If all taxes are voluntary, how do you pay for police, courts and the military if too few people decide to pay?

I disagree. The benefits of committing force or fraud do not depend on how the individual perceives their action.

I'm sure there are very rational people who commit extremely heinous acts. Maybe rationality is a tool capable of being used for good and evil?

Evil values is a good one, but evil isn't a very useful word. In the natural world, there's no such thing as good and evil without perspective. Things just are the way they are.

Evasion and errors are reasons to do bad, but it's possible to evade something and to have errors without being immoral or following up with an immoral act.

People do bad things because they think it will benefit them. Or, without thinking, they feel like it will benefit them.

I disagree. I don't want the government deeming something unsafe for me and then not allowing me to own it.

See http://www.TheSocietyProject.org for what a society with Objectivist principles meshed with Foundational America virtue could look like in the United States if we repeal and repair some amendments to our Constitution.

Irrational thinking, evil values, evasion, errors, insanity, other mental disorders... Take your pick.

Every time, without fail, when you do someone does something wrong, it is because it is better for them? As in 100% of immoral actions benefit the person acting immoral more than if they hadn't taken the action?

It responds to foreigners who initiate force against its citizenry.

That's a good start, but I don't think it's the exact cause. There are after all many people who feel such things but don't act in an immoral way.

Agreed.

I can fully agree with that. I think a lot of that problem is because of government regulation.

Do you think it would be easy for a company to have a contract stating it will do it's best to provide a safe working environment, but the individual is completely responsible for his own safety? They coul make signing such a contract a mandatory requirement of employment, thus greatly reducing their liability.

...AND the purchasing company won't be held liable for the "sins" of others.

Speaking from experience, our "government" (particularly the EPA) has gotten out-of-control.
The EPA was begun to target hazardous regions for cleanup SO THAT the taxpayers and citizens would enjoy a healthy environment.
It should have been pared down to an educational/helper role after their "dirty work" was finished.
Instead, it has grown into a monster that creates problems that don't exist so that it can solve those "problems" through massive and expensive "clean-up efforts" which in turn fine individuals and industries into bankruptcy.
This is what happens when government forgets that it is established to help citizens ... not to harm them.

Would you accept a small change to that statement? "Because they believe it is in their selfish interest? "

Rozar, you are correct about the punishment for negligence, HOWEVER, with AC (ambulance chasers) and DC (divorce chasers) being so abundant, lawyers are empowered so blatantly in our society so objectivism flies out the window. Unless we neuter the legal class in this country with limits on liability the courts can't function correctly.
These days you can be a guy who eats tofu and drinks soy milk, works in his factory and he WILL grow boobs. Present the evidence without personal diet information and the factory owner loses everything through no fault of his own.
Unless the guilt can be targeted, it will be a field day for the leeches and looters of law.

Maybe you could set up a home owners association with your neighbors, setting ground rules like "no building smelly fertilizer plants or selling your land to people who are going to build smelly fertilizer plants." Or if the smell is bad enough it could warrant an assault on my land value, giving me warrant to take you to court for ruining my property.

I think in most cases manufacturing companies tend to aggregate in one area any way because it's beneficial to them. No one wants to try shipping their materials and products through a residential neighborhood, as well as the people in said neighborhood constantly throwing a "bitch fit" in the form of boycotts, protests and threats from law suits.

An objectivist government would allow you to do what you want with your property as long as you weren't infringing on someone else's property against there will.

Yes, the government has the responsibility to stay out of people's way, Laissez Faire, and to enforce the Constitution as written.

Jealousy and envy. Strife and upset...often precipitated by gossip, slander and misrepresentation.
These are the basic initiators of "sin" (missing the mark) and "evil" (trespassing).

Defense, infrastructure and the courts in order to insure that citizens live according to objective law.
On a tiny scale, government of a city, town or village would provide police, firefighting and water, sewer, etc.
On a personal level, defense and infrastructure would consist of loss prevention and growth....which are the building blocks of a moral, rational and free life and hence, nation.