No. What must be worked out in that context is how to define the functions of a limited government protecting the rights of the individual. Redistribution of wealth is not a proper goal at all.

"A philosophical" there meant "a-philosophical".

There is a lot more to living in a mixed system than deciding whether or not to be concentration camp guard become a mole in the IRS.

Ayn Rand's understanding of the kind of society we live in and how to apply her ethics was not based on equivocation.

and what would that be, I wonder . . . a representative
anarchy or the "rule" of an oath of loyalty to a list of
freedoms held absolute? . it is a challenging thought
experiment!!! -- j

So you propose majority rule, but with a "constitution" which tries to anticipate and spell out exactly which "central services" will ever be allowed, and which won't? Drafting such a constitution sounds like a huge undertaking. And it also sounds like you'd need to provide for amendments and a judiciary to decide whether something is allowed under the "constitution," and, again, I think you end up right where we are today. In my opinion, the only way we get a different result and actually maintain freedom is to do something different, rather than following the same steps that brought us to the social and political mess we have today.

Is it not true that the definition of public goods requires both non-rival and non-excludable. Non-rival means that my having it does not prevent you from having it. A sunset is the classic example, but, your examples all were supposed to be available to anyone. The military is the classic case. If the nation is invaded, it might be true that the army cannot be everywhere at once, but driving off the enemy is supposed to be a strategic decision rather than one based on who deserves liberation more.

Public schools, national weather service, etc., are all supposed to be non-rival. I am not sure that that is physically possible. In fact, I even question whether sunsets are always non-rival. But in any case, public goods are supposed to be like that.

On one extreme suppose you hand cash to the poor in an amt more than they paid in taxes. That's redistribution. But what if it's EITC causing them to owe zero. What if gov't builds a road to your home or business, for whatever reason, that costs way more than you pay in taxes? What if the gov't offers to make you a sole source vendor if you successfully commercial some technology they want to use on fighter planes? What if the gov't just buys things or hires people and pays good but reasonable price?

This whole "redistribution" thing is unclear and becomes a way to condemn programs someone doesn't like.

Robbie, trading value for value is not redistribution. You need to be more precise in what you say so you don't look silly

ummmmmmmm ... there would be a constitution
which would obviate welfare-state and central-
control-state crap like that;;; yes? -- j

So if the members agree they want Obamacare (free health care for all) or any other crazy thing, it's either pay up or get out? That sounds like where we are now. I think voluntary funding is the only way to keep "government" (or whatever entity is providing these central services) in check.

Not everyone has to understand the technical issues of philosophy in order to live. It depends on your interests and career. There is much in Ayn Rand's philosophy to understand, agree with, and apply without the full exposition. But if someone contradicts the basics, whether explicitly or in sense of life, he's in trouble.

Wright designed the house for her but she decided she preferred living in the city.

When they reach non-A from the A you thought you agreed on it's because there is some other, more fundamental premise they are relying on.

Ayn Rand's philosophy is not just common sense. Common sense is good if you have it, but the philosophy is much, much more.

Simple websites are almost free to set up and run.

This forum is more elaborate with its own forum software.

To get them to understand politics in a hostile culture requires understanding the fundamentals of the philosophy. Conservative bromides about being responsible for one's own success or failure is nowhere near enough.

Some "moderators" at those sites are political censors. Some of them report commenters they don't like to IP blacklists as "forum spammers", disrupting innocent people's access to websites.

He's talking about the posts written by the person.

I agree, but isn't the rub working out what's redistribution?

The Constitution does not authorize redistributing the wealth.

Yes, of course, but as noted above Ragnar Danneskjoeld was able to know whom to reimburse and how much because of moles working in the department of income tax. He was able to parse Dagny Taggart's income as VP Ops from her income from Taggart Common Stock. It was explicit in Atlas Shrugged (the book) that he had access to her income tax filings.

So, yes, it would be wrong to be a concentration camp guard -- unless your ulterior motive were to help people escape.

No.

Ayn Rand argued that a woman would not want to be president -- the commander in chief -- for reasons of personal sexual psychology. She did not say that a woman would not be capable of it, or that a woman could not do better than the current crop of presidents at the time, or that you should not vote for a woman if she were the better candidate; quite the contrary.

A philosophical libertarianism is hopelessly inadequate to change the culture and Ayn Rand's ideas cannot be "derived" from their opposite.