sleepy jack

Privatizing schools is really only the thing in there that's financially viable and could work. We have private schools now, except in his idea of a society you'd just have to hope your parents cared about you having an education and could afford it. Oh and if you'd have to hope someone built one near you of course.

__________________

The Unfan

The way that I see it is that the government's job is to help its citizens. Citizens in turn help their government. The government helps its citizens by providing programs that are beneficial to all of us. We in turn help the government by paying taxes and voting. If there is a program we (the citizens) disagree with we can vote against it, rally, and peacefully assemble to fight against it. The end result? Taxes mutually benefit everyone. Thats just how it works.

Inuzuka Skysword

A road can be made by a community working together. The point is, even if there is no profit, a road will be made if there is a demand for it. Researching would have profits involved, however. Privatized roads could charge tolls if they wanted to. However, people may choose not to use it.

Demand decides how much is needed. Demand decides whether roads are paid for or armed forces.


The capitalist economy will probably allow the countries companies to be involved with other countries. Certain companies will be powerful and have control over another countries companies. So if one of the countries attacks our country, another country may aid us just because they benefit economically from us.


It doesn't demand that. Nature demands that. If other countries are using aggressive force then our system of government is not immoral. Theirs is. Under this system you can donate, or you can not donate. If you don't donate and you reap the natural consequences of it, then that is your fault. However, if the consequence comes from someone else being immoral, other than the government, the government isn't immoral. The person who is being immoral.


Dumping on another's property is a violation of property rights. Preparing foods in non-sterile environments is not wrong if someone agrees to eat food knowing that it isn't. If the restaurant claims to be sterile and it isn't then that is a violation of a contractual agreement.

However, the bold I cannot comment on. I do not agree on how our government regulates now. For example, I am against anti-trust laws. Unless you want a moral argument, don't ask me why.

The system does not say only the rich will go to school. There are also other ways of getting education besides school. Remember, the rational will survive. So the irrational who go to school will not even competition for the rational student who learns based off of his own life experiences and apprenticeship.

I have no duty to help out my fellow man. I am not bound by chain to another man. I am an individual and I take no responsibility for another's life.

sleepy jack

Even though I said I didn't want to do this I will because your entire argument for government has to deal with morality. How are morals objective?

__________________

The Unfan

I can agree to this. However, in this case we have agreed that laws and contracts necessarily exist. Therefor enforcement of them has to exist. The only way you can force this to exist is to force the popo to exist. How do you purpose that the police exist by force if not funding from somewhere?

Inuzuka Skysword

How is reality objective? If reality is objective then how do we go about proving things in reality? Logic. Most philosophy stops here and says logic doesn't apply in the philosophical realm because it just doesn't. Objectivism says that philosophy is just like reality in that logic still applies. So if we can believe reality is objective, morality must be objective too. This is because morality is a part of reality. One bases his morality on reality. That is what Objectivism claims to be. It claims to be a philosophy for living in this reality.

The Unfan

Can morality change from person to person? I think so. Since I am capable of having different morals than you, morality is by definition not objective. It is subjective, and to some degree intersubjective within cultures, but is by no means objective. Abstract ideaologies can not be objective.

Inuzuka Skysword

It is not the right morality if it is not rational. If I were to say God is real, you would say no because I have no proof. This idea of proof is based on the idea that logic our way of observing reality. Morality is not exempt from logic. People can make up their own morality. However, if it is not rational, it will not be the right morality.

Objectivism's morality is not strict. It's morality is based on what is rational. Look at donating to the government. If I am in danger of starving, it would be morally wrong to give my last dollars to someone else, unless I can't live without them. If I was a rich man I can morally give money to someone else if they deserve it. In one case it is wrong to give, in the other it is morally right. This is because both moralities are based on what is rational.

The Unfan

They also both assume that it is rational to choose your life over another's. Can you prove you are more important than anyone else? Likewise, in the latter situation can you prove it is rational for that person to live? I don't think rationality and morality are related at all.

Inuzuka Skysword

The pursuit of happiness is the ultimate goal of my life. I can't pursue it if I am dead.

If they are deserving of charity. If the one donating believes in that person.

Well you are going to have to prove that morality has nothing to do with this reality then. Morality, in the sense of Objectivism, is the way to achieve happiness. In Objectivism one pursues rational goals with his rational morality. These rational goals are grounded in reality (because they are "rational" of course) so the way to the achieve them must also be rational and must also be grounded in reality.