woly

Yes but the problem in my question is that what happens if one person/firm owns the water supply without any incentive to offer competitive prices? With riparian water rights it seems that since there would most likely be multiple properties adjacent to a water source then there would be a avenue for competitive companies to create their own water supply service. This sounds like a sound solution but it seems that riprarian water rights would only work if no one person/company owns the body of water itself. Would this go against an objectivist system since no one would be able to buy the body of water itself?

Thank you so much guys! Such detailed answers from everyone! The explanations for the zero-sum fallacy were very helpful. One question with the water supply question, would it be legal for a company to OWN a river/lake or would they only be able to sell the water that they are able to pump? In researching this question I came across a wiki article on Riparian water rights which, as wikipedia states, is: Would this be a valid legislation? It allows access to multiple parties, little government interference but the idea of a shared resource doesnt sound very objectivist to me.

I had a discussion about proper government with a friend of mine the other day and here are two questions that I didnt really have a proper answer for, I was wondering if anyone could help me with them. 1. Currently the water supply of a typical major city is run or at least regulated by the government so that everyone is able to have access to water. But under an objectivist government, the water supply would be run by a private company, now wouldn't that employer have an absolute monopoly which could be abused? My friend brought up this scenario: If half of the population were wealthy enough to purchase water at $2 but the other half could only afford it at $1, couldn't the water company just raise the water price to $2 since they are making the same income while using half of the resources? Since this company owns the water supply, wouldn't the usual market forces that may promote a competitive price, fail? 2. One question I have had since reading Dr Peikoffs OPAR is about the idea that one persons accumulation of wealth does not "feed off" another persons loss, that wealth accumulation is not a zero-sum game. Now I am sure there is an easy explanation for this but for some reason I just cannot see how this is possible. If someone makes a profit, doesn't that mean that someone else losses? Could someone help me out with this concept because I cant seem to grasp it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Woly

Hello, I was wondering what objectivists thought about the property rights of a native population? I cant find the exact quote but from what I remember, Ayn Rand thought that American settlers were justified in settling America because the natives were savages that did not have the concept of rights in their culture and did not use them. But just because a human does not understand the concept of rights shouldnt mean that he deserves none? I am sure I am missing something here so any help would be greatly apreciated.

Hello, I just finished listening to Leonard Peikoffs latest podast (#112). He states that he will be voting for the republicans in November because Obamas healthcare policy will effectively mean the introduction of "death squads" for the elderly. Now I am in Australia so maybe I have missed the meaning of this term but what is he referring to? What do other objectivists think about this stance?

DavidOdden: So do you think there can be room for regulations or regulatory branches for an objectivist government?

bluecherry: Are you referring to UNintentional harm? If not, why would a government not protect against intended harm? Surely that is a breach of another persons liberty. DavidOdden & ZSorenson: So a regulation is the practical implementation of a law? If this is correct then would it be fair to say that an objectivist government would have regulations but only regulations that would aim to protect the freedom of all parties (i.e consumer AND producer) without restricting their freedom? Is that what you meant by "It is not proper law to prohibit a business practice that might possibly be part of fraud." and your post, ZSorenson? DavidOdden & Marc K: So would the legal precedent only relate to the principal that has been breached, not the actual act itself? So in the Dr Jones example, if Dr Jones cut off someones nose, lost and then the next day he cut off someones arm and that patient sued on the same grounds as the previous patient, Dr Jones would probably lose due to precedent. However that doesn't prohibit the the amputation of any nose or legs in the future. Would this be correct? I guess I am confused by this because of the principle that has been trialled is "in lieu of a compelling medical reason to do so, a doctor may not cut off a patient's nose without express consent" then what is a "compelling medical reason"? and once that has been decided, doesn't that essentially act a prescription for medical practice? DavidOdden: Are you saying that contract law would be the default code of law and that courts would only be used as to trial cases that claim that a party was in breach of a contract? Grames: So is it correct to say that precedent can be used as a guide for future cases but doesn't automatically dictate how a future case may be decided?

I have been discussing the objectivists model of government with a friend and a few points have come up that I would like some clarification on. So first I would like to lay out my understanding of what an objective legal system would look like. -There would be no governmental or compulsory regulation, only the possibility of voluntary regulation by independent organizations. -If a company was found to have committed fraud then the customer/organization could sue the company or the government could charge the company and in both cases, would be brought to trial. Now we were discussing compulsory medical licensing and I said that under an objectivist government, there probably wouldn't be medical licensing and that doctors could practice how they liked as long as they were not defrauding or intentionally harming anyone. But my friend brought up this point once the case is decided it constitutes governmental prescription of proper medical practice. It is a standard which is used to determine the validity of your suits and your recourse against the use of force (fraud).He argues that that precedent is as legally binding as a medical licensing authority would be. So with that example in mind, would anyone be able to explain how an objectivist legal system would run?