Ryan1985

In Objectivism tax equals theft. Therefore anyone who plans to tax is planning to thieve. Therefore you are saying that free expression does not allow one to plan bank-robberies, this also means that one cannot plan to tax. Beyond reading Rawls and nodding in agreement, a socialist cannot plan taxation, therefore organised socialism is banned in an Objectivist society. If you disagree then why is organised theft allowed in an Objectivist society? No, I think socialism is contradictory, but I want to defend their right to be socialists. Assuming the guy is a revolutionary socialist, you're saying he may not acquire weapons to start a revolution but he may acquire a handgun. I'd say that a handgun is a weapon that can be used in a revolution. If you disagree, how many handguns would you allow him to own? Surely you cannot argue that 20 hanguns are no threat if he's a revolutionary socialist.

sNerd, are you saying it would be illegal for socialist writers and other socialist sympathisers to own handguns in an Objectivist society? Or simply that Rand has not clarified this and therefore no reference exists? I don't have a reference, I just assumed based on what I know of Rand. I would love to be wrong as this would make sense of some of the issues in this thread for me.

I am quite aware of that. But I think it's a logical extension of what Eioul said. Hence the dilemma, hence this thread to try and resolve it.

By logical extension to the above, would it be illegal for socialist writers and other socialist sympathisers to own handguns in an Objectivist society?

Right, but is it fine to plan now in detail the use of force after you've made it legal, and if so what's to stop nefarious people hiding behind this and using force with no plans to change the law? From Wikipedia: Prescribing that no regulation can take place is itself a regulation, just as taking no stand on an issue is itself a stand. By not allowing socialists to make plans to revolutionise the means of production you are forcefully interfering in their lives and denying them political freedoms. I'm not saying that they would imprison people who campaign for constitution changes, I'm saying that they would imprison people who make plans to initiate force after they have hopefully changed the law. Otherwise, how could those who simply want to initiate force and those who campaign peacefully for making force initiation legal be delimited?

I’ve structured the argument below in two parts in the form of a kind of flow chart. My essential question is whether Objectivists really believe that taxation is theft? Or would they want to suppress socialist political views which is heading towards Totalitarianism? It would be great if people can point out where they think the flaws in my reasoning are. Part One 1. I start off by asking is it ok for me as a citizen according to Objectivism to campaign and plan to change the laws so that it is legal to fly planes into skyscrapers for religious reasons? If yes, go to 2, if no, 3. 2. Is it ok for me while campaigning for the law to be changed as above, to make detailed plans for my flight into the building that will be made the day after I change the law? If yes, go to 4, no, 5. Choosing no here would be restricting people’s expression on the grounds of national security. 3. You don’t support free political expression which is inconsistent with Objectivism. Go to 2. (Another example of political campaigning for violence is when people campaign for war which they should be allowed to do under free political expression). 4. You support terrorists making detailed plans for murder which is inconsistent with a society that protects rights. For proof of this consider what would happen if you properly allowed people to campaign for violence (or war) under their free political expression but also allowed people to draw up future battle plans against fellow citizens. Any terrorist group could then legally form detailed plans which the authorities could do nothing to stop – the terrorist group never intends to change the law – they will just blow up the building and until that day hide behind the cover of free expression and political campaigning when making these plans. Part Two 5. OK, so now apply socialism to the above terrorist example. Since socialism involves taxation and taxation is theft, is it ok to campaign and change the laws so that socialism (theft) is legal? If yes, go to 6, if no, 7. 6. Is it ok for me while campaigning for the law to be changed to legalise socialism, to make detailed plans for how I will at gun point expropriate wealth the day after I change the law (ie it will be legal)? If yes, go to 8, no, 9. 7. You don’t support free political expression which is inconsistent with Objectivism. Go to 6. (Another example of political campaigning for bad things like theft is when people campaign for abortion restrictions which they should be allowed to do under free political expression). 8. You support thieves making detailed plans for theft which is inconsistent with a society that protects rights. For proof of this consider what would happen if you properly allowed people to campaign for legalised theft (socialism) under their free political expression but also allowed people to draw up future expropriation plans against fellow citizens. Any group of thieves could then legally form detailed theft plans which the authorities could do nothing to stop – the group of thieves never intends to change the law – they will just commit theft and until that day hide behind the cover of free expression and political campaigning when making these plans. 9. Then you are restricting peoples political expression. No one could legally be a socialist in your society since part of socialism involves detailed planning for how the wealth is to be expropriated. I accept Part One – ie I would restrict peoples rights in this area at some point on grounds of national security risks. But do you also restrict socialists rights to expression on national security grounds? I submit to you that this would be a form of totalitarianism with views opposing Objectivism banned. The way to resolve the dilemma in Part Two is to admit that taxation is in fact not theft. I.e. making detailed plans to enact taxation is not making plans for theft at gun point. Taxation is simply a way for the state to raise revenue after democratic consensus has been achieved, those who disagree with the consensus being free to leave the country.

Progressiveman, Quit your job tomorrow and start your own business. Or you can be a chicken and stay in your boring job. I submit to you that you CHOOSE to be bored and will always pick the safe option and then moan about it being boring! If you have the guts for it, you can choose to make your life exciting.

Two related questions: Do you guys have any preference over what government spending should be cut first? ie should infrastructure spending be cut before welfare spending? Does Objectivist morality dictate any kind of order to spending cuts? ie traditional morality would dictate that if one were to cut spending then rich people's benefits should be cut first. For example fire service cuts would occur in rich areas first, before they are cut in poor areas on the grounds that rich people can better afford private fees.

Can you imagine a Republican party fan forum inserting a rule that states "Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to the Republican party"? Or indeed an Apple fan forum doing the same? Do you realise this is the kind of thing critics are referring to when charging Objectivism with cult status? Edit: I've just check a couple of forums rules (an Apple forum and a Republican forum) here and here as well as a couple of other philosophy forums. So the question becomes why is Objectivism unique in disallowing dissent?

Shouldn't the forum rules specify what the difference between voicing an idea and spreading it is? Ie, In an existing conversation if I say that I agree with Kant for X, Y, and Z reasons and someone disagrees and I reply with further A, B, and C reasons as to why I believe I am right I would argue that this is voicing ones ideas. Spreading contrary ideas would be to unilaterally bring up the idea that Kant is superior to Rand for X Y Z reasons. That would be actively spreading the ideas. But passively replying to existing conversations with contrary ideas should be permitted, yes? Since this would be voicing and not spreading?

If you have an idea but do not voice it for fear of breaking rules, how can you participate? What is the definition of participation? Sitting mute?

1. "Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation." 2. "Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism." I submit to the forum that these two forum rules are contradictory. If one does not agree with Objectivism, and voicing disagreement with Objectivism is deemed to be spreading contrary ideas, how can one participate without breaking forum rules? I've set up a poll to see if it is only me who thinks this or if there are others too. Thanks, Ryan

I support the right to build the mosque (although I think its an insensitive act). I think a gay bar next to it would seriously be a great idea (joking aside!). It would be an equally insensitive act, and would truly test whether the centre really is trying to enhance community relations, or whether its just PR bull.

There is no ground zero mosque: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/23/charlie-brooker-ground-zero-mosque

Exactly, but we are discussing who has the best property rights protection. And the link I provided above shows both countries are equal. With the UK having more social freedoms ie gay marriage etc, this makes the UK more free overall.

I agree, but it does have something to do with the political atmosphere. Ie if FOX's audience got their way abortion would be made illegal. By banning the Family Guy episode, FOX is implicitly agreeing that abortion rights are wrong or at least distasteful. The UK has no such Christian pressures.

Wrong. The UK and the USA rank equal on the protection of property rights according to The Heritage Foundation - http://www.heritage.org/index/ Click on "Explore the data" and rank the countries by property rights protection. The UK has way more social freedoms and no Christian rightwing. I recently watched an episode of Family Guy on BBC 3 which Fox banned from being shown in the USA for fear of offending dumb Christians. The political atmosphere in America really is laughable.

I would recommend getting an intoductory economics book to clarify the issues. But to summarise: All currencies cannot collapse at the same time since currencies operate in pairs. Ie if USD appreciates against GBP, then this means GBP has depreciated against USD. But all currencies could collapse against commodities,ie real wealth such as gold, bread, textiles etc. This would simply mean that gold, bread, etc would sky rocket in price (hyperinflation), but the relative prices of currencies would remain the same. If one country experiences hyperinflation it does not necessarily mean other countries will. The dollar's status as reserve currency wouldn't affect other countries, but it would delay hyperinflation in the USA in general, since central banks around the world buy up excess dollars. But the dollar's status as reserve currency is being slowly diluted as central banks start to buy up euros - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency .

This is silly. Plus you're wrong. The test of whether you own something (including your own life) is whether you can dispose of it as you see fit. Only in Oregon is assisted suicide legal I believe. Similarly in Europe assisted suicide is only legal in a few countries, I think Switzerland is one of them. So in fact, the right to life is denied in both Europe and the USA. But at least in the UK we are engaged in a public debate about whether to change our laws for the better. In America, collectivist religious groups mean that such a discussion is unlikely.

I'm not going to be able to respond to such a detailed reply. But I have time to respond to the Europe thing. Europe has more rights than the USA in many different areas depending on the EU state in question. Individualism is alive and well in the UK. In the UK we don't have such a huge "illegal" immigrant population. That's a whole class of people who are collectivised and denied fundamental rights in America. In the UK we have lots of Polish immigrants for cheap labour and they all have full rights and are completely legally here. In the USA there is a whole class of Mexican's who are denied rights. In business we don't have oppresive sarbox legislation which shackles businessmen. We can gamble in casinos or online, Americans can't in most of the country, mainly due to religiously inspired probhibitory laws. Now I turn the tables. Name three rights that Americans have that Brits don't.

So you're saying that the correct answer as to why America has more murder is partly due to psychological perspectives? And you support the American "perspective" that gives rise to murder? Murder is bad! Whatever it is in the American psyche that gives rise to blood shed is unhealthy! In my opinion it has nothing to do with psychology but rather an historical enthusiasm for guns (arising from the way the nation was founded and expanded). Today, America is no more violent than any nation, it just has lots of guns thrown into the mix. If you think its not guns, but rather psychological issues, then that's a huge condemnation of the American psyche. In terms of the size of the state, the difference between America and the EU is about 10-15% of GDP. Hardly justified in calling the EU an ant colony, especially since the EU has more individual rights in many areas (ie I can marry who I choose in most EU states but am restricted by the government in America). I think this is definitely part of the answer. Knives, bats, bricks, and hands have other legitimate purposes. A hunting rifle or a farmers shotgun has other legitimate purposes too I would argue.

I agree with Rand, the issue is complex but you have to make sure that people can't have the ability to kill people at whim. Machine guns give the ability to kill many people at whim; that is their only function. On that basis alone their use should be restricted to the police and military.

Activity and optimism = more murder. I completely disagree! In the absence of a prevalence of guns, the more active and optimistic a nation is the lower the murder rate would be.

Objectivism does not support the right for a person to own a gun, rather Rand recognised the dilemma and did not come down on either side of the issue. Source: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/essays/guns.html Personally I do not support the right for a person to own a gun, and believe the Second Ammendment to be unobjective for the reason Rand gives; a person shouldn't have the privilege to kill people at whim. The USA has a relatively high murder rate and loose gun control. The safest rich countries are those which have strict gun control. If you dispute that guns equals more murder, then what do you think is the cause of America's high murder rate?

This part: Breaking an unobjective law is irrelevent. The immigrant is completely innocent and has the right to enter and leave America as he chooses.