A is A

Here's another example. The images is entirely made up of dots. Your brain integrates the dots to perceive a face.

You're getting off topic. The original question was "Basically my question is if no force is exercised why should government be limited, if i decide that it is in my rational self-interest to fund a basic education for children who otherwise couldn't afford it (and enough others also decide this) would it become a justified function of government?" My answer above stands to this question, and Crow's and Eluol's response to me is out of context of addressing the question. I was not formulating a theory of the functions of government.

I'm not sure if you're referring to what Crow said about what he said I said, but if either of you are going to attempt to cite something I said, please cite it accurately. Nowhere did I say or imply "only".

Are you implying that armies and police and courts will be formed without laws? I didn't raise the issue so it's not my responsibility to provide evidence of it or any detail for it.

Turns out it is very easy to know you're not in the Matrix. Not everything has a green tint to it.

I am the only one who will not die. My intention is to make history and become immortal.

It's been a long time since I've read something that fits the term "floating abstraction" as well as what CWilliams is talking about. Apparently, all voters have to do is "vote" for the government to "provide a service" and it magically happens. I think he has been reading too much Rothbard. A government does not provide a service. It provides a system of laws to protect individual rights. Using his scenario, the govt. would have to pass a law creating his system of schools (or whatever other "service" he deems some group wants), and such law would have to be applied to everyone, as any objective law would. So his suggestion is outright contradictory: his voluntary service immediately becomes coercive. CWilliams asserts "a Government's purpose is to protect the rights of its citizens" without providing any evidence as to why this is so or how it achieves its purpose, as if providing services is all that a government does, as if providing other voluntary services could possibly be within the purview of government action.

It means that service providers cannot prioritize their content based upon their own standards and which content gets delivered first, fastest, at what price. It means that individual companies are not allowed to engage in contractual agreements with their customers.

"Qua" is Latin for "in the capacity of" so "qua man" means, for Objectivism, pertaining to the capacity of man as a rational being. Since reason is his means of survival, the standard of good and evil in ethics pertains to actions and ideas that which enable man to live as a rational human being. Objectivism strongly disagrees with your view of ethics. It rejects utilitarianism completely.

You want him to use the legal system to fight against a government project?

The temple was private property, Cortlandt was public property.

And no, it doesn't beg the question. There might be 10 people who have motives to commit the same crime.

So, if 10 people see you hold a gun on a person, your fingerprints are on the gun, there's a camera overhead that has pictures of you pointing the gun at someone, and you have that person's money in your pocket, it's only an accident?

Humans do not inherently act to attain pleasure. Just look around the world.

There may be cases where knowing the motive is important, such as in self-defense cases where one person is dead and the other is alive.