Hmmm Let me see if I understand you correctly. It is necessary for the State to violate liberty in order to insure liberty? Seems like circular reasoning to me.

I’ve met many people who are not fans of Ayn Rand, usually because they have no idea who she is, or understand her philosophy. Rational people once they understand the common sense of Objectivism can and do become fans and believers in her philosophy.

"Compulsory taxation is necessary for the existence of the State" --Ranter

I agree compulsory tax is *not* theft and maybe or maybe not is necessary. I'm open to radical experiments in Gulches with no taxes.

"However, compulsory taxation that takes from one person and gives to another person is theft and the improper use of force."-- Ranter
This leaves us to debate which programs "give to another": Law enforcement, SBIR/STTR grants, building public roads, military, subsidies for the poor, supporting art, national weather service, building rural roads to be used by one particular industry, etc.

I don't understand the philosophical or practical reason for picking a few of these as off-limits. It doesn't guarantee less gov't spending or intrusiveness.

For me the necessary but not sufficient condition for gov't spending is it be for something non-excludable from those who don't want to pay for it.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Thanks for this. I never actually considered that the advantages of being a Producer might not be obvious. In your time here, have you ever run into this: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#faq3...

Is there anything there that peaks your interest? What would you consider a compelling enough advantage to signing up as a Producer? Are you a newsletter subscriber? Daily digest subscriber?

Thanks again.

I didn't introduce a litmus test, and I don't agree with it. I asked if someone else has introduced it. If we can't ask questions because we all have to be unified in our thought, that's the opposite of what I took away from the Rand books I read.

Do those who contribute the local symphony or art museum foundation control it to the _detriment_ of those who do not? It is a fact of life that in any combined effort, not everyone gets their way. I do not mean in that context. You said "detriment." I grew up in Cleveland. George Szell conducted a lot Mozart, and not so much Shostakovich; but it was not to the detriment of the lesser donors. They did not have to donate.

So, too, in a free society, might the soldiers be dressed like Zouves, because the largest donors influence that; but it would not be to anyone's detriment. (Or maybe we would all suffer eye-aches on Independence Day.)

You remember it correctly, but incompletely. In the paperback, see pages 539-540. There Ragnar explains to Hank that the actual story of Robin Hood as a defender of property has been changed; and Robin Hood is now remembered as defender of need. "It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed..." (middle of page 540)

I don't like being called a non-producer (quite a pejorative in the context of this group) just because I don't pay for this forum. There are lots of other forums out there and most of them are free. Besides, how valid is "karma" if it can be bought for money?

I think I understand her philosophy quite well. It's just too simplistic for me to want to adopt it without changes. Hume, Mill, and Adam Smith made more sense.

I agree with the downvoter. Trying to split our community by introducing absolutist litmus tests should be considered harmful.

I agree 90%. I'm OK with Pigouvian taxes. (See http://daviddfriedman.com/laws_order/ind... , page 30 for explanation.)

Didn't AR (very publicly) give Alan Greenspan the boot for disagreeing with her about mere aesthetics?

Of Course that's what it means. There are only two legitimate options for being in the Gulch: The person agrees and wants to understand or understands and agrees. The rest are just troublemakers who want to try and deflate us egotistical blowhards. I've gone on a few blogs doing that myself, I'm ashamed (not) to say.

Free markets arent perfect, and business will often try to get whatever they can, whatever way they can. What protects us is competition. With government of course there isnt any competition, so it always gets more expensive and less responsive to us customers.

I understand the whole "producer" thing, BUT I hesitate to actually pay for some "advantages" that are nebulous. I dont see the advantages, not to mean there arent any, but they arent obvious

Yeah, we "only" kids who attempt rationality often think we're in some sort of evil theme park. It's a thin line between that and what is described as autism. Hmmm -- perhaps the big shrinks should look into that.

I really like discussions with intelligent people who actually think, and they are here in the gulch. Reading media news is a bit lame.

You know, I love strenuous discussions as much as the next person, but I really hate it when people get personal.

As a Christian I worry where Ayn Rand may be right now.
Yeah, I'm an old retired dino who came in late. Rand completely turned me around on how I viewed philosophy.
Way back in the early 70s (at Troy State on the GI Bill) I studied and respected ground breakers like Plato and Aristotle but cane to later generally regarded any so-called philosopher on TV as a chin-rubbing windbag good with big words.
I had earned my Journalism degree by learning how to communicate with the masses, not with any pseudo-intellectuals--as I then tended suspiciously view anyone who called him or herself a philosopher. Still do, I guess.
But I discovered and quickly warmed up to Ayn Rand when the AS movies first appeared.
I don't have a prob with Beethoven or Chuck Berry's "Beethoven Roll Over" song for that matter.
Ronald Reagan is my 20th Century political hero.
As for a woman as president--which woman?
Oh, IMO, abortion is murder. A Planned Parenthood assembly line abortion mill makes me think of a death camp for millions of slaughtered unborn babies.
But my compassion and tolerance levels goes way up when a pregnant lady is told giving birth may kill her or there is something really wrong with the unborn baby. I feel that's a tragic situation I should not stick my nose into.
I don't like the fetus word even if it is scientifically accurate.. I think it has become a PC dehumanization device.
That's all. I could go on and on.
I am dino.
Hear me roar.

That's a great question! It flies in the face of all of Ayn's work. No person who values themselves could rationally ascribe to a progressive ideology. It does not equate to a firm footing in reality.

Do politicians understand the U.S. Constitution?

I only give CG a hard time (if that is actually possible) when he IMO insults my intelligence.
Other times I just ignore him.
A couple of days ago I was making fun of him on that Jeff Sessions thread I started.
Today I feel moved to +1 give him #3 (just to have it known in case that point count goes up or down).
Tomorrow I may be calling him a troll.
Is this place fun or what?

So there are all levels of "fans" and all levels of agreement with her philosophies and the two are entirely different things. On purely economic matters, I find her thinking unparalleled in modern history. I admire her ability to think, but I can not agree with her philosophy 100% because there are a couple of areas of major import to me (family, death) that her philosophy just fails to cover in any meaningful way.

I entirely sympathize with the basic creed of Objectivism: the study of Reality. The participants of this forum are by far the most level-headed (in general) and willing to discuss ideas - even though they may not particularly agree with them - of any I have found on the Internet. Do we sometimes disagree on the nature of Reality? Yes, as is to be expected. If everyone conformed, it would mean that either there was no value (values are, after all a choice of utility between two things - one of lesser and one of greater return) or that every participant had perfect knowledge and saw everything the same way! I also enjoy the mental stimulation provided by those who see things differently because there is nothing more scientific than approaching the same problem from a different angle to verify that the hypothesis still holds up under scrutiny. And people are the biggest curiosity in the universe to me: the study of agent behavior to me is downright fascinating.

Agreed. As for working for the government, Rand thought it morally permissible if the services rendered would be proper in a free society if provided by a private entity. Postman OK; concentration camp guard not OK.