freestyle

Official simply implies an authority. In this case, one or more figures with the power to ban a book from a website, forums and media. One can be "officially" banned from this forum. The moderators here hold that power. I'm wondering what action was taken, and why?

If somebody tells me something that I find harmless was banned, my reaction is to ask why. One way to do that is to find an explanation by someone who banned the book. Another is to ask. Not speaking French, I chose the latter.

How was your book banned? What official action was taken, and by who?

Is that a fact?

So then, no limit to what can be charged (err, required by law at the threat of imprisonment)? The contract is vague, at best, on limits. IN our future and more philosophically enlightened civilization, that consent may be restricted from the start. I submit that this will not lead to imminent conquering of that society. I will grant that if Hamilton didn't get his way, we might not be having this discussion now. As I've stated previously, there were (and still are) more immediate freedom issue than the advocacy of a completely voluntarily funded government.

...but not without the consent of the governed.

They don't consider their movement stupid. And yes, I do think that deep down they would prefer to "purge" the world of the undesirables. You see it in all their comedy - leftists are always "joking" about killing their political opponents. In the end, their philosophy is authoritarian and statist. If you do not comply, they support forced compliance. We know where all this leads. Just track down the roots of modern environmentalism for yourself. See where it leads you. A few days ago: And check the quote at the end of this remix:

Very well said. This should answer the question.

Grames, I was assuming it was understood that "costs more" included all a nations wealth and available lines of credit. I think our disconnect is pretty fundamental. First, I think you're conflating the importance of forced taxation in winning these historical wars. If forced taxation was all that was needed, why didn't the USSR just tax their citizens more and build a "Star Wars Killer"? Second, the producers of wealth in a society are the ones who should control what is done with that wealth. And they will in a fully free society. Credit is not accepted as valid payment from any entity one believes cannot pay it back. In war, you're betting on the winners and losers. Those who control any substantial amounts of wealth, are going to "invest" it in the safest place. You might think they'd put under their mattress. Well, maybe. But that mattress is going to be in the country that they believe will win the war AND they'll spend any amount of it required to make sure that they're right about that. The wealth is not the property of the government in the first place. Taxing citizens more does not equate to a larger treasury. It suppresses private activity... pushes it OUT of that country and results in less returns. I'm simply not sold on the statement that taxation wins wars.

I don't follow what this statement has to do with anything. If it is a fact that winning a war will cost more more than a nation has, then they will lose. Right. Can you imagine this scenario? Han't history shown that freer countries create more wealth? Is a free nations likely to go to war with another free nation? I do agree that if the ONLY options are being conquered or mandatory taxation, you take the lesser of those two evils. Objectively making that choice is simple. That those are the only options -- has not been shown.

Consider that you're wrong and it was never intended by 10:10 as a SELF parody. Would your conclusion change? "At 10:10 we're all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn." http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure Also, what made the video funny to you outside of the fact that it was really made by an environmentalist org? I agree, there is some humor in their support of this folly.

"...use the website to spread ideas contrary..." If this forum is to be "used" to "spread ideas", it is obviously the ideas of Objectivism. If a particular person is posting to spread ideas of another philosophy, especially when the posts aren't even related to anything with regards to Objectivism, then they are simply "off topic" of the stated purpose of the forum. There is a debate area. Contrary ideas are discussed here often. Now, do you really not understand the meaning of what amounts to "Don't use this place to be your soapbox about some other philosophy"? Voicing disagreement is not the equivalent to "using the forum to spread contrary ideas". If your issue is semantics, would you like to suggest a different phrase than "use the website to spread contrary ideas"? (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you understand the rule's intent here.)

If we are discussing this issue within the context of a truly free market, the Grames arguments can't apply. The voluntary funding is the final (last) step. With that understood- The market will create the balance. Option 1 = Pay the exact minimum required to remain in free society Option 2 = Act irrationally. Don't pay, suffer loss of achieved freedom and submit to force that WILL result in you paying more. Option one costs less in dollars and freedom. That is not "utopia," it is merely a potential reality in the evolution of a civilization adhering to a philosophy of individualism and reason.

http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure Evil.

From above ...

You may have misread, or I was unclear. I was not granting the truth of "things would be bad". I was only pointing out the lack of a substantial argument for the morality of taxation. I want to convince first that, on principle, "(forced) taxation is bad". With political agreement there, I would argue that things would not be bad. But I think we have identified our distinctions. Understanding your position, I would wonder how you would state the fundamental principle to underly your defense of taxation argument. Whereas I would say, "initiation of force is wrong, therefore forced taxation is wrong", how would you state your operating principle?

And Dennis Miller agrees with you... - Ayn Rand at forefront of coming Objectivist movement.

Try defining that better. We all agree that your "gut" doesn't say things. The reason you can dismiss "instinct" in humans is because of your free will. Once you identify that you feel predisposed to act in a certain way, you become conscious of your power to choose your own actions. Animals (to our knowledge) do not have this faculty. If you feel like your gut is telling you something, there is a reason - biological or psychological. It is not magic. You may not be fully conscious of what (or which of) your senses are perceiving, but they are responding to something. Your DNA may be "predisposed" differently than other humans (for instance, to smoking or over-eating). Depending on your operational definition, you can call this impulse "instinct," but only if you deny the power of your rational consciousness and ability to choose your actions. Within the realm of consciousness, animal instinct cannot apply. If you're aware of an impulse and still act on it, you're making a choice. And by no definition can that be called instinct.

It looks like we agree. I was not being dismissive of how dangerous his ideology is. I was also not being dismissive of the danger of having an ideologically backwards leader at the highest level of political power. My comment was that, by now, he must know that his ideology is being rejected. He must be aware that he is now in a public position where no matter how many free passes the media and his friends try to give him, his ability to speak in platitudes only is of no use anymore. He is lashing out now, he looks old and angry while his hopeandchange schtick isn't working. He is in the most powerful political office in the world, and for the first time in his life, he's being judged on concrete actions. As narcissistic as he his, there is no way he can ignore his own inability to even communicate to voters any more. He may think he can get his mojo back, but he knows he's lost it for now. Do you think he is sheltered from how manufactured the process for him to even get a crowd to speak to is? He is an evader of the truth, but to me it looks like he knows. You see it in the anger. ...so yeah, now he is more dangerous. People who covet power and feel that their own moral superiority allow them to exercise coercive power are the most dangerous. Fortunately, our government structure and what is left of America's "sense of life" will make it very difficult for him to be as successful in the short time he has in office (whether that be another 2 or 6 years). This is not to say he hasn't done enough damage already, and won't continue to do more. It is just that being the President of the United States of America comes with a pretty bright spotlight. And, thankfully, people can still judge.

There is no way he believes his own words. The man knows that he is a helplessly incompetent leader. He sounds more and more like James Taggart every day.

I was not intending to suggest making your decision based on arbitrary assumptions. My point (as an objective 'devil's advocate' question) is to question whether or not it is true that there is no downside. Whether or not you donate your organs is, currently, a choice you are able to make. Part of that choice does not include who gets it. Shouldn't it? Does the calculation on whether one should donate "to all" change if the issue is not an organ and it is their wealth? Assuming it does, what is the objective basis for that change? My thinking is that one's choice ultimately comes down to an expression of their value of the society they're living in.

So far so good. Of course. The issue of actual slavery was the moral issue of substance that would come next. A society free of any type of economic "slavery" was not possible at the time to realistically address. And it still isn't now. But we're speaking in the realm of political philosophy and whether or not taxation is moral. I haven't seen an argument for forced taxation being moral yet. The closest justification I've seen is essentially, [paraphrasing] 'Well, I can't think of a way to make it work with out it, so things would be bad." The essential hurdle in making voluntary financing of a free society is first that philosophical change mentioned above. The political and structural hurdles to make it a reality are premature to establish because they will necessarily rely on what is realistic at the time it is to be instituted. So speaking of specific methods becomes very problematic. There are too many assumptions that cannot be realistically estimated correctly. When enough people in a given society hold to the principle that the nature of government is its monopoly on retaliatory force and, as a corollary to that, understand that the fundamental function of protecting the rights of the individual are limited to the force related functions of: Defense, Objective Law and Law Enforcement,-- Then, the landscape of that society will be open an array of creative financing options which will seem "impossible" to us now. The way I imagine the actual structure is where people pay directly for all private and government services they receive (and would never expect not to). When they don't, they don't receive those services. There will be indirect benefits to those of lower economic positions (for instance, the amount they pay towards police protection while still being protected), this is the logical consequence of a free society. (Not every customer at Starbucks has contributed equally to the free wi-fi, have they?) In fact, the indirect benefits for all the members in that society woulld be impossible to quantify. *I should note that a first step towards REAL private property ownership is very likely a moral issue that comes before complete voluntary financing. This is definitely an area where objective law is more easily able to be seen as... objective. "Any program of voluntary government financing is the last, not the first, step on the road to a free society—the last, not the first, reform to advocate. It would work only when the basic principles and institutions of a free society have been established. It would not work today." -- “Government Financing in a Free Society,” The Virtue of Selfishness

Is there some assumption that you have control over what nameless other person benefits from your organ? What if you cannot be assured that your organ will not be used to extend the life of an evil person? (Say someone who goes on to murder) Still no downside?

Wow. And Ayn Rand is ridiculed for writing of such characters in her fiction.

Do you suggest this is impossible to do with voluntary contributions to 3 fungible accounts? (Law / Police / Defense ) Are humans forever unable (in your estimation) to work this out without having to resort to forced taxation?