[002]
harkko
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Is the Michael Jackson supposed to be a joke? Bieber is a teenager whereas Michael was like 10 or 11 when he started in The Jackson 5 and I think Justin is a bit too old to be called a child prodigy.
to:
Is the Michael Jackson comparison supposed to be a joke? Bieber is a teenager whereas Michael was like 10 or 11 when he started in The Jackson 5 and I think Justin is a bit too old to be called a child prodigy.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
137.178.246.158,
to:
173.178.246.158,
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
Glad I could clarify things for you. I should add, however, I have \'\'never\'\' seen any fiscal conservative argue that \
to:
Glad I could clarify things for you. I should add, however, I have \\\'\\\'never\\\'\\\' seen any fiscal conservative argue that \\\"all poverty is a choice which can be solved by hard work.\\\" Additionally, there is a difference between arguing \\\"all poverty is a choice\\\" and \\\"some poor people make some choices that can contribute to their poverty.\\\" People aren\\\'t powerless, pathetic victims, after all.
[=SchizoTechnician=],
First, I want to thank you for your politely worded and intelligent comment.
Lets be clear; the actual finer points of politics are debated even amongst Objectivists. Rand herself advocated an \\\'\\\'Ultraminimal State\\\'\\\', being the same position advocated by Robert Nozick in \\\'\\\'Anarchy, State and Utopia\\\'\\\'. This consists of a single State where citizens pay for government services. However, many Objectivists are actually standard-issue libertarian \\\'\\\'Minarchists\\\'\\\' that argue for slightly larger amounts of government than Rand herself did (for various reasons). On the other hand, there are some Objectivists that are full-blown free-market Anarchists that believe the State should not exist and be replaced with freely competing protection services.
Rand herself was indeed opposed to coercive taxation (this is the primary argument made by the Free-Market Anarchist Objectivists; opposition to coercive taxation inevitably leads to Free-Market Anarchy). But most Objectivists are of the Minarchist variety and thus believe \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' level of taxation is inevitable and necessary to secure a night-watchman State. So not all Objectivists are against \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' taxation. The majority accept taxation that is sufficient to guarantee national defense, police and law courts, and some accept slightly more depending on their own individual position as to how small the state can get.
Also, I\\\'d like to clarify that Free Market Economics (and this is not merely the Objectivist position, but the position of every free-market advocate) doesn\\\'t mean \\\"you can do anything\\\" but rather \\\"you can do anything that \\\'\\\'is not\\\'\\\' the \\\'\\\'initiation\\\'\\\' of violence, fraud or threats thereof.\\\" Truth In Advertising (as a general principle) is thus required by the ban on fraud (deception is a form of fraud). This would also include warning labels for potentially dangerous products. Additionally, there is a substantial economic case that even without regulation, a genuine free market for a specific good is the best way to make it safer.
You also raise the issue of externalities. However, many externalities can be dealt with via private property rights. For instance, party A owns a factory which is dumping pollution into a river owned by party B. This means party A is violating the private property rights of party B. For more on this (as well as free market solutions to externalities) please check out the Coase Theorem and The Tragedy of the Commons.
You also look at the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming. This is one externality that admittedly \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' be dealt with via the Coase Theorem, \\\'\\\'assuming it is true\\\'\\\'. Many Objectivists, including myself, are skeptics about Anthropogenic Global Warming, and for every intellectually honesty AGW supporter like Judith Curry, there are \\\'\\\'plenty\\\'\\\' of AGW supporters that seem to have a philosophical commitment to environmentalism (and who lambast mankind\\\'s \\\"Promethean Arrogance\\\" and want to see us all humbled and brought down low). In all cases, I believe that \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' AGW is indeed empirically correct, then the most cost-effective solution is technological improvement and geo-engineering. There are substantial private businesses already working on low-cost geo-engineering solutions, see \\\'\\\'Freakonomics 2\\\'\\\' for more on this (there\\\'s a chapter that deals with AGW).
I should add, not all Objectivists would agree with me on details of practical implementations of solutions to the problems you raise. Reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a principle. As I said there is debate amongst Objectivists as to the smallest proper scope of the State, as well as to whether or not there may be problems that cannot be fixed via voluntary methods. As for my own personal leanings, I actually believe that \\\'\\\'in the absense of a significant improvement in the general moral character (by Objectivist standards) of most human beings\\\'\\\', the smallest government that could be practically achieved is a Hayek-style minarchy (Police, Military, Justice System, \\\'\\\'no\\\'\\\' central bank, denationalized money supply, an \\\'\\\'absolutely minimal\\\'\\\' safety net via a negative income tax, privatize as much infrastructure as possible and in cases where it is not possible it should be delegated to the lowest and most decentralized level of government possible, and no more tax than \\\'\\\'absolutely necessary\\\'\\\' to fund this).
However, not all Objectivists share my position on this issue. This is why on the main page I stuck with ideology and stated that there are differences amongst Objectivists as to the best way to implement it.
[=SchizoTechnician=],
First, I want to thank you for your politely worded and intelligent comment.
Lets be clear; the actual finer points of politics are debated even amongst Objectivists. Rand herself advocated an \\\'\\\'Ultraminimal State\\\'\\\', being the same position advocated by Robert Nozick in \\\'\\\'Anarchy, State and Utopia\\\'\\\'. This consists of a single State where citizens pay for government services. However, many Objectivists are actually standard-issue libertarian \\\'\\\'Minarchists\\\'\\\' that argue for slightly larger amounts of government than Rand herself did (for various reasons). On the other hand, there are some Objectivists that are full-blown free-market Anarchists that believe the State should not exist and be replaced with freely competing protection services.
Rand herself was indeed opposed to coercive taxation (this is the primary argument made by the Free-Market Anarchist Objectivists; opposition to coercive taxation inevitably leads to Free-Market Anarchy). But most Objectivists are of the Minarchist variety and thus believe \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' level of taxation is inevitable and necessary to secure a night-watchman State. So not all Objectivists are against \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' taxation. The majority accept taxation that is sufficient to guarantee national defense, police and law courts, and some accept slightly more depending on their own individual position as to how small the state can get.
Also, I\\\'d like to clarify that Free Market Economics (and this is not merely the Objectivist position, but the position of every free-market advocate) doesn\\\'t mean \\\"you can do anything\\\" but rather \\\"you can do anything that \\\'\\\'is not\\\'\\\' the \\\'\\\'initiation\\\'\\\' of violence, fraud or threats thereof.\\\" Truth In Advertising (as a general principle) is thus required by the ban on fraud (deception is a form of fraud). This would also include warning labels for potentially dangerous products. Additionally, there is a substantial economic case that even without regulation, a genuine free market for a specific good is the best way to make it safer.
You also raise the issue of externalities. However, many externalities can be dealt with via private property rights. For instance, party A owns a factory which is dumping pollution into a river owned by party B. This means party A is violating the private property rights of party B. For more on this (as well as free market solutions to externalities) please check out the Coase Theorem and The Tragedy of the Commons.
You also look at the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming. This is one externality that admittedly \\\'\\\'cannot\\\'\\\' be dealt with via the Coase Theorem, \\\'\\\'assuming it is true\\\'\\\'. Many Objectivists, including myself, are skeptics about Anthropogenic Global Warming, and for every intellectually honesty AGW supporter like Judith Curry, there are \\\'\\\'plenty\\\'\\\' of AGW supporters that seem to have a philosophical commitment to environmentalism (and who lambast mankind\\\'s \\\"Promethean Arrogance\\\" and want to see us all humbled and brought down low). In all cases, I believe that \\\'\\\'if\\\'\\\' AGW is indeed empirically correct, then the most cost-effective solution is technological improvement and geo-engineering. There are substantial private businesses already working on low-cost geo-engineering solutions, see \\\'\\\'Freakonomics 2\\\'\\\' for more on this (there\\\'s a chapter that deals with AGW).
I should add, not all Objectivists would agree with me on details of practical implementations of solutions to the problems you raise. Reasonable people can disagree on the best way to implement a principle. As I said there is debate amongst Objectivists as to the smallest proper scope of the State, as well as to whether or not there may be problems that cannot be fixed via voluntary methods. As for my own personal leanings, I actually believe that \\\'\\\'in the absense of a significant improvement in the general moral character (by Objectivist standards) of most human beings\\\'\\\', the smallest government that could be practically achieved is a Hayek-style minarchy (Police, Military, Justice System, \\\'\\\'no\\\'\\\' central bank, denationalized money supply, an \\\'\\\'absolutely minimal\\\'\\\' safety net via a negative income tax, privatize as much infrastructure as possible and in cases where it is not possible it should be delegated to the lowest and most decentralized level of government possible, and no more tax than \\\'\\\'absolutely necessary\\\'\\\' to fund this).
However, not all Objectivists share my position on this issue. This is why on the main page I stuck with ideology and stated that there are differences amongst Objectivists as to the best way to implement it.
