Godless Capitalist

My wife is a successful scientist at a private research institute. She is well paid but by no means wealthy. There are very few wealthy musicians (except a few pop stars). Having a spiritually fulfilling career does not automatically lead to wealth.

This should win some sort of "non-sequiter-of-the-year" award. Many Hollywood actors generally considered very masculine are also wimpy liberals (eg George Clooney). Conversely, FDR was crippled but still a strong war leader. I don't see any correlation at all, nor would I expect one since it would be a form of biological determinism.

^^Nothing personal, but since you are not married yet and do not have any immediate prospects, you are not really in a position to answer this. My wife makes significantly more than me, and pays more of our expenses. It doesn't bother either one of us. It would bother me to be totally dependent on her, but it would probably bother her even more to be totally dependent on me (because she grew up in semi-poverty after her parents' divorce). That has nothing to do with male/female dynamics; no rational person likes being a parasite. Now ask: what rational person would want to marry someone (male or female) who expected to be treated like a pampered child and have everything done for them? Not me.

I'm really not following your point here. A proper government would be a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy. However, it would still have to rest on "the consent of the governed" and have some sort of system of elected representatives. (See "The Nature of Government") Not obvious at all. He wants to do work that is part of a legitimate function of government: protecting us from terrorists. Why would that disqualify him from voting?

Yes, the Pleistocene ended about 12,000 years ago. Perhaps you are thinking of the Quaternary, which is ongoing. The same points keep going back and forth but they have not been satisfactorily resolved. If you look back, you will see posts from me near the beginning of this thread several years ago. Since then the thread has just been going in circles. What exactly is 'rape'? I know its not literal rape, but people who enjoy physically overpowering women (even with their consent) have some issues ...

I've heard Dr Brook and could see how his accent could be described as "Brooklyn." Still lazy reporting, though. This quote is pretty bizarre; the reporter uses "blamed" instead of "credited," as if logic and certainty were bad things: I've heard Dr Brook speak about ARI's efforts in philosophy departments. He said ARI actually cannot find enough PhD-level Objectivists to fill all the requests they get for visiting scholars, etc. Many philosophy departments are open to hearing Objectivist ideas, if only because they have run out of ideas themselves.

Maarten is correct. Perhaps another quote will help: "Even in regard to its legitimate functions, a government may not justifiably initiate force. It must operate jails and military installations, but it may not demand that men serve in the police or the army against their own judgement, nor may it finance its activities by seizing property without the consent of the owners." (OPAR p. 368)

Oh boy, where to start? Why would people work for free? After all, its more fun to sit at home reading than to work in a shoe factory. Oh and where does the shoe factory come from? Thin air? Anarchism doesn't work because there needs to be some organized, rational mechanism for dealing with criminals and settling civil disputes. Otherwise society become a "wild west" free-for-all. Working fast food pays very little because it requires very little skill. If you would rather be an employer, go ahead and start your own business.

1. As it happens, I heard Dr Brook answer this exact question at a public talk. He said it would be the President, with the consent of Congress. (pretty much the same as what is supposed to be the case now.) The President would not be able to take unilateral action (to prevent arbitrary abuses of power) except in emergencies eg sudden attack. 2. Most likely, legislators would be elected and judges would be appointed by and with the consent of legislators. (again similar to now)

People are making some pretty wild leaps of logic here. Ayn Rand was quite clear on the nature of rights: "The concept of a "right" pertains only to action--specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion, or interference from other men. Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive--of his freedom to act on his own judgement, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his right impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." (Man's Rights; italics in original) The last sentence is the critical point. Your only obligation is to refrain from violating the rights of others. You do not have a positive obligation to protect the rights of others or to help the government do so. The government's role as a rights protector does not give it carte blanche to violate some rights in order to protect others.

QUOTE(Capitalism Forever @ Mar 9 2006, 03:38 PM) In the initiation of intimacy, a man should express physical strength and undauntedness because that is expressive of his nature as a man; it would be shame enough for him to be overpowered by another man in fight--let alone by a girl in bed; shame enough to need to be fed by a nanny state, let alone to need to be taken in hand by a date. Um, what? You are claiming that sex must properly involve the man physically overpowering the woman? I certainly have no need for rape fantasies, in fact I think they are sick. I don't see anything wrong with the woman taking the initiative sexually. I don't see any connection between men being generally physically stronger than women (a physiological fact) to men having to be always the initiators and/or in control in bed (a psychological issue, assuming the sex is consensual.) You also threw in "undauntedness" as if it were a logical corollary of physical strength, whereas in fact it is a character trait that can also be possessed by women. I was thinking "the 50 are over" would be an appropriate comment here, but it's really more like "the Pleistocene is over"

I agree it would be helpful to start with fundamentals and take smaller steps. Yes, I am aware of both of those facts. Both fractional-reserve banking and paper-only money are forms of fraud.

(Proper) money is a good that also happens to be useful as a medium of exchange. Money can't be both on an account sheet and at the same time in circulation. If a number on an account sheet is not backed up by something of tangible value, it's not really money; it's a form of fraud.

a ) It's a matter of principle, not of degree. b ) Being a witness could get you killed. c ) You can easily compare an hour of your time to being taxed an hour's wages.

I'm not aware of any economic models that ignore money. I only gave an example without money to show that economic expansion does not require money. And my example is not an "Austrian" example; it is valid in any economic theory I can think of. Maybe it will help to think of "money" not as something special but just as a specific good that happens be convenient to use as a medium of exchange. So for example gold has various practical uses but also makes a good medium of exchange. Essentially gold-based money is still a form of barter, only with gold as an intermediary in most exchanges. In theory one could use something else, like computer memory chips, as currency, but it would not be as practical. Or one could have more than one medium of exchange, such as both gold and silver.

In that case it is just as moral to force people to pay taxes or serve in the military. Either Ayn Rand was inconsistent or your reasoning is flawed.

Sounds like you are defending taxation here ...

Banff is awesome (also Jasper and the area bewteen them) others: Hawaii, New Zealand, Grand Canyon, Nahanni

The economy expands when people produce more goods and services than they did previously. It has nothing to do with debt or even money. Think about a primitive barter-type economy in which different people produce bread, beer, buildings, etc, and trade these goods with each other. If Joe Brewer figures out some effort-saving method that allows him to make 2 kegs of beer in the time that formerly only allowed him to produce 1 keg, that's an economic expansion.

^^Engineering doesn't work that way. It's impossible to completely control the nature and quality of the parts that go into a machine, so that you could absolutely 100% guarantee that a part will not fail within a certain time period. Your idea of paying people to accept risk seems plausible; most likely it would encourage operators of potentially dangerous facilities to locate them in remote unpopulated areas.

David: I certainly agree there are serious practical problems with the scenario I am proposing, but I do not see an alternative. To expand on your comments about subordinating society to moral law, I see the individual's responsiblity as follows: -to not violate the rights of others -to agree to let the government act as his agent of justice in case his rights are violated (except in immediate self-defense situations before the police arrive) -to agree to let the government resolve civil disputes, and abide by the decisions given That's it, though; there is no positive obligation to help prosecute criminals who commit crimes against others, or to give up some rights while being investigated for a crime. It would be wider version of the right not to incriminate yourself that Vern mentioned. If your position is correct, then Objectivism is inconsistent on this issue. You can't have it both ways. If violating witnesses' rights is acceptable, then so is taxation and conscription. But I think that you are mistaken and that Vern is correct that you are improperly equating emergency situations and the normal functioning of a society. On the issue of it being rational to testify, in most situations I would agree. If, however, a witness' life were threatened for testifying (which is what happened in Baltimore) I think it would be quite rational to decline.

^^Yes, I am saying that "you have an absolute right to do anything you want as long as you don't initiate force against others." I believe that statement is consistent with Objectivist principles. I do not believe that would led to anarchy. (I thought about it a little and realized my previous post was overly pessimistic.) More likely we would have a society with near-total video surveilance, so that almost all crimes would be captured on video. The video could then be used in court without the need for intrusive evidence-gathering. So its OK for government to violate rights as long as the ultimate blame falls on the criminal? It seems that reasoning could be used to justify taxation (to pay for police/courts/military) or even conscription (to provide the military with sufficient troops to repel an attack). To both: I am not aware of anything in Ayn Rand's writing that says it is OK for government to violate rights under certain circumstances; her clear positions on taxation, the draft, etc, suggest exactly the opposite.

Felix, what you fail to take into account is that in an expanding and efficiency-improving economy, prices will gradually fall relative to the medium of exchange; that is, the same dollar will buy a larger amount of goods. The average production of goods and services per person increases, so each person can trade more goods and services with others. Everyone comes out ahead (on average ie not counting people whose individual production falls). You also ignore the fact that goods and services have different values for different people. I trade something that is of low value to me to someone who values it more highly; in exchange I get something that is of lower value to them than to me. We both benefit.

The point, though, is that the choice is not between "safe" and "unsafe." The choice s between "more safe" and "less safe." So the question remains: how to draw the line between adequate and inadequate safety precautions? How do you determine when a plant poses a risk to the public that rises to the level of being equivalent to an initiation of force?

So, based on the above, it seems that the options are: A: Government must be able to violate the rights of some people in order to protect the rights of others. This seems to blatantly violate Objectivist principles of individual rights. B: Government would be unable to adequately protect rights due to inability to collect evidence. Society could devolve into semi-anarchy, with criminals operating with near-impunity and ordinary citizens relying mainly on their own resources for self-defense against criminals.