The Obligations of Society

[Zip]

Actually the split between human progenitors and our nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is believed to have happened about 7 million years ago. And from a taxonomic view humans, chimpanzees (bonobo and troglodytes subspecies) gorillas, and orangutans are all apes. In fact we are more closeley related to the chimpanzees than any other species, and in turn humans and chimpanzees together are most closely related to gorillas. Thus it would be wrong to produce a taxonomic group that includes chimpanzees and gorillas, but not us.

This fact--that we are, biologically apes--does not belittle us. We just happen to be the one species of ape with a rational/conceptual faculty, and that, of course, makes all the difference in the world.

Yes, we also share something like 99% of our 30,000 genes with fieldmice, but I am a man and not a mouse My point stands.

[WarmTaffy]

Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, United States! All third world failures because of their religious element!

You got that right!

[WarmTaffy]

Do you have some proof of this assumption?

Well, it's pretty widely accepted. Social animals' success evolutionarily speaking derives from its ability to form societies that are beneficial to the species.

Okay, man is a social animal and that is why his cognitive functions evolved further than our fellow primates... Chimps are social animals but have not developed in spite of having a brain that is "quite similar to ours... Which one is it? Either social = development of cognition or social = primate...

As I've said before, it was man's (or rather our ancestors') ability to master the primitive society that lead to higher cognitive function. We obviously did better than other early primates.

Penguins are highly socialized animals just where are they on your social cognitive scale, how about ants, bees, meerkats?

I never made the connection that social animal=higher cognitive function. Social animals stand to be more stable (evolutionarily speaking) than other, less social animals. Take your examples. Penguins, ants, bees, and meerkats are all highly social animals and they are highly adapted to their environment. As far as evolution goes, All of these species are amazing success stories. Don't belittle their incredible achievements just because they are not on the same cognitive level as us. Evolutionarily speaking, they are just as successful (or even more successful) than man is.

So we are the same as monkeys and gorillas now? Just a little further down the evolutionary road? Speak for yourself son. If you did a little bit of study you would see that "apes" have been around for just as long as human beings, the split between the two happening either between 15 to 20 million years ago, or even up to 30 or 40 million years ago. so since both are highly social animals why isn't my next door neighbour a Chimp with an engineering degree?

Sorry, this was poor wording on my part. It would be more acurite to say that we merely went down a different evolutionary road than monkeys and other apes. My mistake.

BTW, you calling me "son" made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that.

No, without other people enabling this person to ignore the reality of her situation, which is to say, no job, no way of supporting the six children she already had much less eight more she would not have been able to do so.

I don't know what species you live with, but members of the human species make idiotic mistakes all the time fully by themselves. I've made many myself without consulting "society".

No we live in a society where others are forced (at the point of a gun) to allow people like this woman to ignore reality because we pay to support her whether we want to or not through forced taxation.

The only reason I'm responding to this ridiculous statement is to say that I'm not dignifying it with a response.

Honestly, though... Really? That's what your response to that is? Ok....

Saying "tisk, tisk, you really shouldn't have done that", while allowing this woman to live off of the loot of our forced taxation is not condemnation.

Well, this woman isn't "living off the loot of our forced taxation" (great wording, btw), her children are. I would not want to be part of a society in which a moronic woman has 14 kids with no way of feeding and caring for them and we just say, "well, tough shit". I have no problem as a tax payer feeding children in need. What should happen, though, is that tighter restrictions be put on those procedures in relation to socioeconomic status.

Edited February 23, 2009 by WarmTaffy

[John Donohue]

My question was intended to elicit an elucidation from you, a mental picture as it were, of how you see a non-Ethical-Doctrine world, but one in which people have a moral obligation to help, serve and benefit others.

I actually do have a harmless aspect to my request. I want to see how sincere people are when they advocate this. I mean, if you take this seriously, you are in Mother Teresa territory or pure Early Christianity territory, correct? You put your life at service to others. Period. No lip service, but rather the real thing. Unconditional love/charity with no inclination or expectation of reward. The extent of your selflessness is the measure of the goodness, right? Others may or may not benefit from your deeds. If you are truly honest here, and you mean by the simple definition just such a chosen personal lifestyle, I can have a civil conversation with you about this choice.

However you are correct to detect that I am not one to let the slippery slope get wet under the radar. When one adopts your 'simple definition', the person impacted by the doing is yourself. All too often, however, Objectivists see what once might have started out as a personal choice veer off into political edict. Yes, I/We are vigilant about personal ethical choices of altruism turning into collectivist compulsion with the justification of "selflessness over selfishness enforced by government because it is better for the common good."

[WarmTaffy]

My question was intended to elicit an elucidation from you, a mental picture as it were, of how you see a non-Ethical-Doctrine world, but one in which people have a moral obligation to help, serve and benefit others.

I actually do have a harmless aspect to my request. I want to see how sincere people are when they advocate this. I mean, if you take this seriously, you are in Mother Teresa territory or pure Early Christianity territory, correct? You put your life at service to others. Period. No lip service, but rather the real thing. Unconditional love/charity with no inclination or expectation of reward. The extent of your selflessness is the measure of the goodness, right? Others may or may not benefit from your deeds. If you are truly honest here, and you mean by the simple definition just such a chosen personal lifestyle, I can have a civil conversation with you about this choice.

However you are correct to detect that I am not one to let the slippery slope get wet under the radar. When one adopts your 'simple definition', the person impacted by the doing is yourself. All too often, however, Objectivists see what once might have started out as a personal choice veer off into political edict. Yes, I/We are vigilant about personal ethical choices of altruism turning into collectivist compulsion with the justification of "selflessness over selfishness enforced by government because it is better for the good."

First of all, please don't ever compare me to Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa is actually a great example of the immorality religion can bring into altruism. As established, the type of altruism Christians (Mother Teresa) condone is that of the duty to others (or rather the duty to God... or to others through God... or whatever). When you bring religion and God into the equation, I can easily see how altruism can be distorted as an "immoral" idea. Mother Teresa "took care" of the sick and dying, sure- but only in relation to what she thought was best for them according to Christianity. This means that she didn't do what was best for the people who were in the "Home for the Dying" as people- she did what she thought was best for them as Christians (which was mostly just a lot of praying a letting them die painful deaths).

But I digress.

I have never said I wish to "put my life at service to others". My belief is that people should (and pretty much do, already) practice empathy and selfless concern toward fellow members of their species. Furthermore, I don't think that goodness equals the extent of your selflessness. That would be quite a mindless assertion.

And what is all this talk of government? I'm always amazed to see how often a person's ideas develop into some pseudo-paranoid claim about the government. To imagine that any government could actually and fully suppress mankind is ridiculous. If you're anti-government, that's fine (even I am to an extent), but it's not some spooky boogeyman out to reduce mankind to trembling children. It would never in a million years be able to do that.

Edited February 23, 2009 by WarmTaffy

[kainscalia]

WarmTaffy, a question: What is your profession?

Of course not, it could never. It never turned my first voice teacher, Irina Galik Feodorova, into a woman with deep-seated traumas and paranoias whose brother had her parents taken away by The Party. It didn't permeate 'The Motherland' with fear, oh no siree.

It was all lies, lies I tell you! Those twenty million people? Never happened.

Honestly, are you for real?

If you're anti-government, that's fine (even I am to an extent), but it's not some spooky boogeyman out to reduce mankind to trembling children. It would never in a million years be able to do that.

[RationalBiker]

The only reason I'm responding to this ridiculous statement is to say that I'm not dignifying it with a response.

Honestly, though... Really? That's what your response to that is? Ok....

Yes, honestly, really. That is what forced taxation is. You can choose not to dignify it with a response, but that doesn't change the reality of his statement.

My belief is that people should (and pretty much do, already) practice empathy and selfless concern toward fellow members of their species. Furthermore, I don't think that goodness equals the extent of your selflessness.

What people should do is what is in their long term rational self-interest. If that sometimes involves having empathy for others, then yes they should. That said, you can choose to as selfless as you want just don't think that you can somehow morally impose this 'virtue' on me.

I have no problem as a tax payer feeding children in need.

And none of us would have a problem if you were given the voluntary option of doing that. But the existence of her children does not place some moral or ethical obligation on me to take care of them.

Edited February 23, 2009 by RationalBiker

[John Donohue]

By process of elimination, the only thing left to warm taffy is "be nice."

Okay, cool.

Let us know if you want to say anything else.

[WarmTaffy]

WarmTaffy, a question: What is your profession?

Of course not, it could never. It never turned my first voice teacher, Irina Galik Feodorova, into a woman with deep-seated traumas and paranoias whose brother had her parents taken away by The Party. It didn't permeate 'The Motherland' with fear, oh no siree.

It was all lies, lies I tell you! Those twenty million people? Never happened.

Honestly, are you for real?

Do you even think before you write? Of course government could cause its citizens fear, but no state has ever (or will ever) degrade mankind to anything less than it is. Ever notice how that "Motherland" is not around anymore? (Although one could argue otherwise.)

Even in totalitarian societies, there is not "total" control of the people. People are still people. Some are still nice, some are still dicks. But they still have the basic instinct to do good.

[Zip]

Well, it's pretty widely accepted. Social animals' success evolutionarily speaking derives from its ability to form societies that are beneficial to the species.

Your assertions are not evidence.

Now you are claiming that evolution derives from a social animals ability to form societies? Wow, so because my prehistoric ancestors gathered together in a society I now walk upright! It explains so much, never mind the whole standing so I can see predators sneaking up on me through the tall Savannah grass, it was so I could shake hands properly.

As I've said before, it was man's (or rather our ancestors') ability to master the primitive society that lead to higher cognitive function. We obviously did better than other early primates.

I never made the connection that social animal=higher cognitive function.

Again, which one is it? Either it is or it is not? Either have your cake, (that man achieved higher cognitive function because he was a social animal) or eat it (that how social an animal is has little to do with higher cognitive function).

Social animals stand to be more stable (evolutionarily speaking) than other, less social animals. Take your examples. Penguins, ants, bees, and meerkats are all highly social animals and they are highly adapted to their environment. As far as evolution goes, All of these species are amazing success stories. Don't belittle their incredible achievements just because they are not on the same cognitive level as us. Evolutionarily speaking, they are just as successful (or even more successful) than man is.

I'd like to see some evidence that social animals and insects are more "evolutionarily stable" than any other kind of animal. Perhaps you might compare using meerkats and crocodiles. Which one of those has been more evolutionarily stable?

I don't know what species you live with, but members of the human species make idiotic mistakes all the time fully by themselves. I've made many myself without consulting "society".

You should read what is written, no one here is suggesting that society is consulted, but that society enables, or rather that in our society we are forced to enable such idiocy. I have little problem with individual idiots, I can ignore them. When the government, yes at the point of a gun, forces me to support and enable idiots, that I have a problem with.

The only reason I'm responding to this ridiculous statement is to say that I'm not dignifying it with a response.

Honestly, though... Really? That's what your response to that is? Ok....

You are free to evade the point but the ultimate expression of your altruism is that the individual is a slave to any nameless faceless idiot that needs to be supported. There is no thought, no reason to be applied, your altruism is on autopilot and all of us (currently) are just along for the ride. I don't want to live that way.

Well, this woman isn't "living off the loot of our forced taxation" (great wording, btw), her children are. I would not want to be part of a society in which a moronic woman has 14 kids with no way of feeding and caring for them and we just say, "well, tough shit". I have no problem as a tax payer feeding children in need. What should happen, though, is that tighter restrictions be put on those procedures in relation to socioeconomic status.

When someone puts a gun to your head and says, "please give me your money" does it matter that he said please, or that the money is going to feed children?

There isn't a single person on this forum that will tell you that charity is wrong, but charity depends on choice.

[RationalBiker]

Do you even think before you write?

Probably a good bit more than you apparently. Now if we can get the insults out of the way....

Even in totalitarian societies, there is not "total" control of the people.

I cannot comprehend where this line of reasoning is going. What point are you trying to make? Are you defending that any kind of government is okay or legitimate?

[softwareNerd]

My belief is that people should (and pretty much do, already) practice empathy and selfless concern toward fellow members of their species.

Fair enough, but what reason do you offer for doing so; i.e. why is that a rational choice?

[WarmTaffy]

By process of elimination, the only thing left to warm taffy is "be nice."

Okay, cool.

If that simplifies things, that's fine with me.

Probably a good bit more than you apparently. Now if we can get the insults out of the way....

You're right, that was uncalled for. I apologize.

I cannot comprehend where this line of reasoning is going. What point are you trying to make? Are you defending that any kind of government is okay or legitimate?

No. Never. The point I was making was merely what I said: that no government can fully suppress mankind. I'm not condoning or defending any form of harsh government.

Fair enough, but what reason do you offer for doing so; i.e. why is that a rational choice?

I'm a big believer in the use of reason- but not everything boils down to rationality. Why can't someone do some selfless good for mankind without thinking about it rationally? But I suppose if one were to really want to look a rational reason, then you can see charitable acts as beneficial to our species by building closer relations within. If a group of monkeys in the wild contain a certain monkey that looks out only for himself, it wont be long until the others expel him from the group. I think it's safe to say that the end of that monkeys lineage wont be too far behind. On the other hand, the monkeys in that group that are helpful and share are respect others will benefit from closer ties with the group. While I realize it's not exactly the same for humans, it isn't too much different.

Edited February 23, 2009 by WarmTaffy

[WarmTaffy]

Your assertions are not evidence.

Now you are claiming that evolution derives from a social animals ability to form societies? Wow, so because my prehistoric ancestors gathered together in a society I now walk upright! It explains so much, never mind the whole standing so I can see predators sneaking up on me through the tall Savannah grass, it was so I could shake hands properly.

If you want me to submit a bibliography, I'm afraid I'm not going to to that. If you want evidence, read a book on early primate evolution. For the third time, it was early mans' success at socializing that was one of the major factors in our position today.

Again, which one is it? Either it is or it is not? Either have your cake, (that man achieved higher cognitive function because he was a social animal) or eat it (that how social an animal is has little to do with higher cognitive function).

I'm not repeating it a fourth time...

I'd like to see some evidence that social animals and insects are more "evolutionarily stable" than any other kind of animal. Perhaps you might compare using meerkats and crocodiles. Which one of those has been more evolutionarily stable?

Ok, your response on this was probably due to me saying "Social animals stand to be more stable", rather than saying "Social animals tend to be more stable". My mistake in wording again, sorry. I've been rushing while writing a lot of these post as I usually am doing them before school or work.

You should read what is written, no one here is suggesting that society is consulted, but that society enables, or rather that in our society we are forced to enable such idiocy. I have little problem with individual idiots, I can ignore them. When the government, yes at the point of a gun, forces me to support and enable idiots, that I have a problem with.

Sorry, I generalized. I already asserted my opinion that there should be stricter regulations on decisions like that based on socioeconomic status.

You are free to evade the point but the ultimate expression of your altruism is that the individual is a slave to any nameless faceless idiot that needs to be supported. There is no thought, no reason to be applied, your altruism is on autopilot and all of us (currently) are just along for the ride. I don't want to live that way.

Hmm... I don't agree with that. My life is certainly not on autopilot while I wait for my next "opportunity" to help someone. It's not something you dwell on your entire life; if someone needs help, you should probably help them. It's not that difficult.

When someone puts a gun to your head and says, "please give me your money" does it matter that he said please, or that the money is going to feed children?

If you have a problem with taxes and you want to live your life as the ultimate individual, then run out and live in the woods somewhere. Nothing's really stopping you. You don't have to be part of any country. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't get a job and don't live in civilization. People live on their own with no contact to modern society all over the world. Have fun with that. I have no problem paying the membership fees called taxes that are required to be a part of the United States. The reason I don't is because I enjoy everyday the things they pay for. If a small portion of it goes to help the less fortunate, good for them!

[Jake_Ellison]

If you have a problem with taxes and you want to live your life as the ultimate individual, then run out and live in the woods somewhere. Nothing's really stopping you. You don't have to be part of any country. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't get a job and don't live in civilization. People live on their own with no contact to modern society all over the world. Have fun with that. I have no problem paying the membership fees called taxes that are required to be a part of the United States. The reason I don't is because I enjoy everyday the things they pay for. If a small portion of it goes to help the less fortunate, good for them!

Hello. Just jumping in here.

What gives you the right to restrict my options to only those two? (living alone or accepting whatever the majority decides)

What if I want to live on my property, and not pay taxes. What if the person next to me decides to do the same, and we trade?

Does the government then have the right to stop us?

[softwareNerd]

I'm a big believer in the use of reason- but not everything boils down to rationality. Why can't someone do some selfless good for mankind without thinking about it rationally?

Still, without a reason, there is little point discussing or arguing the point, is there? Without a reason, it's equivalent to liking chocolate over vanilla. If someone says: "I like helping people" that isn't an argument one way or the other, it's simply a statement. I asked my question about a reason, because you said "I think people should...". You're the one who is laying down a should, which means implies that you're postulating an ethical principle (a should), even if you say you aren't. Isn't it fair to ask for a reason?

But I suppose if one were to really want to look a rational reason, then you can see charitable acts as beneficial to our species by building closer relations within. If a group of monkeys in the wild contain a certain monkey that looks out only for himself, it wont be long until the others expel him from the group. I think it's safe to say that the end of that monkeys lineage wont be too far behind. On the other hand, the monkeys in that group that are helpful and share are respect others will benefit from closer ties with the group. While I realize it's not exactly the same for humans, it isn't too much different.

Okay, you're confirming the earlier point about evolutionary advantages of helping others. An animal may have evolved a "feature" of helping others of its species (and even members of other species). For some species, such a "feature" could increase the odds that the species will survive. I don't think there's anything wrong with that in principle. It may, in fact, be false because many such points about why a certain feature evolved are quite speculative. Nevertheless, it is not important to our decision-making today.

Even if we accept it to be a true conclusion about history, it is still simply a conclusion about history. How does it translate into a "should" today? You would not suggest a principle that says: "if we evolved a certain feature because it benefited our ancestors, we should continue to use that feature regardless of its relevance today?" Is that a sufficient way to reason about a should? If we are to seek a reason, don't we need to show that it is relevant to us today, in our current environment... regardless of history? Is there any such reason that makes this a relevant "should" to you and me today?

[WarmTaffy]

Hello. Just jumping in here.

What gives you the right to restrict my options to only those two? (living alone or accepting whatever the majority decides)

What if I want to live on my property, and not pay taxes. What if the person next to me decides to do the same, and we trade?

Does the government then have the right to stop us?

Well, I don't see what the point would be. There are so many things in around you that are paid for with taxes that you wouldn't be entitled to if you stopped paying them. You wouldn't really be entitled to any outside utilities such as water or gas. You shouldn't be able to drive on roads if you don't help pay for them. You'd have to somehow dispose of your waste while not using any landfills (and, again, the roads that take you there). You'd pretty much be shit out of luck if your house catches on fire (unless you want to count on those altruistic neighbors of yours for help). If someone attacks you in your home, you wont be able to rely on the police. But if that's fine with you and you end up killing the person, you'd better be able to dispose of the body in a safe way. You'd have to hunt or grow all your own food and not go to the supermarket, as the FDA helps ensure that most things sold there is safe for you to purchase. You'd better be or know a doctor that can treat you without the use of modern medicine. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.

I don't think you realize how shitty your life would become if you lived with a society without taxes. Even in some alternate universe where existed a United States (or any society) without taxes, you'd still have to pay for all the services I mentioned when you needed them (except for the government agencies that provide regulation- but deregulation of certain things like food, drugs and water would be disastrous).

[Jake_Ellison]

Well, I don't see what the point would be.

I haven't asked what the point is. I asked whether it would be fine to do it. I can't descipher what your answer is.

If someone attacks you in your home, you wont be able to rely on the police.

What do you mean?

If I travelled to a place with no government, attacked or killed someone who isn't an American taxpayer, and came back, wouldn't it be right for the US government to punish me?

You'd have to hunt or grow all your own food and not go to the supermarket, as the FDA helps ensure that most things sold there is safe for you to purchase.

The FDA forbids me from trading with others who have food to sell, without their approval. That is what the FDA does. By what right?

Why can't I have my own factory on my own property, someone ele have his own supermarket, and a third person, who owns the land between the supermarket and the factory build the road?

Why, if I did that, all on private property, the government would come in with gones and collect taxes? By what right?

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't think you realize how shitty your life would become if you lived with a society without taxes.

So you are advocating for the government pointing a gun at my head,and forcing me to pay taxes, for my own good.

What are you basing this on? More specifically, why do you think your opinion on what is good for me is more important than my own?

Edited February 23, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[DavidOdden]

There are so many things in around you that are paid for with taxes that you wouldn't be entitled to if you stopped paying them.

If they were things I wanted, I'd pay for them. For example, garbage removal.

You wouldn't really be entitled to any outside utilities such as water or gas.

I'm not entitled to that without paying for it as it stands.

You'd pretty much be shit out of luck if your house catches on fire (unless you want to count on those altruistic neighbors of yours for help).

So I'd pay for fire protection. I'd also pay for police protection, and I'd pay to use the roads. I would not pay to extend welfare benefits to anyone. I would not pay for public schools, drug counciling, free birth control devices. I would not pay for the FDA, though I would expect some competent private company to certify the drugs that I use. I'd pay for my own doctor (as I do now). I would not pay for someone else's doctor.

In other words, a small part of the money that I pay in taxes would go to providing certain services that I do want. The rest, I get to keep. And I get to decide what I want.

[Zip]

Hmm... I don't agree with that. My life is certainly not on autopilot while I wait for my next "opportunity" to help someone. It's not something you dwell on your entire life; if someone needs help, you should probably help them. It's not that difficult.

No, you're correct, you don't need to think about it, that person's need is enough and that is when your autopilot kicks in. By all means continue to not think about what you do and are asking everyone to do. I will continue to discriminate as to when and how I help.

This above all is my point I don't want the government to do that kind of thinking for me, because like you the government doesn't think it creates a template and applies it without thought to any and all situations that fit the criteria.

If you have a problem with taxes and you want to live your life as the ultimate individual, then run out and live in the woods somewhere. Nothing's really stopping you. You don't have to be part of any country. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't get a job and don't live in civilization. People live on their own with no contact to modern society all over the world. Have fun with that. I have no problem paying the membership fees called taxes that are required to be a part of the United States. The reason I don't is because I enjoy everyday the things they pay for. If a small portion of it goes to help the less fortunate, good for them!

I have no problem paying for what I use, none whatsoever. I do however have a problem paying for what others use. This concept may come as a shock to you but the kind of unconscious nanny state government you advocate makes the productive members of society the slaves of the unproductive. All the caring in the world won't make that reality any less true.

[RationalBiker]

I'm a big believer in the use of reason- but not everything boils down to rationality.

How have you come to that conclusion?

Why can't someone do some selfless good for mankind without thinking about it rationally?

Are you asking us for a rational answer by use of the process of reasoning or would any arbitrary answer do?

[kainscalia]

I'm a big believer in the use of reason- but not everything boils down to rationality. Because not everything boils down to rationality, I can be right without having a reason for it.

Therefore, Warm Taffy, you are wrong, and are a horrible person who should be ashamed of himself.

Why, do you ask me? Why must you reduce everything to rationality? Why must you want to have a reason for everything? It simply is, and I have said so.

[WarmTaffy]

I'm sorry guys, but I can't continue replying to everyone's messages here, so I'm just going to stop now. There's just way too much to answer and I can't effectively get to everyone’s' questions between work and school and everything. I hope nobody thought I was talking down to them or belittling their opinions. I don't think I'm smarter than anyone here or anything like that, we just have a difference of opinion and I've attempted to express mine. I respect everyone’s' opinions, I just feel it's important to share honest and constructive criticism between ideas. I think there has been an ample amount going on here.

Just a last thing to say to sum everything up (and please nobody take offense to this):

I think you guys need to relax a little bit. Sure the world is generally pretty hostle and though, but things aren't that bad when it comes down to it. Reason is perhaps the most powerful tool man has, but don't cast his gift of emotion aside, however often it has lead him astray. It seems you guys are essentially anarchists, and that's cool, just don't let it blind you from the good our curent government does (yes, there is some good). If you have a problem with taxes, then vote for a party that's against them. Don't let your pre-held ideas tune your attention out to other ideas, even those which contradict yours. Even though you may be strict individualists and egoists, don't forget that we are all the same species and we are all essentially "in this together". If you choose not to "work with others" or what have you, don't let that obscure all the good done by mankind.

The most important thing is to never stop learning new ideas.

Feel free to criticize me as much as you like, but I won't be back much to join in.

[Jake_Ellison]

It seems you guys are essentially anarchists, and that's cool, just don't let it blind you from the good our curent government does (yes, there is some good).

This website is dedicated to the study of Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you don't understand or even try to understand her point of view ( calling it anarchism clearly demonstrates that you don't), it would be pretty pointless to continue the discussion.

It is also quite silly to try and judge it, and leave here thinking that your opinion on Objectivism has any validity. You have to first have a basic understanding of something before being able to offer any constructive or at least valid criticism of it. If you wish to have such an opinion on our views, read Atlas Shrugged, or at least some of her essays in her non-fiction books.