Irrational definitions of value cannot be consistent with Rand.

Welcome to the Gulch. I find value in being a producer in the Gulch. You may not. Your choice.

Re: "You've been around for a little while and contributed nothing to the site"

- I created my profile less than 24 hours ago. I'm exploring the possibility of moochers being valueless here. However, that's not all I'm here to do.

I have a hard time keeping up with "current events". That is one thing I'm looking forward to improving on here. A dose of objective, emotion-free debates should spur me to interact with those issues more. I'll try to dig in.

good to know

Yeah I thought about that again, and I'm alright with it.

I am actually not talking at all about "essential services." I am talking about the rational way to pay for those services everyone uses, including temporary assistance.

I'm more into Bluegrass than Sabbath, but I have to respect pioneers!

I like the crash theme when you sign up, but "Eddie" doesn't really fit there. One of my favorite lines is when Dag, injured and weary, still has the presence of mind to ask whether she's a guest or a prisoner in the Gulch, and Galt responds "The choice will be yours, Miss Taggart".

I was stating my opinion, which largely coincides with my understanding of Fountainhead and AS. (I haven't read scholarly commentary on them, so I don't know if the books align with Objectivism.)

Are there passages in those books you can point me to that are opposed to giving all or some of your stuff away?

They're very much against people convincing you to pretend like you want to give it away. They're against doing things to get a reaction from other people. That leads to people like the ones Cherryl turned to for help when she was suicidal. Those contemptible women were looking to "help" someone but only in a way that stroked their ego by fitting into the narrative about them being so pure and righteous. A hard working woman disillusioned with her husband who was a top executive couldn't fit into that narrative. They needed a drug addict or something.

My reading of the books, though, is they're strongly for doing whatever weird things in life you want.

I think elitist is a good descriptor there

Marginal Utility: If you're saying the model of diminishing utility is just a model and doesn't always agree w/ reality, I agree. I think you're saying something else about utility that would require more words for me to understand.
Taxation based on utilization: Yes. That is the goal. When somethings excludable, people should just pay for what they use, preferably from a private business. In areas of low population density, for example, fire depts could theoretically only serve paying customers, like home owners' insurance. You can't do that with policing though. If someone says they're not using the police b/c they have their own security, they can't opt out. Even if the police had a note not to respond to them, they benefit from police patrols and policing catching criminals who might target them in the future. I am fine with the concept of a sales tax with exemptions for the poor. I agree the income tax becomes an unhealthy game of gov't trying to use it to push people into doing things and citizens trying to come up with ways to avoid the tax.

I’m just glad you didn’t object to: “I’ve been partying and rocking to Sabbath since I was 14, 30 years later and nothing has changed; rock on.”

I thought that was classic.

Fair enough, consider it removed.

first, let's distinguish whether we are discussing Objectivist ethics or not.
Ethically, giving away all your stuff irrationally is not consistent with Objectivism or Objectivist ethics.

to the first part: you support progressive taxation. therefore you will vote, to have the govt force me to comply with that. But my dollars are not your dollars. How you prioritize "first dollars" may not be the way I do. for example, let's say I have an opportunity to bring a life saving medical procedure to millions, but it will take everything I have currently to do so. I might choose to go without food and lights for a period in order to make that happen. For anyone who cannot pay for food or lights, they already receive assistance. everyone else? for those with more means, why should they pay a higher amount whether or not you think it is of no burden to them? You don't know their values, you have no idea what their accomplishments and investments provide to the economy. the creation of wealth gives more to the economy - taxation removes wealth from the economy-it redistributes existing wealth. by the time it trickles down to the needy it has passed through the hands of other wealthy. make no mistake about that. I still assert you wish to be punitive to those who make more.
second part: All income tax concepts are based on a punitive model. Why don't we have taxation based on how much people utilize the system? that would be more honest. A wealthy person enters into many more contractual arrangements than a middle class earner. They also purchase alot more things. Taxes based on sales makes alot of sense to me. Income taxation has no connection to the stated goal of collecting revenue for the government. The only purpose is to gain favors/contributions for politicians to "fix" the system for the wealthy and connected and to push a punitive agenda.

Jan, you are absolutely correct. We have a small boutique financial planning firm, and our first meetings with clients are always free of charge. Our clients - if there is a "fit" - quickly see the value of our services and find our fees very reasonable for the benefits they receive. We do not expect people to buy, sight unseen and count on people seeing the value and freely deciding to enter into a relationship. We trade value for value.

This seems too complicated for me. If it's yours, you can have it, you can trash it, or you can give it away; all with no justification, just b/c you wanna.

"Are you re-defining progressive tax rate to mean your example above?"
No, I brought up an unrelated issue that came to mind.
I'm still for progressive taxation, as in higher rates for higher earners. The main reason is I believe marginal utility decreases with earnings, so each additional dollar some earn is less critical. The first dollars that allow me to buy food and keep the lights are the most important. Following this logic, gov't programs could buy food and other basics for the poor, but I would rather cut out the intermediary and just let them keep their own money. The only reason the gov't has any business worrying about indivduals' purchases of excludable goods is having a society in which no one goes without basic needs is a non-excludable good. Everyone benefits, but you can turn off that the benefit for those who don't want that benefit.

Progressivity is not a primary cause of tax evasion. Consider one tax structure where you pay 40% on all earnings over the median income. In another structure you pay 20% flat rate. You have more incentive to evade the 40% taxes than 20%, but in both cases there is an incentive to evade. It's hard to calculate how many people when faced with an opportunity to evade would choose to do so if they were in the 40% bracket but not the 20%.