Who built them?
Are you ready for a toll booth at every intersection?
Do you actually believe that is cheaper, or even feasible?

"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."

Toll roads work just fine. No compulsion -- pay for what one uses. The moment someone decides to force (excluding retaliation) someone else to do something or pay for something for someone else, that person enters the realm of the "mystics of muscle". Just because I happen to think it is a good idea and would be good for everyone does not mean I have the right to inflict it upon others (even if I do call it a "tax").

that is what I used to believe. . no longer. . I now
hold that a member of, say, the Gulch, *must* take
a vow and voluntarily agree to pay for any central
services mutually agreed on by the members, else
they must leave. . this includes maturing children,
say, at 18 or so. . you take part as a member, or bye-bye.
and charity is voluntary, NONE of it handled by
the state. . mutual defense is voluntarily paid by
members. . everything must be voluntary, or it
will not work, long-term. -- j

LOVE this. L O V E.

You are absolutely a producer on this site. Thanks Rick.

Thanks for that BeenThere.

I thought you were describing me. :-)

Not if it interferes with their re-election.

I'm in the same situation Been There excepting I'm not disabled although my psychologist might argue the point.

Let's just look at one example:
You cherish the "liberty" of jumping into your car, and driving across town, or to the next town for that matter.
There are decent roads that allow you this cherished "liberty".
You paid compulsory taxes for these roads, and my guess is that you aren't complaining.
Consider the scenario where each individual is only responsible for the road(s) that they need, or want....

Societal living has communal, and compulsive, requirements.

As a victim of Enron I am intimately aware of a company willing to do anything for whatever rings their bell. I just can’t come to a clear understanding of how a Person such as Ken Lay for one, who was a multi millionaire could steal from others. As used to be said about the University of Oklahoma, “How much rice can a Chinaman eat?”

I would appreciate special merchandise that only producers can buy. ex: I want a Who is John Galt theme ringtone for my cellphone.

Don't assume most college professors are intelligent!

I have known so called “intelligent” people (with PhDs) who are not rational at all. So I don’t equate intelligent with rational beings. After all if I did then why are most college professors liberal or worse?

I'm nowhere as knowledgeable about Ayn Rand and her philosophy as this discussion requires. I first read Atlas Shrugged in high school many years ago. O K, as it was published I still had two years before I would graduate which I somehow did. I remember thinking that this could not happen in this country. (I felt the same way when I read Come Nineveh come Tyre). I have a lot of Cub and Boy Scouts training and education still with me. I then picked up three other of her novels and read and enjoyed each one. I came away with the basic understanding that no man deserves the fruits of another’s labor without his permission. This was before PCness would require that I say“No man or woman …..” I liked the idea of individualism and self awareness of one’s worth. Maybe that’s too simplistic.

I was thinking before I found this site that this current administration is far too close to her writings as I remembered them. Fifty something years is a long time to remember much of anything, but these books have stayed with me. The major problem we have as I see it is that our Congress will not stand up to Obama and/or are just a collection of boot lickers. They won't honor their oaths and protect this country.

What sticks with me now is how many companies have moved out of our country to another. Maybe not for the same reasons as Ayn wrote about, but the consequences are very close to the same.

I’ve a thick skin, so fire away, but make it mostly educational.

Good answer, timelord!!

thus uncommonsense's username :)
most people do not start from foundations when they develop "beliefs" and so with each new concept they approach, they develop a feeling (hunch) then they go from there often leaving reason behind in the dust. and it's really bad for all of us, when scientists do that.

Scott...........I pay for this site each month b/c everything costs something in some form for which someone must pay (whatever the form, not just $). I have always paid something in some form for everything I have (and, sometimes, didn't get!) thus, I will continue to pay as long as balance between value & cost remains. BT

Godwin's Law is about personal attacks, not Third Reich discussions. Here is a better definition than the one above:

"Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card". The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies[citation needed], if that was the explicit topic of conversation, because a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy."

I was about to disagree with you vociferously! Then I saw your conditional, "Rational people." That makes me sad because I know a lot of people who have every appearance of intelligence and would probably score well above average on an IQ test who nevertheless argue against Objectivism. Even worse, they're my friends and family :(

My brother, 3 years my junior, is very smart and very good at his job. He used to be a libertarian and sounded objectivist. I'm pretty sure he read Atlas Shrugged but I wouldn't testify to it in court. But over the last 2 or 3 years he's begun spouting the collectivist line, chiding me for calling the ACA Obamacare, sending me what he considers proof of anthropogenic global warming, sticking up for some collectivist state and federal programs.

The sad part is that when you try to have a conversation with them and lay out a clear, logical, step-by-step argument for or against X, they make leaps of absurdity in the other direction. Even if you say, "For the sake of argument, let's assume A" and they agree - before long they're shouting, "NOT A, NOT A!"

It's always a bit jarring when someone illustrates to you with irrefutable logic and reason something contrary to what you believe. But if you are to remain a rational being, and I don't see any other way to live, then you must adjust your belief. It may be hard and you may have to work at it and remind yourself that what you used to think is wrong, but it has to be done.

So I agree with you, but I wish (against reality) that there were more rational people in the world!

One last thing, you mentioned common sense. I shudder at the phrase. The Timelord sayeth, "I've only ever met two people with a lick of common sense, you and me. And I'm not too goddamned sure about you!" I'm not the first one to express the sentiment, "there's nothing common about common sense (who?)", but I like my sound bite the best. If I could ever see that published in a book of 101 Pithy Sayings then I'd be pretty happy.

I am a newsletter and daily digest subscriber ONLY because funds are tight at the moment for me to pay for a subscription to the site. I admit I collect Social Security and SSI because I am disabled. However, I am hoping that with my site and various blogs on there that I can supplement whatever I get from Social Security and SSI to pay for a few things that I want since about 90% of my checks go for bills and food as well as upkeep where I am living.

I enjoy all the comments and the conversations here, and even "produce" by way of my own comments and thread starters now and then. So in a sense I am a producer of the site, but not in the legal term.

[And if someone is a fan of Ayn Rand, does that mean that that person understands and agrees with her philosophy?]

What other reason would there be to be a fan of Ayn Rand? A fan should agree with her philosophy to the extent that he understands it. It's the understanding that can be difficult.

"I call 'Godwin's law'. "
Yes, but dbhalling's use is not Godwin's Law worthy b/c he's just using it to mean being fastidious about something, which to me is fine.
"The grammar nazi calls out every time I confuse less and fewer." is not Godwin worthy for me.
"The nazis began being strict with grammar before they outlawed all dissent" is Godwin's-law worthy.

The think the fastidious-about may have come into the language via Seinfeld and the Soup Nazi.

I know you're just joking. I don't mean to be a Godwin nazi.

@khalling and Mamaemma
"His goal is"
Assigning a malicious goal to me is just an ad hominem insult. It's really nonsense because I'm willing to talk in longer posts or e-mails if something's confusing and you're really interested.

I have guessed at other people's goals on this site, and I don't feel that great about it. Maybe I'm right, but there are a few times when I thought I had guessed someone's goals, and I was wrong.

I remember writing a nasty message (this is IRL) to someone who served with me on a board of an organization. I thought he was undermining something I was trying to do, and I turned out to be 100% wrong. I apologized. He said he felt bad I even thought that. He said he was under an incredible amount of stress with his divorce and business. He supported what I was trying to do. I had been completely wrong. Then he died of a heart attack at age 60 shortly after.

The heart attack part is not at all relevant to this at all, but it's just a little true story from two years ago. My point is I really resist the urge (don't always succeed) to write a narrative explaining others' behavior.

Ha! I never heard of Godwin's Law before. Thanks for citing to it. That being said, I think I'm opposed to the termination of any thread where Hitler or Nazism is referenced. Peikoff wrote a whole book based on the notion that the U.S. is headed down the road to national socialism. That book was endorsed by Rand. Are we not to reference the arguments contained in it? And what of Mao, Stalin and other disreputable characters? Are we forbidden from comparing them to people in the present day?