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 9.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If I found a cheap hazardous chemical that could save my company millions, as long as I don't test the hazards I am not going to jail but the money I save could save my company over the long term so I take the gamble. You do raise good points about their public relations, but maybe I am just taking the money and going out of business. In the long run people could go blind or infertile and men could develop boobs. I think there should be an independent company for testing safety. I am going to agree to disagree at this point. I am trying to eliminate the EPA but in a different way. I would also like to limit the ability of lawyers to bring firvolous lawsuits.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is beneficial to seek the opinions of others when venturing into theory land.

    Your comment came off as condescending btw, not sure if you meant it that way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    On the military? If the government was objectivist the military would respond to legitimate threats and actions against any American land using whatever force the commanding officer of the region deemed necessary.

    I am a little confused on exactly what you're asking regarding the Determining factors.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't believe that at all. Sorry I'm not willing to engage heavily in this specific line of conversation right now.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agreed. Although I don't know much about the corporate shield, I've heard your thoughts on it expressed before and it seems like a logical concern
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't want to police the world. I am trying to nail down what an Objectivist government looks like. Since she is the leading objecitvist I looked at those two items. What would be some of the determining factors?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Roads are a simple matter of ownership. Whoever owns the roads takes care of them. If you own property that makes use of a road you can sign a contract guaranteeing you'll have access to the roads and they'll remain in good condition.
    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.
    If you want to believe that your fellow man will leave you alone without some fear of consequences, then you're a fool.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do advocate anarchy. And I don't really see much use for a standing military. But that's getting off subject.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by rlewellen 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you look at what the post is about you would see I want to determine what an objectivist government is responsible for. Can't you read?
    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.
    It would also require personal liability and no corporate shield. That is one of the biggest problems today - sr execs know they will not pay a personal price, so they make bad decisions. If they knew that their own liberty were on the line for their actions, they would make better decisions.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What about community property like military implements, roads... Who would make sure there is no damage or staling inflicted there?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What about social contracts where I won't kill you or your kin if you don't kill me or mine?

    Folks really shouldn't be free to kill others just because they have "freedom" to do so.

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Boborobdos 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To set universal standards so a foot is a foot, a pound is a pound, a meter is a meter, etc.
    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.
    Who makes the decisions regarding the military?
    And unless you advocate anarchy, then there are some aggregate resources that need to be managed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 2 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't follow. It would be extremely risky to just dump random chemicals in the water not knowing if you are going to be sued later.

    Edit: not to mention the extreme amount of negative public relations this would have on your company.
    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.
    >"Clearly we need to see what Ayn said on this"
    Why? Can't you think for yourself?

    Methinks you tilt at windmills.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo