no. moral relativism is premise unchecked

Where excessive smell, other pollution, or any other infringement to your property can be quantified, the property owners have the courts at their disposal when they are unable to come to terms privately. The use of excessive laws and regulations usually devolves into a tool of the progressive to control other's propery at their whim.

A perfect example is the proliferation of the demonization of smokers. In some municipalities, if I own a public esablishment, the laws restrict smoking in the building. In this case, an offended person likely wouldn't win a law suit because there is no scientific evidence to show that second hand smoke is harmful. That same person can lobby the legislators to force people to behave a certain way, just because they want to.

Laws and regs beyond what is absolutely neccessary is a slippery slope. Althought the initial intentions may be pure, the end result is often more onerous than the initial "problem".

The word "Government" pre-supposes a Governor and the Governed, a tribe of "People" seeing the need for a Government which would initially protect them from other tribes and from criminals. This meant a need for weapons, and jails, unless the enemy and criminals were simply killed and buried to keep things tidy. The folks who performed these duties were initially volunteers. Later, as the tribes grew larger and became less savage, and their activities more complex, they realized that standing armies and police and jails and courts, etc., etc. were necessary, and this brings us up through a lot of misery and confusion to today.

So, while Objectivism is a marvelous philosophy to try to use it to provide a Government is a most complex task. This is what is needed by Ayn Rand Institute, and others, if we are to have a rational argument, one that makes sense to others in the U. S. and around the world. Otherwise, we'll simply be laughed for pedaling a fairy tail, and rightfully so.

Gaults Gulch worked simply because it was a small tribe, each with wealth, in gold, earned and brought into the Gulch from outside. There was no need for Government because all were intelligent Objectivist. All Free Traders. No one trying to take advantage of his neighbor.

Jim Wright

Agreed I'm sure some people do bad things because they think or feel it will benifit them, but some evil people aren't even interested in trying to benefit themselves.

Why would you ask the question? The Constitution answers your question already.

Don't give them ANY freebies...that might help with the productiveness.. but I already say that for natural born citizens too. It would fix a lot of thefts.

As I understand it, according to objectivism, the purpose of a government is to secure individual rights, and its means to do so is to ban the initiation of force by making laws and enforcing them to that effect -- i.e., neutralizing initiated force and punishing those who do initiate it. The government is not to initiate any force either -- e.g., by taxing. The exact method of execution and sustainment of such a government lies in the realm of legal philosophy, which objectivism doesn't delve into -- it simply establishes the principle from which to operate.

Mmmmmm when you violate the rights of one man, you violate the rights of all.

The government's intrusion on deciding whether or not one is diseased which will determine whether they can cross a border is farcical when you apply it to your own citizinry-so why not other citizens of another country. You'd be appalled as a US citizen crossing into any country and having to submit to a TB test before entering the country. I am not saying there is not risk-but the greater price is the limiting a man from owning themselves. TB as a threat in a 1st world country is on the rise due to naturalists who oppose vaccines. TB was all but eradicated in the US-is on the rise again due to dumb bunnies who won't vaccinate their children children. Polio is around the corner.

So you don't think it's consistent with the objectivist view for the government to use retaliatory force against those who initiate the use of force?

Why should it even educate? Even if it violates its citizen's rights to do so?

another point for Venn diagram!
the overlap does not have to mean moral relativism