Indeed, lucky our local is non existent, they just screw you on Income and property. But the sentiment is there....

I'll see your 40%, and I'll raise you [ooh, not a good expression] 52% - but I'm counting state AND local.

Indeed, what I hear is what I call "self-eveident". Or, the "right thing" even though both terms are not specific. To my mind, it is not the right thing to tax us as you illustrated, because it has become a form of "rightful property" in politicians minds. I am reading the War of 1812 history, and one of the issues was they went real near bankrupt, because they relied on import duties and fees from privateers. When the Britishe embargoed the US, the revenue of 1813 was only 7 million, down from 33 million the previous year. Coupled with a lack of a national currency, they were in deep doo. If taxes were only to fund the government that was required, that would be a different discussion. Todays structure just allows them to loot me of almost 40% of my income I earn. One reason I am here....ouch.

I indeed think you're on the right track. Like most truths, it is indeed simple. A thing is itself is the same statement.
Where is becomes important, to go to an easy example, is when I say "taxation is theft" and my communist brother says "don't be stupid." [or some other useful reply]
I say, well, if someone comes up to me, says "I have a gun, and if you don't give me 37.5% of your money I will shoot you.", that is theft. He is trying to take, by force, what is mine. By this point, you may assume that my brother is having a temper tantrum and becomes irrelevant.
But there's always someone who says, "It's not theft because......", and anything he says after the "because" is denying that A=A. For example...."because if it's done by taking it out of your paycheck, after you fill out a form consenting to it There's no guy with a gun."
Well, yeah, there is. He's just at the end of the hall. Why waste him by using him too early? Most people fill out the form, get their paycheck, grumble a bit, but never think about how the actual TAKING of the money from them is accomplished.
This is a simplistic example [from simple minds come simple examples....] but the concept of A=A is simple because it's so obvious, so clear, so clean.....if one lets it be.

Thank you sir. I apologize for any misunderstanding, and I now have a better understanding of your outlook and what you are trying to point out. I will endeavor to be more clear in my reasons when I post so that I can get a better understanding at the start of a discussion.

nick, I want thank you and applaud your response here. I recognize you as a person for whom this site is ultimately meant for--a person that encountered AR's thinking and philosophy and found it comparable to many of your own thoughts on our reality today and wish to explore more fully. I, as you, despise the rules applied to us today in every aspect of our lives. In many ways, I refuse those rules until 'force' is applied that I can't overcome, and it does cost me in many ways, but I'm willing to accept those costs for the personal gain I achieve, and even the hope that others will see that and decide that they too can live a little more freely.

I'm not here to 'bash' or cause 'conflict' with anyone, but I hope that you can learn to accept challenges to things you haven't made clear or don't yet see as Objectivst. Personally, I have a lot of respect for people that challenge me. They excite and exercise my mind, and I welcome your participation in that.

+1

gaigal, when I graduated from University of Phoenix (not considered an "ivy League" school but had online classes my employer paid for), they did a pretty in depth dig at your credits to prove you had enough, before you could even apply. I thought that was pretty good. I do know the method you talk of seems prevelant in a lot of them, my respect for the "advanced" degrees is pretty limited, in that I work with Masters and Phds all the time, and some of them are indeed scary.....I found that true in the last few years of the Navy, I had officers who were entrusted with a whole submarine who had no common sense and were an accident waiting to happen. Caused a few bumps when I would tell them their great ideas wouldn't work, like going topside on a submarine when water is washing over it. Had to go to the Captain to quash that piece of genius...

Thank you. I am in full agreement now with your position in regards to "rules". Almost all I abhor in our society is done on that basis from taxes to zoning.
The A=A thing is a conumdrum, as I have never found a good description of what it is intended to mean, except "self evident". If it looks like a duck etc. Do you have a different take or am I on the right track here?

Although I do have a reply feature now, I'm going to use Add so that my comment comes up [kind of] in the right place.
Good Morning,
"Is this accurate?" close, but not quite. Yes, I think you're mostly accurate that we "derailed" at that point - should he walk into the auditorium with "his" class, or not.

I'd like to make one point that I haven't, because it wasn't clear that we differed on it.
I see the Graduation as an entity in itself, in that performing a certain set of actions confers a specific status on a person. It's like joining a club. You didn't see anything wrong with him performing SOME of the actions; I think he should not have performed ANY. I don't see this Dutch student was entitled to any part of the Graduation ceremony. He walks in with the senior class? Merely the fact of his being in that place at that time is acknowledging that he is part of the senior class. Even if he walked in with them and then peeled off and sat down in the audience is too much for me.
EXCEPT that the stupid administration should have made sure he was recognized or acknowledged in some way. He wasn't a graduate, but he did have a special status. Instead of saying "no", they should have taken some action. I'm sure they didn't because saying "no" is easier than thinking up something to do.

Back to not only where we divided, but why - on a philosophical line.

I think that "the rules" are "take no action which is accomplished by force or fraud". That's it.
It doesn't matter whether my view is in line with the administration's rules, or not. To the devil with their rules! It is my own internal view of what's right that produced my objection to his joining the group; there was an element of fraud in it. He appeared to be presenting himself as something he was not.

I applaud your further research, and join you in what sounds like a disgusted cynical view of the media.

Let's go on to A=A, and people.
First, I jumped on you because you were in the right place at the right time. I was wandering around, and happened to see your post. I was not going through the posts of the day, saying "this is OK, jump on this one, make a snarky comment to this person, etc." Your post happened to meet my eye, and you seemed to be emotionally supporting an action that was fraudulent. As you've thought, we both realize that we don't know the truth of the situation - and probably wouldn't, even were we there.

So....People. You say that you can't find a single set of reliable rules that covers everything. How about "take no action which is accomplished through force or fraud"? As long as your definition of "force or fraud" is valid, it holds true in all situations, for all people. Talk to me about that, if you like.

and then, what does A=A mean to you? I don't understand how you're using it in your paragraph that begins "I am not....". I think some more thinking and discussion on that would be interesting, as well.
WW

Here's how it works for college:


1. You get a blank piece of paper at the ceremony.
2. You have to verify, by a certain date prior to the ceremony, that you have signed up for all the required courses.
3. The courses must be paid in full by a certain date prior to the ceremony.
4. Verification of successful completion of all required courses must be provided within a specified time.
5. Then you get your diploma and have actually graduated.

So...all that's really happening is you are paying for a cap and gown and really just walking with your friends. Apparently you also get to throw a graduation party.

I assume high school is different...but after learning about this, it seems foolish not to let the exchange student walk.

I know, this started just as a point to make on authorities imposing rules, but has become murkier and murkier. I had a couple kids graduate not too long ago and that was a common scene in their class (about 30% had to do stuff in the summer). When I graduated in 76, it was go/no go. Again, I felt it was ok for him to "walk", not participate in the graduation, but on reflection, the opposing voices also have valid points. Thank you for the comment.

Thank you for the advice, I appreciate it.

Originally I felt the young man shouldn't walk.

I see no reason why the exchange student shouldn't walk. Apparently you know longer have to meet the traditional requirements for graduating: acquiring all the credits as dictated by your choice of major at your school. I have discovered that you can now graduate without graduating.

Since many of my daughter's friends are graduating college this year, I decided to investigate further. Form what she says a number of the "graduates" are a few credits shy of their requirement but are enrolled in classes that take place a semester, or even two, after the graduation ceremony. They receive a diploma but apparently, somehow, the diploma will not be valid if they do not complete the credits.

I am just gleaning this from what my daughter is telling me. I have a friend whose daughter just graduated and I vaguely remember her mentioning that the young woman had to take a course over the summer. I'm guessing she'll be able to answer my questions. :)

Since graduation no longer requires actually graduating...why not let the exchange student walk?

Still would like to know when so many things started to lose their meaning. I'm beginning to feel like Rip Van Winkle.

No. It's important for everyone to know. I'm on the board alot. I don't want people thinking that I "shape" the gulch. I do not. Ask scott. We fight like ...well like...we fight. :) Every chance I get, I tell people to not worry that I'm down voting. I want discussion. that's one of those things scott and I fight about, the fact I refuse to down vote posts. I'm just sensitive to it. Others aren't. so remember that too. Others do not see down voting as a big deal-just saying they don't like the post-they like the poster.

Thank you, I really do apologize for that.

I apologize if I misconstrued the situation.

Zen, based on that please understand this: I came here specifically because I do not like, or approve of the loters in our society. I am adamandtely against the moochers, looters freeloaders, and all the other species of people the Progressive movement has falsely created to enable their control. I think that was what AS made a clear case for, we lost control of our politics and it has been manipulated to the point it is now nothing but a herd of professional manipulators (and I believe this applies to almost all political parties). I am constantly frustrated at the lack of any viable means to oppose them, other than going Gault. I am just not a person who can adopt any specific philosophy or religion and be absolutely stuck with every precept or rule.I also am not tuned to be a great philosopher and filter every action or event against some standard. I do know when something is not "the right thing" and does not appear to be equitable. That concept is not "bad" in my opinion, I think it has been dirtied by those who hijacked it years ago to justify their teft and redistribution efforts. Throughout AS it was clear AR had that opinion, she lavishly spread the term "for the peoples good" etc. Any time I hear that today, I know it is from a manipulator, because nothing good for the people has happened in a very long time. My use of this post was an effort to illustrate the use of rules and regulations to control a group, that the host mother and students wanted the guy to just walk (not graduate, not get a diploma) with them. It appeared from the later article that the rules were still that to walk was to graduate, which I still see as just not being "right". I do not agree that this constitutes "a moocher". They were not taking anything that I could see, so that was the basis for asking why would this be an issue. My original objectionwas that "being nice" means that all rules need interpretation and not from a political or manipulative position. Today, there are so many rules, laws and regulations, and they exist only to serve some authority to impose their will upon others, and any interpretation would be based on "what can we get from this". Never from "is this the right thing". I just finished a 4 year lawsuit against a neighbor with 250 or so alpacas on 3 acres, and never picking up any manuer. I had my road eaten by the nitric acid from the runoff, and ecoli off the testing scale. The judge found we had lost value in our property, and suffered damages from their behavior, and they were convicted of 16 counts (3 felony) of animal abuse. Yet the judge did not find they were a nuisance, which is crazy, as how did the damages occur? But they could not find it was a nuisance because then there would be 500 more lawsuits from similar cases in the county, and the commissioners specifically told me I could not win because it would setback their agenda for "freedom to farm". I can go on and on about how the state and county either manipulated or completely ignored the situation, and manipulated the rules to their own ends. Believe me, I have had enough real life Atlas Shrugged to know that the book correctly details where we are, and have been for many many years. I look at Ayn Rand as a genius in that she recognized and clearly articulated the danger from politics, manipulation, power and what happens when people surrender their freedom and never question governments motives. I do not desire any conflict or bashing in this group, as I feel the vast majority believe the same way.

you should know I am sensitive to points and rarely down vote. If I do, I will let you know. :)

Good point, some of the discussion appears to be around what walk and graduate mean. My view was the walk was to accompany their friends, not participate, which was why I took the position that that should not be regulated, except by the participants. I think some equated it with the ceremony as a whole. It appears from the local article, that that was indeed the story, that to walk in it was to graduate. In that case, the student certainly did not meet the standard. I wonder why, they did not get this all pounded out when the year started.

I apologize, Points are not a big thing, I just thought it was interesting that as soon as others jumped into this the negatives started to pile up. I understand some use this to voice their displeasure, my policy is to usually vote up someone willing to take the time to discourse.

I find it odd that the host mother and students think the exchange student should walk. He's not graduating from high school until next year and, apparently, is doing so in his home, not host, country.

When did graduating become just "walking"? Suddenly that's the only term I hear used to reference graduation ceremony. If it was still mainly referred to, and thought of, as a graduation ceremony, I wonder if it would occur to anyone to suggest that he graduate when he is not graduating...and won't be (for whatever reason) until next year?

Not trying to be a wise acre - I am becoming curious about changes to our American English
and does it have an effect on our behaviors and/or perceptions...or are the changes in language a response to our morphing behaviors and/or perceptions? Or both?

nick; We need to clarify a couple of things. My initial comment was generated from the context of the article and your comment about it. It's 'mooching', plain and simple and you're attempting to use altruism to justify it. When you post a comment such as "Good grief, proof again common sense is not so common and that the "administration" gets wrapped up in their petty rules. From what I see, the kid and the host mom just want to let him walk with his classmates. If he did a senior year, then WTF? Can't anyone do sometthing simple and nice for someone?" referencing an article about a kid that is 'mooching' off of his classmates' achievements, rather than his own, you're going to get a comment and down-vote from me.

It's obvious from this post that you just don't get Objectivism, that you support altruism, and moochers. That type of thinking and acting is a perfect example of why this country, even world is in such trouble. It's a perfect example of letting emotion drive you rather than rational, logical reasoning. It's apparent from this post and a few others that either you don't realize how support of such thinking is repugnant to Objectivist, or you're purposely trying to use emotional appeal to soften the commitment of Objectivist and/or confuse some of those that are new to the philosophy.

From your responses to my comment, including a threat to leave the site, and expressing dissatisfaction with not being accorded a 'fair level of open debate on something', rather than addressing the comment directly or even utilizing PM--you belittle and ridicule the purpose and efforts of many Objectivist on this site. I don't expect anyone to be a 'purist' in thought, or posting, or never challenge Objectivist thought or even principles. I have no personal animus with anyone on this site, but I will ask questions and expect others to defend their positions or ask me for clarifications or further discussions.

And I'll refer you to a few portions of the FAQ's and the CofC about the people that are attracted to this site and what you may expect from them. I'm not shy about my dedication to this philosophy and way of life, and I hope to be able to interest others that are ready to explore and understand a better (I'm convinced the best) way of dealing with the reality of this existence that we all live. I hope you think about the question I ask and the issues I raise, rather than spend your energy on misdirected feelings and we both have a chance to gain from reasoned and rational interactions.

My only reason for entering this discussion was to clarify why I made the post you cited. As far as voting goes the only points I 've given on this post were to your comments to which I responded.

My voting for what?

Thank you for the clarification. I do not seek to be rude or offensive to anyone, but I do have to speak up when I believe I am not being accorded what I believe is a fair level of open debate on something. I do not want to be hunted down for not being "Objectivist" enough, as I have no idea what the would be.