress to expand lending by offering stupid loans to stupid people. This was strictly a private sector generated crisis. It might have been avoided by proper regulatory oversight by the federal reserve and the SEC, but anybody who says it's the result of some sort of scheme by Fannie or Freddy doesn't know what he's talking about.
******************
To this I'll add:
- Here's an article about community groups warning the fed:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9/26/AR200909...
- Credit default swaps were effectively a form of insurance against against the failure of securities. But credit default swaps were not regulated like normal insurance, so AIG was not required by law to put anything aside to pay claims. Believing such highly rated securities backed by real estate had virtually no chance of failing, AIG failed to set aside anything to pay possible claims, so when they started failing, AIG had to pay out billions in claims, and they had to get the money from other parts of the company.
"Credit default swaps are insurance-like contracts that promise to cover losses on certain securities in the event of a default. They typically apply to municipal bonds, corporate debt and mortgage securities and are sold by banks, hedge funds and others. The buyer of the credit default insurance pays premiums over a period of time in return for peace of mind, knowing that losses will be covered if a default happens. It's supposed to work similarly to someone taking out home insurance to protect against losses from fire and theft.
Except that it doesn't. Banks and insurance companies are regulated; the credit swaps market is not. As a result, contracts can be traded — or swapped — from investor to investor without anyone overseeing the trades to ensure the buyer has the resources to cover the losses if the security defaults.
[...]
American International Group, the world's largest insurer, recently reported the biggest loss in the company's history largely due to an $11 billion writedown on its CDS holdings."
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/...1723152,00.html
- Rating agencies:
"internal documents reveal that the credit rating agencies knew that the ratings they were giving the securities were overvalued."
http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/2008/1..._poors_and_fi...
- Regarding those mortgage companies being "forced" to make loans to people:
"NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday filed securities fraud charges against former Countrywide Chief Executive Angelo Mozilo and two other former executives.
The trio was charged with deliberately misleading investors by telling them the company was a quality lender of mostly prime mortgages and had prudent underwriting standards, while it actually was engaging in very risky lending practices in order to build and maintain market share.
[...]
"This is the tale of two companies," said Robert Khuzami, director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement. "Countrywide portrayed itself as underwriting mainly prime quality mortgages using high underwriting standards. But concealed from shareholders was the true Countrywide, an increasingly reckless lender assuming greater and greater risk."
From 2005 to 2007, Countrywide engaged in an unprecedented expansion of its underwriting guidelines and was writing riskier and riskier loans, according to the SEC. The senior executives knew that defaults and delinquencies would rise."
http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/04/news/econo...harges/index....
- The power of the free market:
"But on Thursday, almost three years after stepping down as chairman of the Federal Reserve, a humbled Mr. Greenspan admitted that he had put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton mortgage lending.
“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,” he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
[...]
“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business...my/24panel.html
Isn't learning fun?
This also shows that I, in fact, did not quit posting in the thread. I just couldn't leave well enough alone, I suppose.
-
Though I am aware that this thread has evolved into a discussion of innate contracts, I thought I'd share my final conclusion from the other forum. I chose to surrender, because it became increasingly clear to me that, even after countering their points, my opponents would continue in their irrationality:
""I assume this is some of Amo's nonsense. I don't read hist posts because, well, they're nonsense from someone who just enjoys arguing because he thinks it shows how smart he is. Only a real idiot would believe what he says here."
You aren't lying; you obviously failed to read my post, because you have claimed that I post nothing but nonsense, though you've failed to show how what I've said is nonsensical. I do hold the opinion of the minority, especially in this forum, but that does not negate my statements as untrue, simply because they are unpopular.
Your insinuation that the seller is responsible for the education of the buyer is absolutely incredulous. It is the buyer's responsibility to educate himself about any product, and saying that healthcare is "too complex" only belittles the ability of the human mind, and only attempts to paint man as some poor slave to capitalism, unable to better himself. That is patently untrue. Just as the men and women who operate the healthcare industry were able to learn about their trade, consumers are able to learn it too. Forgive me for considering mankind able and rational.
And in the case of health insurance, your blatant little false analogy is lacking. It would be rational to shop for health insurance before someone was stricken with a painful condition. Regardless, it is not the health insurer's responsibility to provide a person with health insurance, simply because they are in pain and are "incapable of thinking". That, sir, is nonsensical. And on you, I think even Van Mises would say to give up.
To all who have followed this conversation diligently, I applaud you. Those who disagree with me will attempt - indeed, have attempted - to draw me as a heartless monster. They have tried to paint me as a backwards, selfish, and even dangerous radical. They have decried my support of capitalism as prehistoric and outdated. To those who think me thus, I say this: Is it selfish to recognize my right to life and property, and to respect those very rights for everyone else? I think not. Is capitalism outdated, even though it has never been allowed to function, always swallowed immediately by regulation? I think not.
The absolute nonsense of blaming capitalism for the ravages produced by collectivism, and blaming capitalists for the larcenies committed by collectivists is pitiful, almost childlike.
It is clear that engaging any of you was a mistake. Literally none of you have grasped the concept of actual logic. All of you are suckers to the trend, and slaves to your emotions. While that, alone, worries me not, it is when you decide that your shackles best fit around the ankles of others that I object. I will continue to object to your impositions of force, be them in the name of the "public good" or "whole" or "nation" or "the children". I will continue to object to your assaults upon my property, because that is what is happening. You know it, and you don't care. But you will one day, and hopefully by then I will have eloped to the rationality of Galt's Gulch, to a world where men are truly free to work and play as they choose. When you've finally filed bankruptcy on all of your bloody debt and the world comes crashing down to rubble at your parasitic feet, I hope that I am away in a society for individuals, not "the people" - a society of men, not slaves or animals. You could at least have the common courtesy to erect a cage around your madness. Why not isolate yourselves and start your own country under your principles? Is that "too radical"? Or is it just that you'd rather leech from my pocket?"
-
She's come such a long way from defying tyranny at Bannockburn.
She's come such a long way from Adam Smith.
She's come such a long way from freedom.
What happened to my Scotland of 1314?
-
For those who haven't read the linked discussion, I strongly suggest you give it a reading, if only for the entertainment. He gave up after round 2, which was fairly surprising. I thought he would endure at least a few more turns.
If you find no humor in me satirizing and blatantly belittling an altrusit, then you might consider skipping it. But if you sail on the opposite ship, jump on in.
-
His question reminded me of the essay, Collectivized Ethics, by Ayn Rand, in The Virtue of Selfishness. Particularly the beginning of the essay.
I'm curious how your opponent would react if you simply ask him, "Should something be done in the first place. If so, why?" He'll of course answer Yes to the first question. Get him to justify his ethical premise for you with the second question.
If you visited the thread, then this may be redundant, but I replied to his question with "Nothing. Nothing should be done by a society in that situation, since it is only a collection of individuals." I added, of course, that it was up to individuals to decide whether or not to assist.
With regard to his original question, I feel comfortable in my response. It was simply the contractual pert that hung me up. Perusing this discussion, however, I am inclined to side with 2046, softwarenerd, and now apparently VcatoV, and the "no social contract" argument.
-
'AmoProbos'
"No. If you are an American citizen, it is by your choice. If you live in America, it is by your choice. By making either or both of these choices you tacitly agree to abide by the laws of the land, and the laws of the land authorize the government to collect taxes and spend them as the government sees fit. This authority does not require your personal approval for either the collecting or the spending. You have three representatives in Congress, so it is not taxation without representation. Therefore, the collection of taxes is not stealing, and if you don't like it you're free to move to a country where no one will demand you pay taxes to support anything you don't want to pay for. Somalia might be an option."
Without reading your contributions, it is clear that the other person is speaking as a pragmatist: he is looking at what is, not what ought to be; he is accepting current law and telling you to just accept it.
The problem with saying "taxation is theft" is that that is in a principled context to which others cannot relate.
Better to argue that you could accept taxation for the essentials of government - those functions that are required to protect our rights, and then question all else.
Agreed. In hindsight, I probably shouldn't have used the phrase. It was one of the "talking points" he was denouncing, however, and I wanted to see how he'd answer it.
-
Today, I picked a fight on an anti-conservative website that you may or may not have heard of, coffepartyusa. I jumped into a discussion about healthcare (you can read the whole thread here) and met resistance with the OP. I feel as though I did fairly well (not by formal debate standards, certainly, but by casual scuffle standards), but one statement he made irked me. I rebuked it, but for some reason his assertion is still bothering me. I think I'm getting hooked up on the contractual bit. I'll explain. I asked him, "Is taxation theft?" because he referenced that earlier, and he replied with this:
"No. If you are an American citizen, it is by your choice. If you live in America, it is by your choice. By making either or both of these choices you tacitly agree to abide by the laws of the land, and the laws of the land authorize the government to collect taxes and spend them as the government sees fit. This authority does not require your personal approval for either the collecting or the spending. You have three representatives in Congress, so it is not taxation without representation. Therefore, the collection of taxes is not stealing, and if you don't like it you're free to move to a country where no one will demand you pay taxes to support anything you don't want to pay for. Somalia might be an option."
Feel free to read my reply on the forum. Bear in mind that none of my responses are polished and they probably have a fair share of their own flaws. I also used too many expletives, which I realize is crass and I regret using, but I got a little heated.
Let me know where I slipped up. And if this turns into a grilling of my own logic instead of his, then so be it, so long as I learn something. Thanks!
-
Hmmmm... Who voted for the Mongols? Is this a joke?
Their horseback finesse is unmatched. It is directly from them that we can appreciate that ever-popular sport of killing people while riding a horse. In the face of these lofty masters of all things equestrian, it is obvious that the greatest civilization was, and always will be, the Mongols.
I'm just screwing with you, I voted Greece.
-
Just to contradict, I'm at uni and have never been happier
.Out of curiosity, what are you majoring in? And why have you never been happier?
Nevermind, I see you have already answered that.
-
That's right, if 51 people can force the other 49 people to finance the road with them though the government, it does violate the 49's individual right.
But let me put this into perspective:
If 99 people voted to build the road and can force that last person to finance the road against his will through the government, that is still individual right violation.
Which comes to your second question:
The issue comes first. Some issues are up for voting, others are not (like the above case). The fair percentage question can only apply to issues that are up to vote, and in those cases, the % should be determined by politicians through political science.
The issues that are not up to vote are not up to vote. No percentages can provide justification.
Thank you. I just didn't consider the distinction between voting issues. When you think about tax voting, it is obvious. But other things muddy the water a bit.
-
A proper constitution lays out the purpose and function of the government. This both limits and enables -- it prevents the government from violating individual rights, and it enables the government to protect individual rights from violations by other individuals (and other governments, but that should go without saying).
Certainly a pure majoritarian democracy means a lack of support for rights, because such a system allows the government to do anything that is validated by the support of 50% + 1 of the population. Such a government has no principled limit on its authority. For the last several decades the term "democracy" has been used as a package deal to combine majoritarianism with selected elements of a free society, such as freedom of speech, gender equality, religious toleration and the like. The effect of this has been to conflate majority rule with freedom, with disasterous results. Democracy, per se, is really a side issue. The fundamental in politics is the principle of individual rights. Everything else revolves around that. Voting has value only insofar as it contributes to the stability, legitimacy and effectiveness of a rights-protecting government.
You hit the nail on the head regarding my last post. I can see why 99% of people wanting something done seems arbitrary to impede if 1% disagrees, but if a vote has anything to do with taxes or property or rights, then does not that 1% hold the same value as the 99%, since their common denominator is the individual? I guess my question is this: What is a fair majority vote? 51%? 2/3? 99%?
-
A scenario that seems to beckon to me as a just example of unanimous voting would be in the case of taxation. I'm aware that Objectivism frowns upon taxation, but bear with me.
In the land of 100, there are, you guessed it, one hundred citizens. A majority of the citizens (exactly 51 of them), travel nearly the same way to and from work and home, respectively. There has been no road system erected, and none of the citizens have the time or expertise to build a decent road. They therefore decide to vote for the installation of a new road, to be completed by a government-funded team of road-makers. This vote obviously involves a tax increase.
If 51 people vote for this, does it not violate the individual rights of the remaining 49 citizens? That is classified as majority voting, though. Someone mentioned "good enough is good enough". That, to me, just doesn't seem like an Objectivist response to anything. I remember reading somewhere that Ayn Rand disliked "shades of gray", and that decisions were black and white; that things were one way or another. Leaving decision-making up to some scant majority doesn't seem to reflect Objectivism.
-
I haven't seen my favorite genre, let alone any of my favorite bands, on here yet. Although that is to be expected, since finding music for me involves looking for the least talked-about bands. Though I do love Rush and many other classic-rock bands, and they seem to recur here often.
My absolute favorite band is Frightened Rabbit, a four-piece Scottish indie group. They released their newest album, The Midnight Organ Fight, in 2008, and I have listened to it more times than I can count. This, to me, is musical gold. I've found nothing explicitly Objectivist in their lyrics, and if I were to really try and interpret them I would likely be forced to classify them as emotionally-driven. Then again, what lyrical music isn't? Is not emotion the driving force behind most songs?
Regardless, other bands I enjoy include Les Savy Fav, Whitey, The View, Glasvegas, Mogwai, The Fratellis, Franz Ferdinand, Dear and the Headlights, Band of Horses, The White Stripes, and Twilight Sad.
-
In an Objectivist society, would there be a need for voting? And certainly, if there were, voting would be determined unanimously, correct? Majority voting does not support individual rights.
I am trying to argue for unanimous voting (similar to voting procedures in a jury. If you have seen 12 Angry Men or the recent Russian remake 12, you know what I mean) in my government class, and the biggest argument against it is that it is arbitrary, slow, and not practical. In a sense, I can see why that is the case. But I know that unanimous voting is the only way to truly preserve the individual's rights, especially regarding taxation. A little clarification on this entire topic would be very helpful.
-
A lot of the reason was much more recent than that...
For your reading pleasure
http://www.science.co.il/arab-israeli-conf...-2004-06-06.asp
Thanks for the article. I must say, most of my Russian history is late czar and early bolshevik in its scope. I was born in the nineties, and I was never steeped in eighties foreign policy. Blame it on ignorance. But great read. Still though, I think it would be appropriate to qualify your original statement by saying that the US helped or helped significantly to dismantle the USSR.
Here I am, still riding this derailed topic-train. My affinity for digression is detestable =D
-
Of course, this is overwhelmingly off-topic. I have no idea why I pursued this line of discussion. My question has been resolved concisely and confidently, as they always are thanks to Objectivism, or more specifically, this community of Objectivists and Objectivist-enthusiasts. So thanks again folks.
-
It comes down to self-interest. Will the US be safer, or more secure? Would the country be better off by invading or by continuing the other myriad of pressures (economic nd political) to get those other nations to change their stripes.
The US didn't go to war with the USSR, but it certainly ended that country's communist government.
understood. no obligation, but moral justification.
I would consider that arguable. The US could even be said to have stimulated the USSR during the Cold War. Ultimately, the USSR consumed itself, as any communistic attempt will. Stalin's paranoid purges and gulags, his military strategy of throwing bodies at the enemy, his wasteful fiscal habits, these all set a precedent and a began a pattern that never really reversed itself. Doubtless the US aided in the fall of communism, but I find it hard to attribute the fall directly to the US.
-
Okay, that makes excellent sense. Practically though, what does this mean for a real country? Let's say the United States is the closest thing to an Objectivist nation (it's not even near that, I'm well aware). Arguably the rest of the world violates individual rights. Does that justify or neccesitate global war? Should we then be concerned with dismantling every other governement? If we did so, we couldn't establish our own government, as that would be imperialistic and a violation of the native individual's rights. So we would have to remove ourselves and hope that the next established government didn't violate individual rights. In the east? Tsk, unlikely. What then, should we do? I was always under the impression that isolationism was the way to go. Our country's individuals are all that our country's government should be concerned with, right?
And only when a criminal attacks an individual on our soil and escapes to safety on another are we justified in dismantling their violating government, correct?
Driving Laws
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
And so, the valid discussion to be had regards who creates these laws and whether or not they are rational?
Does my original premise hold on a private road? If I own a road, and I stipulate that there are no speed limits, is that rationally acceptable and legally justifiable*, so long as, in the event of a collision, both parties are adjusted properly in court?
I thought that Objectivism was a philosophy for an obtainable and nearly-perfect world. Is that an incorrect description? Assuming "perfect" strictly means an adherence to Objectivist principles.
*I don't want to muddy the discussion with an "is/ought" dichotomy. I realize that it may not be legally justifiable now to establish such a road, but my question is not of current actualities. Rather, it is a question of "ought".