|
Oppp2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Paul! you should have so many more subscribers. to bad people values style over substance.
chizel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
concerning your logistical issue upon the transfer of right and wrong of a Judaical system, i would question whether the existence of absolute right or wrong as you stated(9:48) would be more of an intrinsic stance rather than an objectivist. i understand your assertion that the mitigation or involvement of the arbitrator is synonymous between your 'neighbors' involvement and the courts involvement, but i don't see in your explanation the justification under an objectivist morality or judiciary.
dharmashapta (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
I think she was just pissed at libertarians stealing her ideas. Essentially, in decreasing the size and scope of government, and the seoaration of economy and government Raynd view's are 100% libertarian. Whether she liked very much those 'kooky' libertarians is another issue.
PaulMcKeever (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Rand was 0% libertarian. She spoke about it. Google: "Ayn Rand" libertarian
xtodx (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
hey, can we expect them to that for free?
just asking cuz you did repeat yourself enough.
dharmashapta (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Rand was 100% Libertarian
freefallin002 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
There is a third option. Justice doesn't have to be done by the individual or by the state. A private court system is the solution to problem. It both solves the need for an third party who is not emotionally involved and it prevents the necessity of taxes. Taxes are immoral - there is no way around it - taking someones money against their will is never right.
rbilkie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
The only objection I can see is that the more generous "tax" payer's money may possibly influence the verdict. But again, if society has progressed enough to accept Rand's philosophy, people will have a stronger grasp on justice and the selfishness of the concept. If the majority of society is non-objective, then forced taxation is to be expected. It isn't until a major revolution in thought and morality occurs that something like "voluntary taxation" can occur.
rbilkie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
...government officials, depending on how important security is to the individuals. It's unforced taxation, a truly "free" government (though not monetarily). If you want protection, you pay for it by funding the government yourself, and others do the same. This will keep the government budget at the lowest it needs to be in order to carry out it's function, rather than what you see with forced taxation and bureaucracy today, all the while providing incentive to perform competantly as a gov emp.
rbilkie (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Honest and noble. But I disagree. It's important to keep in mind that by the time a society has progressed enough to accept Rand's philosophy, and is devoted to enforcing individual rights, men will causally have the motivation to fund an impartial institution that carries this out. Therefore, the government would not be required to tax the citizens--they would provide the funds necessary to carry out the function. In this case, it is proper to let the market determine the wage of the... |
