Yaron, In Portland, Oregon. A baker is being charged by City for a criminal offence for not making a cake for a Lesbian couples wedding. He indicated that it was against his religious beliefs.
Excellent explanation. I am mixed-race, and I want racists to be open and honest, so that I can boycott their businesses. You should also have mentioned another way in which irrational discrimination would be minimized in a free market: in corporations, managers have a duty to the shareholders to maximize profits; by practising irrational discrimination and thereby failing to maximize profits, managers would be liable to be sued and fired by the shareholders.
Objectivism does not hold that taxation should be used to find police and courts! Objectivism holds that first we should shrink government to only those functions while keeping in place taxation (likely lowering taxes). But THEN once the government is small, we should switch to a purely voluntary payment system which will be able to support a limited government.
The only thing here is taxation which is in question, which none of the Objectivists say it has been worked out. The rest of the philosophy is far from being self defeating, or irrational. As far as Anarchy goes, no one is advocating it, and no one wants it, since Objectivists understand what hell Anarchy is
If government restricted itself to its constitutional mandate, protection (defensive military, police, etc), courts. It wouldn't need much money. There are several ways, some better than others, sales tax, tariffs. Before the 1900's, almost all was raised by tariffs. Right now just federal government consumes close to 22% total gnp, before 1900, all US government, city, state, federal used 2-3% and we were the economic, innovative leader of the world. If you include obligations its 45% of gnp
I am not for regulations, nor am I for government mandates, I do want a solutions to animal abuse where gvt. is not involved. By the way, I did mention that this was my second concern, I would like to know the answer to question no1. I am all for Objectivism 100% I simply want answers and possible solutions, this doesnt mean that in any shape or form I would reject Objectivism if solutions can not be found as of now. Im Objectivist 100%
Search his vids, he has in the past indicated that govt would have no biz interfering with a persons treatment of their property. He goes on to say that animal abuse is immoral but should not be against the law.
Right, of course I would never associate with such horrible individuals. But I just feel like there should be something that can be done, I have no idea what though, as Philosophy is contradictory to my personal values, and what I fell should be my actions in this case.
The Objectivist response is that abuse is probably irrational because as the term implies there is no reason to inflict harm. If it is some scientific experiment to gain value for humans, that is not abuse. But, inflecting pain merely for the sake of destruction or gaining pleasure from it would be sadistic. Some people may enjoy that, but you just don't associate with people like that and few do, that is the response. You stay away from people that do strange or horrible things.
Take a look at chapter 15 of Ayn Rand's "The virtue of selfishness" book. But to summarize it for you - everyone has an interest in government protecting their basic liberties. So everyone would contribute to the government voluntarily and all taxes would be abolished. Ayn Rand suggests tying tax contributions to the size of legal contracts that the government upholds in court. I have heard others suggest a purely voluntary contribution system...where reputation upholds the system.
Animals don't have rights, so the government can't intervene. The government would get its funding through voluntary funding, but that is one of the last steps to a limited government.
Best you can do is report it to an animal abuse organization if you discover it and make sure the person is exposed to prevent it. You also have things like SPCA which get animals to better homes if they are neglected; give the owner an easy way out to transfer the animal. There are places for organizations to take care of things like that, but I don't think it is really a top priority for improving human life, which ultimately is the important thing.
Yaron, Im having trouble with 2 things 1) Where would gvt. get the money to operate? (this is the most important one) 2) I am an animal lover, since animals are considered private property, does this mean that I would not be able to do anything, if I see a house pet being terribly abused? After all, they are property, and we dont intervene if someone is breaking a chair (as an example), but we do if someone is trying to kill his dog
Thats why I said in my original statement that animals is my second question and not the most important one. And you are talking about organization right now. I am asking about it in the Objectivist world, if I ever live to see it. I really hope I do get to live to see it. Im young enough, but someday I would like to see Objectivism as a full system of the USA, to leave a better place my children (who do not exist yet)
Well you see where my philosophical conflict is? We as Objectivists, call all taxation theft, which it is,since non of it is voluntary, and at some point force is involved, yet we say that some taxation is ok.I will go even further, as of right now, I would be happy with zero regulations and only 20% tax on consumption and no other taxes, but my problem is not mathematical, its philosophical.I am not an anarchists either, I have personally seen the gates of hell opened in capitalist anarchy
I get the part of leaving it to the individuals, yet I personally want to have the power to stop such people, which has nothing to do with the gvt. But to consider pets as private property means I can not do anything against that individual, as much as I can against someone breaking a lawn chair. I want the ability to stop those who torture. So I want to know how Objectivism would deal with this issue, and Im not advocating for gvt. stepping in
I also love animals, especially cats, my Bubble Kitty sleeps with me, follows me everywhere etc. I personally would go ballistic if I saw anybody abusing an animal, and I would get arrested. How ever objectivism is about not infringing upon ones personal freedom, for any reason. When you start regulating one thing, then you start regulating everything, which is what we have now. I agree with you about animals but where does it stop? In objectivism only Humans are sacred, animals are not.
Yaron, In Portland, Oregon. A baker is being charged by City for a criminal offence for not making a cake for a Lesbian couples wedding. He indicated that it was against his religious beliefs.
Excellent explanation. I am mixed-race, and I want racists to be open and honest, so that I can boycott their businesses. You should also have mentioned another way in which irrational discrimination would be minimized in a free market: in corporations, managers have a duty to the shareholders to maximize profits; by practising irrational discrimination and thereby failing to maximize profits, managers would be liable to be sued and fired by the shareholders.
Objectivism does not hold that taxation should be used to find police and courts! Objectivism holds that first we should shrink government to only those functions while keeping in place taxation (likely lowering taxes). But THEN once the government is small, we should switch to a purely voluntary payment system which will be able to support a limited government.
The only thing here is taxation which is in question, which none of the Objectivists say it has been worked out. The rest of the philosophy is far from being self defeating, or irrational. As far as Anarchy goes, no one is advocating it, and no one wants it, since Objectivists understand what hell Anarchy is
If government restricted itself to its constitutional mandate, protection (defensive military, police, etc), courts. It wouldn't need much money. There are several ways, some better than others, sales tax, tariffs. Before the 1900's, almost all was raised by tariffs.
Right now just federal government consumes close to 22% total gnp, before 1900, all US government, city, state, federal used 2-3% and we were the economic, innovative leader of the world. If you include obligations its 45% of gnp
I am not for regulations, nor am I for government mandates, I do want a solutions to animal abuse where gvt. is not involved. By the way, I did mention that this was my second concern, I would like to know the answer to question no1. I am all for Objectivism 100% I simply want answers and possible solutions, this doesnt mean that in any shape or form I would reject Objectivism if solutions can not be found as of now. Im Objectivist 100%
Search his vids, he has in the past indicated that govt would have no biz interfering with a persons treatment of their property. He goes on to say that animal abuse is immoral but should not be against the law.
And I am not advocating for gvt. Intervention, but I would like to see some kind of Objectivist solution against animal abuse.
Right, of course I would never associate with such horrible individuals. But I just feel like there should be something that can be done, I have no idea what though, as Philosophy is contradictory to my personal values, and what I fell should be my actions in this case.
The Objectivist response is that abuse is probably irrational because as the term implies there is no reason to inflict harm. If it is some scientific experiment to gain value for humans, that is not abuse. But, inflecting pain merely for the sake of destruction or gaining pleasure from it would be sadistic. Some people may enjoy that, but you just don't associate with people like that and few do, that is the response. You stay away from people that do strange or horrible things.
Take a look at chapter 15 of Ayn Rand's "The virtue of selfishness" book. But to summarize it for you - everyone has an interest in government protecting their basic liberties. So everyone would contribute to the government voluntarily and all taxes would be abolished. Ayn Rand suggests tying tax contributions to the size of legal contracts that the government upholds in court. I have heard others suggest a purely voluntary contribution system...where reputation upholds the system.
Animals don't have rights, so the government can't intervene. The government would get its funding through voluntary funding, but that is one of the last steps to a limited government.
Best you can do is report it to an animal abuse organization if you discover it and make sure the person is exposed to prevent it. You also have things like SPCA which get animals to better homes if they are neglected; give the owner an easy way out to transfer the animal. There are places for organizations to take care of things like that, but I don't think it is really a top priority for improving human life, which ultimately is the important thing.
Well my question wasnt about which tax would be better, since all taxation is legalized theft. But aren't tariffs just another form of taxation?
Yaron, Im having trouble with 2 things
1) Where would gvt. get the money to operate? (this is the most important one)
2) I am an animal lover, since animals are considered private property, does this mean that I would not be able to do anything, if I see a house pet being terribly abused? After all, they are property, and we dont intervene if someone is breaking a chair (as an example), but we do if someone is trying to kill his dog
Animals can be property. Just apply property rights to your pet.
Found animal abuse one, search for, Yaron Answers: Should There Be Laws Against Animal Cruelty?
Thats why I said in my original statement that animals is my second question and not the most important one. And you are talking about organization right now. I am asking about it in the Objectivist world, if I ever live to see it. I really hope I do get to live to see it. Im young enough, but someday I would like to see Objectivism as a full system of the USA, to leave a better place my children (who do not exist yet)
Well you see where my philosophical conflict is? We as Objectivists, call all taxation theft, which it is,since non of it is voluntary, and at some point force is involved, yet we say that some taxation is ok.I will go even further, as of right now, I would be happy with zero regulations and only 20% tax on consumption and no other taxes, but my problem is not mathematical, its philosophical.I am not an anarchists either, I have personally seen the gates of hell opened in capitalist anarchy
I get the part of leaving it to the individuals, yet I personally want to have the power to stop such people, which has nothing to do with the gvt. But to consider pets as private property means I can not do anything against that individual, as much as I can against someone breaking a lawn chair. I want the ability to stop those who torture. So I want to know how Objectivism would deal with this issue, and Im not advocating for gvt. stepping in
I also love animals, especially cats, my Bubble Kitty sleeps with me, follows me everywhere etc. I personally would go ballistic if I saw anybody abusing an animal, and I would get arrested. How ever objectivism is about not infringing upon ones personal freedom, for any reason. When you start regulating one thing, then you start regulating everything, which is what we have now. I agree with you about animals but where does it stop? In objectivism only Humans are sacred, animals are not.
I understand it being immoral, so I guess you would allow someone torturing an animal? If there is no way to stop it
I'd love Objectivist feedback on my essay about a possible gay subtext in "The Fountainhead":
glreview.org/article/what-ayn-rand-hoped-youd-miss/
explain