What are the responsibilities of an Objectivist government?

Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago to Government
257 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I have listened to everything thing from businesses should pay no taxes to America is not a sovereign country and there should be no regulations on anything. Certainly the government has some responsibilities.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 5.
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    what exactly do you mean by "vested interest"? Everything I've been able to find says an interest in something for personal reasons. You may have a vested interest in the Lake that supplies your water, but if you are not the owner, you have no legal position. It's a tenuous position to be in.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ACK! I think I know what you meant but look at the great educational jobs our government has done, and their results. Well, maybe we could learn from what they say - just do the opposite of what they advocate, maybe?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your "private company" is called UL. Electrical devices with a UL label cost slightly more, but I certainly won't buy one without the label.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Please read the newest research on women's deodorant use and the location of breast cancers.I will try to carve out some time to post the link.

    This is a product that many people have used for years and someone just made this connection - "just" as in within the last year.

    I think we have to do some research all the time because there are always new tools, new thoughts, new connections - even about old products.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    my pleasure. I'm going thru the rest of the thread; this scares me. Someone saying "I'm an Objectivist" and advocating for government to take actions is a contradiction; remember what our first philosophy teacher taught us: there are no contradictions. One of the premises is wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Very true, except the rules that the company makes often aren't set by the company, but by the government.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will start by saying that I've stayed out of this thread, but points are being made that I cannot allow to be unchallenged.
    "He who keeps silent, consents." So......
    Robbie, I think your position on immigration is one of the LEAST Objectivist ones I've ever read.
    It comes right out of the Conservative playbook.

    You honestly don't care if an immigrant is going to be a productive contributing member of society, as long as he has followed your set of rules to live here? How will you know if he'll be a producer or not?
    And then there's the practical. How do you structure the organization which sets the quotas, approves applications, and keeps track of them for the rest of their lives? How will you fund it? and those are just some of the other pesky organizational questions. I, for one, wouldn't voluntarily give you the money for this scheme; in fact, I'd do everything I could to bollix it up.
    ---------
    Real freedom means that people have the ability to do things you don't like, as long as they're not hurting anyone. Yes, I know the "hurting anyone" is a bone of contention in Objectivist/Libertarian circles. It still stands.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Of course it can. But the persons making the decisions and taking the actions are responsible as well.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That seems like a good idea, but I think that's actually pretty much how things already work.

    Companies are responsible for providing a work environment which is as safe as possible, but employees are also considered responsible for their own safety and for following company rules. If an employee violates the company's rules about safety, then the company cannot be held responsible if that individual employee gets hurt. However, if the employee is following the rules completely, and he still gets hurt, then the company is at fault (or rather, most likely at fault).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not at all. See my other post. What is beneficial is immigration, but rational and controlled immigration, not a free-for-all.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because we (the nation) gets to determine who can immigrate. Regardless of the welfare state. We get to decide that we don't want convicted criminals, we don't want people who carry communicable diseases, we don't want the perpetually destitute, etc. There are more issues than merely living off of the rest of us.
    Heck, I don't care if they are going to be productive contributing members of society. The process is that they apply, are evaluated, and a certain number per year are granted entry legally. They also need to identify themselves and their living location so that if in the future, for any of a number of reasons, we choose not to accept them as an immigrant any more, they can be located and deported.
    Your reasons are very simplistic.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So then a company cannot be held responsible for those individual employees who act on the company's behalf?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are other ways to become owner of a company besides buying one. For example, you could start a new one from scratch.

    But regardless, I don't see how imposing harsher legal punishments on those with more money is considered equal justice under the law. That seems incredibly unequal to me. The severity of one's punishment for committing a crime should not be dependent the amount of money one happens to posses.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So if I understand you correctly, you're defining the words like this?

    Regulation: Government rules which control how you use your own property.
    Law: Government rules which control how you use other people's property.

    I guess those are pretty good definitions, but what about the word "legislation"? How do you define that?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ joy-123 11 years, 2 months ago
    Because people are individuals they will not always agree. As we see, even Objectivists disagree, but if we strive for less government and more personal freedom, we will at least be on the right track.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are already Mexicans, Chinese, Iranians, and Russians here as immigrants. They don't seem to be doing any harm.

    In fact, I can think of one Russian immigrant in particular who did something very good from which the rest of us have all benefited. What was her name again? I seem to have forgotten...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Maphesdus 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    But WHY is immigration considered illegal? The only logical answer is the welfare state. A nation which tries to guarantee a certain level of income for all its citizens must have a vested interest in ensuring the entire world does not try to become its citizens, as that would diminish the collective pot and worsen living conditions for everyone.

    But if there is no government welfare, and no guarantee of any income whatsoever, then it no longer matters whether the whole world comes or in or not because they'd all have to fend for themselves and produce their own livelihood anyway if they did come.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo