Cole

Galt's Gulch comes to mind when I read this thread. Galt's Gulch, being hypothetically the most Objectivist society possible, didn't have a government. There didn't seem to be any need for one. Granted, it was newly-developed and only a small number of people lived there. Still, if nobody in the world ever did or ever would violate anybody else's rights, the only government function needed would be a Supreme Court- to oversee private arbitrators.

What interested me more were the numerous previews before the Incredibles for a movie called "Bigg's Adventure"- or something along those lines. The main characters have mottos such as "I can do anything" and "I would have built Rome in a day." What's even better is that they appear to use their minds and machinery to accomplish their feats, instead of supernatural powers that they were mysteriously born with.

Hi- I am looking for websites that are updated somewhat frequently (i.e; daily) with articles on Objectivist subjects, or that at least has an Objectivist slant (even if implicit). I know of two; solohq.com and capmag.com, but was hoping to find more like these. Most of the Objectivist sites I find focus on things like "Intro to the Philosophy of Objectivism" and "Biography of Ayn Rand", and do not contain commentary on current events. I'm looking for the LewRockwell.com of Objectivism, so to speak. Any help would be appreciated.

No, corporations globalize because doing so increases their profits. Workers in foreign countries work these jobs for the same reason. There is nothing altruistic about it.

I hate to break it to you, but it only gets worse if you plan on continuing your education at a public university. A couple of semesters ago I had a Logic professor who admitted to never having heard of the term "epistemology" before the beginning of that semester. That same semester I had a Political Science professor who announced that, before anybody is allowed to own two houses, everybody in the world should first own one house. Later, this same professor stated her opinion that everybody in society should be paid the same wage (she used doctors and janitors as an example), but then had to end the discussion shortly after because too many students in the class began to question the existence of motivational incentives in such a society (however, my disagreement with her on this issue came from the fact that she did not understand where market value came from). This was the same university which houses a "Department of Altruism". Luckily, I've transfered to another college since then. Anyway- I too discovered Ayn Rand's ideas during high school. I hope you do well in your attempts to educate your peers on the subject of Objectivism.

Actually, what is being described in this thread is "non-objective art"- not abstract art. An abstract art piece depicts figures and objects from the real world, but simplifies or distorts them. In abstract art, attention is placed on the lines and color of the figures instead of attempting to make them look as closely to how they actually look in the real word. Non-objective art, the type that is being discussed in this thread, does not represent anything from the real world. This is the "smears and lines" art that you're all familar with, which is built upon on the flawed philosophy that there is "spiritual" existance beyond human perception. Here are some examples of three types of art: Super-Naturalism (Representational) Abstract (Representational) Non-Objective (Non-Representational)

Ayn Rand wasn't, right?

I think I've finally found an answer to my question (or, more like a conclusion to the issue). I was looking through some of my books last night in regards to this subject and I found these: "Government is a social creation, and society consists of individuals. Any powers of government, therefore, must derive from those of the individuals who create it." and "By it's nature, government has a monopoly on the use of force. In a rational society, individuals agree to delegrate their right of self-defense...If a society is to uphold man's rights, such delegation is essential." Both of those statements were written by Leonard Peikoff. What I've gathered is that Objectivists cannot (or do not attempt) to morally justify a government which has authority over everybody in a certain geographic area (including those who do not consent to it's authority), or a government which has rights that no individual citizen had in the first place. What Objectivists do say is that everybody in society should voluntarily consent to government because it is essential to protect man's rights. However, it would still be immoral for a government to have power over somebody who does not consent to it's authority but merely lives within a certain boundary that the government has set for itself (such as how I can't make rules for whoever moves into the house next door to me just because they moved into the neighborhood I live in).

Where do you get that definition? I have never seen a definition of the word "capitalism" which mentions government. All of the definitions I have seen (including Merriam-Webster's) define capitalism as being private ownership of resources with prices that are set by the free-market. My underlying question here has been "Where is government morally granted the authority to have a monopoly of force over everybody within a certain boundry, regardless of whether or not a person has voluntarily consented to this?" You answered this with "Capitalism is a system where the government holds a monopoly on retaliatory force," as if to imply that questioning the morality of government was questioning the very foundation of capitalism itself. Your response seemed to me to be similar to people who argue against legalized homosexual marriage by saying "The definition of 'marriage' involves one man and one woman," or in the past, "The word 'suffrage' refers to white males." All of which are intellectual sloth and avoid the true issues at hand. I understand that. However, I specifically asked where on that site "you think that the main questions I ask in this thread are answered." Questions such as "Is taxation always immoral?" were not my main questions. They were cleared up early in the thread. I asked them to see which premises we agreed on and which we didn't. You accused me of not reading the site, and then stated that "no matter what my question" I could "read the link and find my answer." Yet now when I ask you to show me specifically where my main questions are answered on that page, you are only able to show me answers that were cleared up early in the thread and are no longer disputed. It just seemed to me that contiunally posting that link but avoiding the question was a bit of a cop out.

Strawman. I never mentioned tradition as the reason why taxation would be inherent to government. Also, putting a phrase in quotes like that ("always been there") implies that the phrase was actually said, or at least that the notion what implicated. That's not the case here. I was questioning how a privately-funded government gets it's right to authority over everybody within certain boundaries- regardless of whether or not each person has voluntarily entered into a contract with the government allowing them this right. If I do not consent to the government's authority over me, am I exempt from it's laws?

The statement that immediately preceded your remark was; "I think we'd also agree that I have a right to hire another person to relatiate force on my behalf if somebody initiates force on me. " Why do you not agree with this statement? I already described that organization. I'm assuming you didn't see my description, so I will repeat it here; "For example- can any organization band together decide that they are going to dish out their own punishments for crimes they see around their city- even if they are not involved and have not been given consent to retaliate force on other people's behalf?" No, neither of those pages describe how I can morally grant to a government a right in which I myself do not have.

What don't you agree with? I made multiple statements, so it would be helpful if you told me specifically which of those statements you disagreed with and why. A hypothetical one. I don't understand why you didn't answer my questions. No matter what my question? Surely that website can't have all the answers, can it? I disagree. I've read the page you posted and did not see where the questions I asked here are addressed. You can prove me wrong by pointing to the specific page in which you think that the main questions I ask in this thread are answered.

No, I outlined clear differences between the two. Show me specifically how you think that I am mixing them up. If individual citizens don't have the right to retaliatory force, then at which point does government gain this right? Can an individual grant a right to another individual that he himself does not have? Can the majority of individuals vote to grant a person a right that no individual in that majority has? Can an organization of individuals form and declare that the organization has a right that the individuals did not have before?

I started this thread to specifically ask about the philosophical issue of government- not the utilitarian ones. I assume that there would be philosophical arguments in support of government, and that utilitarian arguments would not need to be resorted to.

What are the boundaries to this? I think we'd agree that I have a right to defend myself if I am attacked, and then seek justice for this. I think we'd also agree that I have a right to hire another person to relatiate force on my behalf if somebody initiates force on me. But does a person have a right to initiate force on the behalf of another person without being given consent? For example- can any organization band together decide that they are going to dish out their own punishments for crimes they see around their city- even if they are not involved and have not been given consent to retaliate force on other people's behalf? What differentiates a government from the organization I described in my example above? So would it be fair to say that your ideal government would be similar to a corporation (or maybe more like a private charity) in the sense that it allows people to voluntarity fund it, but it's different than a corporation in the sense that it can declare authority over everybody- even those who do not fund or consent to it?

Hi- I had some questions regarding how the philosophy of objectivism would translate into an ideal political society. It is my understanding that objectivists consider the initiation of force to be immoral (and quite understandably so). Is the initiation of force always immoral? Is it still immoral even if the majority of people decide to initate force on the minority? Doesn't taxation necessarily imply the initation of force? Isn't this force what differentiates the word "tax" from words like "buy"- which imply a voluntary exchange? So therefore, would it be true that all objectivists oppose taxation? Isn't taxation an inherent part of government? If a government existed which did not fund itself through forceful exchange, but rather allowed people to voluntarily exchange their money for the services it provides- what would be the difference between this government and a private corporation? Thank you in advance for any answers you may be able to provide.