wars ( in almost every case ) have been good for the United States economy.

Yep, and that's exactly what they were banking on... Until Iran stepped in and said 'Don't touch the Iraqi oil!'... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Isn't funny Rush...We both think the other guy is saying nothing.

But I know you're wrong. LOL

Much as I don't want this thread (about a possible war with Iran, in case anybody forgot) to become one in which the rights and wrongs of the use of gov't force in terms of taxation are discussed at length, it seems to me that there's an inherent contradiction in Rush's (and by extension the Objectivist) argument. Namely, if the use of gov't force is wrong per se, then no matter how rational the objectives (e.g. protection from other uses of force and fraud), it is wrong for gov't to tax for such purposes. Further, what makes protection from force and fraud inherently rational and not protection from say starvation? And finally, if we accept that use of gov't force is inherently rational as laid out by Rush, what's to stop gov't using such force to raise funds to purchase an entire airforce of F-22s?

Now back to Iran, anybody heard if European businesses are being allowed back there now that it's been found there's no active nuclear weapons program?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Just the core part:

It's possible that the " common man ", if put in charge, would make absolutely sure that his fellow man was taken care of...but it's more likely that the " common man " would do nothing more than use the power given to him to make sure that he HIMSELF is taken care of.

Remember the saying: "Power corrupts."

Exactly. So why would the " common man " be less corruptible than anyone else??

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Just the core part:

It's possible that the " common man ", if put in charge, would make absolutely sure that his fellow man was taken care of...but it's more likely that the " common man " would do nothing more than use the power given to him to make sure that he HIMSELF is taken care of.

Remember the saying: "Power corrupts."

Exactly. So why would the " common man " be less corruptible than anyone else??

I wasn't speaking of a single person when I wrote about controlling the force of government.
I was speaking of the collective wisdom of the people and a government that responds to their needs rather than responding to the wants of the elites.

wars ( in almost every case ) have been good for the United States economy.

Yep, and that's exactly what they were banking on... Until Iran stepped in and said 'Don't touch the Iraqi oil!'... ;)

Wrong. This is known as the 'fallacy of the glazier'. Wars are NEVER good for the economy in the whole. They may be good for certain select entities like arms manufacturers and prosthetic limb makers but never benefit the GDP as a whole. There are times when a nation must war in order to prevent its cities from being bombed to dust (certainly BAD for an economy) but even in that case the expenditures for that war effort leave the country poorer than if it never had faced the threat in the first place.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Much as I don't want this thread (about a possible war with Iran, in case anybody forgot) to become one in which the rights and wrongs of the use of gov't force in terms of taxation are discussed at length, it seems to me that there's an inherent contradiction in Rush's (and by extension the Objectivist) argument. Namely, if the use of gov't force is wrong per se, then no matter how rational the objectives (e.g. protection from other uses of force and fraud), it is wrong for gov't to tax for such purposes.

You've failed to understand the Objectivist position on taxes altogether. Obectivists believe only in a system of voluntary taxation. Period.

Further, what makes protection from force and fraud inherently rational and not protection from say starvation?

If a government initiates force to pay for the food, shoes, healthcare, cupie dolls, or any other such thing that's regarded as wrong. However I'll remind you that historically the more socialized and statist (ie more gov't force) a nation is the more their people have problems affording all of these things. The more capitalist a nation the less people want for these. Furthermore, the semi-capitalist nations like the U.S. typically are the most charitable. The more people rely on the gubbmint to look after every day to day need of the citizenry from cradle to grave the less people have to give to charity, and the less willing they are as well as it's the gubbmint's job now in their minds.

And finally, if we accept that use of gov't force is inherently rational as laid out by Rush, what's to stop gov't using such force to raise funds to purchase an entire airforce of F-22s?

I don't recall him stating any thing of the kind. In fact, he stated the opposite.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Just the core part:

It's possible that the " common man ", if put in charge, would make absolutely sure that his fellow man was taken care of...but it's more likely that the " common man " would do nothing more than use the power given to him to make sure that he HIMSELF is taken care of.

Remember the saying: "Power corrupts."

Exactly. So why would the " common man " be less corruptible than anyone else??

I wasn't speaking of a single person when I wrote about controlling the force of government.
I was speaking of the collective wisdom of the people and a government that responds to their needs rather than responding to the wants of the elites.

Do you not have any conception of individual rights whatsoever? You realize that in a system where initiation of force and fraud is prohibited by law there's no such thing as a government responding 'to the wants of the elites', right? Geeez.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Just the core part:

It's possible that the " common man ", if put in charge, would make absolutely sure that his fellow man was taken care of...but it's more likely that the " common man " would do nothing more than use the power given to him to make sure that he HIMSELF is taken care of.

Remember the saying: "Power corrupts."

Exactly. So why would the " common man " be less corruptible than anyone else??

"It is ideas that group men into fighting factions, that press the weapons into their hands, and that determine against whom and for whom the weapons shall be used." (Ludwig von Mises)

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Much as I don't want this thread (about a possible war with Iran, in case anybody forgot) to become one in which the rights and wrongs of the use of gov't force in terms of taxation are discussed at length, it seems to me that there's an inherent contradiction in Rush's (and by extension the Objectivist) argument. Namely, if the use of gov't force is wrong per se, then no matter how rational the objectives (e.g. protection from other uses of force and fraud), it is wrong for gov't to tax for such purposes.

You've failed to understand the Objectivist position on taxes altogether. Obectivists believe only in a system of voluntary taxation. Period.

My apologies, voluntary taxation eh? So, under such a system are all equally protected by the law, or can one rob with impunity those that don't make a voluntary contribution?

And finally, if we accept that use of gov't force is inherently rational as laid out by Rush, what's to stop gov't using such force to raise funds to purchase an entire airforce of F-22s?

I don't recall him stating any thing of the kind. In fact, he stated the opposite.

My error, when I asked:

I thought I understood your position to be one in favor of minimal gov't (emergency services, armies, courts, perhaps prisons too), but a gov't of some form. Am I wrong?

and Rush answered:

No, of course not. There are rational roles for gov't, some of which you mentioned.

I took that to mean that Rush was accepting that given the gov't role rational, taxation was acceptable.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

My apologies, voluntary taxation eh? So, under such a system are all equally protected by the law, or can one rob with impunity those that don't make a voluntary contribution?

Bobby, you figured me out. Even though I've been advocating the abolition of the initiation of force or fraud on these forums for years you've caught me. Overnight I have flip flopped entirely and now endorse theft and robbery....

*rolls eyes*

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

My apologies, voluntary taxation eh? So, under such a system are all equally protected by the law, or can one rob with impunity those that don't make a voluntary contribution?

Bobby, you figured me out. Even though I've been advocating the abolition of the initiation of force or fraud on these forums for years you've caught me. Overnight I have flip flopped entirely and now endorse theft and robbery....

*rolls eyes*

Fair enough, all are protected, but there remains the question of how gov't will raise sufficient funds to provide the services that are deemed "rational" (for example a police force), or indeed how it would staff such a force if minimum wages could not be guaranteed ("sorry folks the fund drive wasn't so successful this year"). Of course you could have a volunteer force, like many places have volunteer fire services, but in areas of high crime this might not be so successful, and highway patrol might be a thankless task if the only vehicle the volunteer owns is a bicycle.

Blast, I didn't want to get into this conversation in this thread.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

My apologies, voluntary taxation eh? So, under such a system are all equally protected by the law, or can one rob with impunity those that don't make a voluntary contribution?

Bobby, you figured me out. Even though I've been advocating the abolition of the initiation of force or fraud on these forums for years you've caught me. Overnight I have flip flopped entirely and now endorse theft and robbery....

*rolls eyes*

Fair enough, all are protected, but there remains the question of how gov't will raise sufficient funds to provide the services that are deemed "rational" (for example a police force), or indeed how it would staff such a force if minimum wages could not be guaranteed ("sorry folks the fund drive wasn't so successful this year"). Of course you could have a volunteer force, like many places have volunteer fire services, but in areas of high crime this might not be so successful, and highway patrol might be a thankless task if the only vehicle the volunteer owns is a bicycle.

Blast, I didn't want to get into this conversation in this thread.

If you'd like to move this over to the generic Politics thread or the Egoism thread that'd be fine. Yes, I would advocate that user fees, contract filing fees, government lotteries, and voluntary methods would be ideal. Of course, this would require a large shrinkage of the scope of government in the first place.

I'm not under any sort of illusions that this system is likely to be implemented in my lifetime, not in this country at least. It's just the system that I advocate as being wholly moral.

In the meantime I'd be content to settle for incremental improvements such as the Fair Tax. Some anarcho capitalists only advocate an all or nothing approach but I regard that as just silliness and likely to fail anyway since the populace is so entrenched 'in the system' and needs time to adapt many of their ways of thinking in order to cope with the transition.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Wrong. This is known as the 'fallacy of the glazier'.

The 'Parable of the Broken Window' and the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'...

Apparently you 'misinterpreted' my post... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Wrong. This is known as the 'fallacy of the glazier'.

The 'Parable of the Broken Window' and the 'Law of Unintended Consequences'...

Apparently you 'misinterpreted' my post... ;)

Your system of epistemology is that of divine revelation. I wish it were one of reason so that you would realize that the fallacious notion that 'wars help economies' is the same as that of the fallacy of the glazier just on a larger scale and with bodies that need also to be disposed of.

The law of unintended consequences is not intimately related.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Your system of epistemology is that of divine revelation.

You got that right! And I wouldn't trade it for the world... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Your system of epistemology is that of divine revelation.

You got that right! And I wouldn't trade it for the world... ;)

That's just it. You already have. You've abandoned reason and reality and all the good that those things entail, all their moral goodness, virtue and values....for your mystic fantasy world. But hey, it's your soul you've quit. :-P <--------requisite winky.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

You've abandoned reason and reality [snip] for your mystic fantasy world.

Quite contraire, it was a package deal... All the aforementioned were included... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

wars ( in almost every case ) have been good for the United States economy.

Yep, and that's exactly what they were banking on... Until Iran stepped in and said 'Don't touch the Iraqi oil!'... ;)

Wrong. This is known as the 'fallacy of the glazier'. Wars are NEVER good for the economy in the whole. They may be good for certain select entities like arms manufacturers and prosthetic limb makers but never benefit the GDP as a whole. There are times when a nation must war in order to prevent its cities from being bombed to dust (certainly BAD for an economy) but even in that case the expenditures for that war effort leave the country poorer than if it never had faced the threat in the first place.

Are you forgetting the " baby boomers " after WW2??

Seems to me ( from my high school history class ) that the economy was so good after the war that many people who normally wouldn't have been able to WERE able to buy houses and have many MANY things that their parents didn't or couldn't have??

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Are you forgetting the " baby boomers " after WW2??

Boomers try to keep a low profile... After all, EVERYBODY is trying to steal their 'hard earned' cash... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .