You should check out the Objectivism Online Forum. It's usually pretty interesting to read, and if you have any questions, people will usually jump at answering them.
I started reading Atlas Shrugged a few months ago and got about 2/3 through before moving on to other books, but it definitely left an impact. Maybe I'll finally pick it up again and finish it.
Also, how did you get through that whole book in one week? I guess if you read 30 pages an hour for 5 hours a day it would be possible, plus I found myself going back and rereading certain speeches and interesting parts.
"Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage or prevent greed from wrecking society."
What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say?
"Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption."
Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.
"If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle."
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).
"So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism."
The ends do not justify the means, ever. A few temporary positives are not worth giving up all your rights.
"I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state."
I can agree with that, although you seem to think the fault lies with the businesses, whereas for me, because the state is the entity actually applying the force on the public, I see the state as to blame.
Actually, no, what "capitalism is" is well-defined. What corrupt businessmen do is entirely different. They are opportunistic supporters of rights violations for financial gain - to their own ultimate detriment, of course. The real source of the problem is a government made up of individuals who are likewise looking for easy money and willing to do anything to make that happen. The businessmen and politicians gain, and we lose.
Good question! Sadly, that's what it'll come down to - deciding which candidate is less dangerous for the country. And that is difficult to determine. You've got professed widespread altruism and its corresponding rights violations on one side, and on the other side you have claimed "free market" proposals that will fail and dissuade the public away from the phrase "free market" in the future, combined with a zealous religious party.
My only hope is that one party will get a strong lead in Congress, and I can just vote for the candidate of the opposing party. He'll have huge pressure placed on him to toe the party line, and maybe, just maybe, nothing will get done!
What right does the government have to say that an individual or company who violated your rights cannot be held accountable. Has the government gone so completely backwards that now they're endorsing rather than preventing rights violations?
It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.
I don't see how endorsing someone who is freely open to the idea of property rights violations is going to help stop privacy rights violations... afterall the telco victims' privacy was violated through property rights violations.
What right does the government have to say that an individual or company who violated your rights cannot be held accountable. Has the government gone so completely backwards that now they're endorsing rather than preventing rights violations?
It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.
Argument from ignorance. Either come out and say it's a personal conviction of yours, backed up by no rationale or evidence, or drop your claim altogether.
"You are asserting, without support, that only rational beings have rights."
No, I am asserting that only rational beings have human rights like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
"What about those that disagree with you?"
What rights do they assert humans have, and what rights do they assert an underdeveloped embryo has, and for what reasons?
"You attempts to trivialize conflict to "this is what I believe, so it is the truth" with the implication that anyone that disagrees is wrong is a useless stand that is further evidence that your thoughts on government are useless utopian ideals."
So the measure of truth depends on the usefulness of arguments for convincing others? Or are you attacking my arguments with any other rationale or evidence than that they are "useless".
"Just as soon as you show me a stable government that is voluntarily funded."
I proposed a voluntarily funded government as a way of avoiding rights violations. You have equated it with instability. What is your evidence to back up this claim?
"Do you have the right to choice, or the right to life?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If I'm to interpret it as a reference to abortion, then as a rational being I have both rights, but lacking the independence of thought and will, an unborn fetus does not.
"you claimed that voluntarily funded governments can work."
No, I claimed they are a way of avoiding violating the right to property.
Well, you can get Firefox 2 from other sites, but not from Mozilla directly... seems weird. When I installed 3 it automatically removed 2... maybe you got a different result.
I use LogMeIn Rescue all the time at work and since upgrading it crashes firefox, and there is no version 2 to go back to. I guess I switch back to IE...
Selfishness is a good thing. It demands efficient and quality performance from those one deals with.
"...stupid..."
And therefore they should be ruled over, and their choice should be taken away? That sounds pretty "stupid" to me.
"and short sighted"
In an economic climate where every 2-4 years newly elected officials stick their claws into the economy, and where the federal reserve can sway the entire market with one action, I am not surprised that people are being short-sighted. They are forced to be, because every other organization in the market is forced to be. Try getting a long-term loan (30+ years) in today's market. In a more stable economy, where the government does not assume power over the market, I can see people becoming less short-sighted.
"It'll be a subzero day in Hades before we see Joe Sixpack willingly give money to the government, no matter how much they'd benefit from it."
Maybe for the current government where so much goes to waste and rights violations, but you'll have to show some evidence that the same would be true for a rights-upholding government. The US population is one of the most willing to donate to worthy causes. Make the government a worthy cause and I see no reason why people wouldn't be willing to support it. If you do, please elaborate.
Yes, but there is nothing stopping you from using the "I never said that" defense when it is convenient.
"And, no, I don't want to discuss it because I don't give a crap about the topic you have forced upon everyone."
You've replied twice so far. So you give at least a little crap.
"This is reinforced by many other people modding you as a troll or off-topic."
Ha! What a great world it would be if truth were determined by majority! I must be a troll/off-topic, because one or two people modded some of my posts as such!
"Might as well declare anarchy, invade the military bases, since they belong to us, destroy all utilities, since they use land they never paid for for their pipes and cables, and burn down the White House."
Who's supporting anarchy? It is the purpose of the government to defend our rights. It's just that the government has decided it has other purposes, which violate our rights.
And why is there no other choice for service in that area? Government restriction. You can't use as an argument for government regulation a status quo that is negatively impacted by government regulation.
"In your planet, how does the customer find out that he's been misinformed when there is no other source of information but the provider itself?"
Once they are using the service they will know pretty quickly the accuracy of the claims that were made by the provider to get them to sign the contract.
Slashdot Mirror
You should check out the Objectivism Online Forum. It's usually pretty interesting to read, and if you have any questions, people will usually jump at answering them.
I started reading Atlas Shrugged a few months ago and got about 2/3 through before moving on to other books, but it definitely left an impact. Maybe I'll finally pick it up again and finish it.
Also, how did you get through that whole book in one week? I guess if you read 30 pages an hour for 5 hours a day it would be possible, plus I found myself going back and rereading certain speeches and interesting parts.
"And that is the inevitable result of free market capitalism, or fascist states where the government is "the shadow of business cast over society.""
That is not capitalism, but corporatism.
"Without regulation, you cannot assign cost to environmental damage or prevent greed from wrecking society."
What is this based on? Do you have any supporting evidence that "greed wrecks society", or should we just accept what you say?
"Hierarchies will always get top heavy with power and corruption."
Corruption only becomes a concern to the public when it is backed by force, something which only the government can apply.
"If they are in a functioning democracy, at least the public can vote corruption out during the next election cycle."
And that official will be replaced by another corrupt official. As long as the government is able to manipulate the economy, individuals and businesses will flock to them to get manipulation in their favor (otherwise they risk seeing unfavorable legislation forced against them).
"So, a healthy but limited government keeping corporate power in check will yield many of the benefits of capitalism."
The ends do not justify the means, ever. A few temporary positives are not worth giving up all your rights.
"I think in order to do this we need to introduce the separation of business and state."
I can agree with that, although you seem to think the fault lies with the businesses, whereas for me, because the state is the entity actually applying the force on the public, I see the state as to blame.
Actually, no, what "capitalism is" is well-defined. What corrupt businessmen do is entirely different. They are opportunistic supporters of rights violations for financial gain - to their own ultimate detriment, of course. The real source of the problem is a government made up of individuals who are likewise looking for easy money and willing to do anything to make that happen. The businessmen and politicians gain, and we lose.
Good question! Sadly, that's what it'll come down to - deciding which candidate is less dangerous for the country. And that is difficult to determine. You've got professed widespread altruism and its corresponding rights violations on one side, and on the other side you have claimed "free market" proposals that will fail and dissuade the public away from the phrase "free market" in the future, combined with a zealous religious party.
My only hope is that one party will get a strong lead in Congress, and I can just vote for the candidate of the opposing party. He'll have huge pressure placed on him to toe the party line, and maybe, just maybe, nothing will get done!
"All rights to individuals and companies are granted by the government."
And what exactly is the government made up of if not individuals? Bits of cold gravel?
I'm not sure how to interpret your post... I'm not in favor of McCain or Obama...
"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."
Corrupt government officials passing legislation favoring corrupt companies is the antithesis of capitalism.
What right does the government have to say that an individual or company who violated your rights cannot be held accountable. Has the government gone so completely backwards that now they're endorsing rather than preventing rights violations?
It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.
How a candidate acts when it is politically profitable is no indication of how they will act when they have all the power they want.
I don't see how endorsing someone who is freely open to the idea of property rights violations is going to help stop privacy rights violations... afterall the telco victims' privacy was violated through property rights violations.
What right does the government have to say that an individual or company who violated your rights cannot be held accountable. Has the government gone so completely backwards that now they're endorsing rather than preventing rights violations?
It's like a rapist asking God for forgiveness. Only the victim has the right to forgive.
Oh, sorry... they'll release the solution in a couple weeks after the study makes the rounds.
And let me guess, they're selling a brand new solution to this problem, and it's perfect for all of us!
"What is your evidence?" - "That none exist."
Argument from ignorance. Either come out and say it's a personal conviction of yours, backed up by no rationale or evidence, or drop your claim altogether.
"You are asserting, without support, that only rational beings have rights."
No, I am asserting that only rational beings have human rights like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
"What about those that disagree with you?"
What rights do they assert humans have, and what rights do they assert an underdeveloped embryo has, and for what reasons?
"You attempts to trivialize conflict to "this is what I believe, so it is the truth" with the implication that anyone that disagrees is wrong is a useless stand that is further evidence that your thoughts on government are useless utopian ideals."
So the measure of truth depends on the usefulness of arguments for convincing others? Or are you attacking my arguments with any other rationale or evidence than that they are "useless".
"Just as soon as you show me a stable government that is voluntarily funded."
I proposed a voluntarily funded government as a way of avoiding rights violations. You have equated it with instability. What is your evidence to back up this claim?
"Do you have the right to choice, or the right to life?"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If I'm to interpret it as a reference to abortion, then as a rational being I have both rights, but lacking the independence of thought and will, an unborn fetus does not.
"you claimed that voluntarily funded governments can work."
No, I claimed they are a way of avoiding violating the right to property.
"An unfunded government is indistinguishable from anarchy."
You're going to have to show some evidence that a voluntarily-funded government is an unfunded government.
"Also, there isn't an agreement on "rights.""
Alright, where do you disagree and why. Or are you just throwing moral relativism at the problem?
Well, you can get Firefox 2 from other sites, but not from Mozilla directly... seems weird. When I installed 3 it automatically removed 2... maybe you got a different result.
I use LogMeIn Rescue all the time at work and since upgrading it crashes firefox, and there is no version 2 to go back to. I guess I switch back to IE...
"Then how should it be funded? "
Voluntarily.
"People are selfish..."
Selfishness is a good thing. It demands efficient and quality performance from those one deals with.
"...stupid..."
And therefore they should be ruled over, and their choice should be taken away? That sounds pretty "stupid" to me.
"and short sighted"
In an economic climate where every 2-4 years newly elected officials stick their claws into the economy, and where the federal reserve can sway the entire market with one action, I am not surprised that people are being short-sighted. They are forced to be, because every other organization in the market is forced to be. Try getting a long-term loan (30+ years) in today's market. In a more stable economy, where the government does not assume power over the market, I can see people becoming less short-sighted.
"It'll be a subzero day in Hades before we see Joe Sixpack willingly give money to the government, no matter how much they'd benefit from it."
Maybe for the current government where so much goes to waste and rights violations, but you'll have to show some evidence that the same would be true for a rights-upholding government. The US population is one of the most willing to donate to worthy causes. Make the government a worthy cause and I see no reason why people wouldn't be willing to support it. If you do, please elaborate.
"I thought I was rather explicit about it."
Yes, but there is nothing stopping you from using the "I never said that" defense when it is convenient.
"And, no, I don't want to discuss it because I don't give a crap about the topic you have forced upon everyone."
You've replied twice so far. So you give at least a little crap.
"This is reinforced by many other people modding you as a troll or off-topic."
Ha! What a great world it would be if truth were determined by majority! I must be a troll/off-topic, because one or two people modded some of my posts as such!
Ridiculous...
"Might as well declare anarchy, invade the military bases, since they belong to us, destroy all utilities, since they use land they never paid for for their pipes and cables, and burn down the White House."
Who's supporting anarchy? It is the purpose of the government to defend our rights. It's just that the government has decided it has other purposes, which violate our rights.
And why is there no other choice for service in that area? Government restriction. You can't use as an argument for government regulation a status quo that is negatively impacted by government regulation.
"It's a fact of life that the status quo will persevere unless there are good arguments and actions against it."
That's the whole purpose of my discussion here, to help bring about such changes in the status quo.
"You're arguing on how things should be, we're arguing how things are, and the way we should respond."
I am doing both, actually. I already said what to do with the information given that it has already been acquired....
"In your planet, how does the customer find out that he's been misinformed when there is no other source of information but the provider itself?"
Once they are using the service they will know pretty quickly the accuracy of the claims that were made by the provider to get them to sign the contract.