Minarchist

I stated my premise explicitly: "I believe that parents are responsible for the well-being of the persons they bring into the world. I don't believe that the barrier of personhood is breached upon birth, but upon a certain level of mental development." That's my premise. When "personhood" is reached, I'm not quite sure. That doesn't discredit my premise. I can do no more to make you understand.

Perphaps. All I'm trying to establish here is my premise, the one that you just quoted.

I have been looking through a number of those. I understand the points being made. They don't address mine. I'll keep looking, but I'm going to clearly state the issue I hold with the widely-accepted Objectivist view on abortion: I believe that parents are responsible for the well-being of the persons they bring into the world. I don't believe that the barrier of personhood is breached upon birth, but upon a certain level of mental development. When in particular? I'm not sure, I'm merely stating the premise which I believe to be true.

Meaning what? That the human being is capable of taking care of itself? That's nonsense. One way or another, the baby is dependent on another human being. In the most pertinent sense of the term "individual", a child cannot be such. If your point is that, because the bodies are connected, one has the right to murder the other, does the same apply for conjoined twins?

I agree. Now, why does the obligation the take care of the child begin at birth?

That's the problem. It's a hard point to convey, and easy to misunderstand. Would a woman who abandoned her child to die be punished by the government, or no? If not, that sounds like libertarian nonsense.

That's right. In another thread someone said something I agree with, something along the lines of: The parent is responsible for the well-being of the child because it's the parent that put them into existence; To do otherwise would be the same as sailing a person into the sea and abandoning them. In the same thread, the same person stressed that abortion is a right up to birth. It makes no sense to me. At some point, there is a child to kill. I was born over three months premature. Assuming I went on full-term, would it have been right for my mother to kill me at the six-month point, considering that I was clearly capable of surviving? Another interesting question. My survival was expensive. Who has the right to demand that my parents have paid that cost? Would it have been morally acceptable for them to abandon me, and allow me to suffocate?

The child is "in existence as an individual human being" at conception. As Rand herself pointed out (if memory serves), "individual human being" isn't what's being looked for. Certainly, "personhood" is up for debate, and, I believe that is the sole determining factor in whether or not it's acceptable to kill a human (outside of self-defense). Let's try and draw the line there, then, not at birth.

Is her home not just as much hers as her body? Would it then be immoral to demand that she use her resources to drop the baby off at an adoption center? Let's assume that either the hospital didn't have one or she had the baby in a rural setting. Then let's assume she just left it to die. Would that be morally acceptable?

Not all of them. Nothing regarding my particular point yet. I've searched a few threads regarding the responsibility of children. I see a contradiction that has yet to be addressed properly. The parent must take care of their child... after it is born. Why? How does that make sense?

The right of a parent to stop caring for the well-being of their child. More specifically, to kill their child.

Nah, just a quick tally in a few threads. Do you mean to say you disagree? Me too. I see absolutely no reason the cut-off point should be "birth". Since you disagree, you must have a logical reason that it should. In self-defense a man has any right.

I believe that any child has the right to live at the mother's expense. Apparantly, so do most Objectivists. The difference between us? I don't think "birth" is a very convincing place to draw the line. Replace "fetus" with "child" and "body/womb" with "home". Nor a right to kill. I've never heard such a thing stated by "pro-lifers".

Is it a widely-accepted Objectivist belief that the parent isn't responsible for the well-being of their child? EDIT: Never mind, looked it up. It seems as though the most widely-held Objectivist belief is that the parents of a child are responsible for that child's well-being... assuming they didn't abort it. That seems like a complete and absolute cop-out. Why are we drawing the line at birth?

You're assuming that a particular currency will gain widespread popularity throughout the country. You also seem to believe that in such a society currency exchange is an easy process, basing that belief on how easy it is currently. I'm not entirely against the idea, merely because it's hard to predict how standardized currency would become. However, it can be demonstrated, through a variety of different industries, that businesses don't always standardize too heavily. I'm inclined to believe the same thing would happen in regards to currency. But you've all given me food for thought, certainly, and I'm going to look for some real-world anecdotes. Thanks for the replies.

Because certain people might be unwilling to take certain kinds of currency. The government would have to deal with that problem in regard to making necessary expenditures. Payment of government officials ALONE poses all kinds of problems. With what currency should we pay them? Wheat or gold? Silver, maybe? Payments would constantly have to be micro-managed with changes in the economy. Contracts would have to list what currencies will be accepted as payment. That is largely due to national (intra-national, even) currency. Not in spite of it. I believe it's incredibly unlikely that banks would accept a single currency, preferring to print and distribute their own currencies. It's tough to say because real-world examples are hard to find, since paper money was only widely used once governments began to print it up. From what I understand Ayn Rand thought the most likely form of voluntary taxation was one in which the person either agrees to pay the fee or does not, recieving services accordingly. Even assuming this system came about, this fee would have to be standardized in some manner. I suppose what it comes down to, for me, is whether or not a government can reasonably function without a national currency. I doubt it, but it's certainly possible.

The developer's grasp of Objectivism is faulty at best. It was either in-game or in an interview where it was stated that such scientific advances were allowed because the scientists weren't bound by ethics or morality. Yeah, "faulty at best" is an incredible understatement.

I'm still digesting what you've said, but before you disappear on me, I'm wondering how you think a government would function in this society. Taxation, for instance, would be incredibly complicated, and the money that is raised would be a patchwork of different currencies accepted in different markets.

I've been searching for quite some time on what Objectivists believe in regard to a national currency. If the proper roles of government are limited to police, military, and courts, it seems to follow that national currency would cease to exist. Since the question has yet to be brought up (to my knowledge) I feel as though I'm missing something very, very obvious.