You need to read Rand!

lets elect a state and give them power. Then once they have power over the rest of us, let tell them to limit themselves and their theft.

Then when they grow and grow and steal more and more, lets all wonder what went wrong.

We gave you power over al of us but we expected you to stay limited.

There is evil in society so we need you to protect us, but we want to give you power over us and not be evil.

Why doesn't this work???

Why wont you limit your own power???

Zero,
There isn't a short answer for me to give. If you are really interested and want to actually give it thought and consideration.
Read
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty...

In section 2 chapter 12 he deals with these subjects.

Let me say this.

People are always asking me questions like this. What about the roads? What about Rape? Murder? theft?

Does the state prevent murder?
Does the state prevent rape?

The state has mechanisms to deal with these crimes that extremely often do not offer any justice.

We all know this is true and it is true for all states not just ours.

So why then must someone explain how eliminating the state will eliminate murder or rape?

It wont eliminate either of these crimes not does it seek to.

It seeks to get rid of the criminal before you, the state!

You currently under the illusion the state protects you from these things, it doesn't.

So why does someone need to explain how a free market capitalist society will get rid of them before you accept the idea of freedom.

The state steals over half of all production right now and its getting worse and will always get worse, Yet I must explain how peoples property will be safe absent the state and all its theft.

Then people say, oh, I agree its too much, I just want a little state. Just a tiny little state to protect my stuff.

Anarchy is impossible so I want a limited government, they say

don't you see, we are the result of the limited government experiment. It has created the largest state that has existed through all history.

Limited government is the fallacy. All state grow. There has never been a state that shrunk in all of history. They all grow until collapse.. Every state increases in power over time. there is no such thing as a limited government. Right from the start of our own so called limited government, rights were stolen. From John Adams Alien and Sedition Acts raping people of free speech to Lincoln murdering 800,000 of his own citizens with his own army, limited government is a fallacy

Freedom requires government to protect our rights?
This in itself is contradictory.
I have a right to my person and property would you agree?

In order to have a state, I must pay for it even if I don't want it correct?

So which is it?

Do I have a right to my person and property and its mine? No matter what? No contradictions?

Or does the state (even the smallest state that is only there for protection) have a right to take my property even if I don't want it?

The problem with your statement is it pre-supposes that without government, I will die or have 100% of my property taken all the time.

This is a prediction, NOT a fact.

Saying -without government, someone will steal 100% of your property all the time is a prediction.

You carry on as if your prediction is a fact.

What if I lived on an island with just my family in the middle of no where?
Is it a fact that I must have a government or my rights are not protected?

What if I lived on an island with my family and one other family? Do we need a government or our rights are not protected?

Or perhaps, is it just possible that we somehow manage to protect our rights without it?

What if I lived on an island with two other families?

I think you can see it is entirely possible that people live and have their rights entact without a state.

At what point does your prediction become fact?
3o people on the island?
40?
100?

You see, your making a prediction about what will happen in the future if the state were abolished and calling it fact and then that is your justification for saying when the state takes your money it is not theft.
They are actually protecting your rights while stealing from you and I am not making a contradiction.

So, no anarchy but if men can't rule other men then, no government.

You've backed yourself into a logical corner, like a Roomba that's trapped by its inability to get past its programming.

Goodbye.

Russ,
I tired to read your posted links but it links to an essay that you need to pay .99 cents for. I am very curious what the so called contradictions are. Why don't you cut and paste one here.

Have you offered to mow anyone's lawn for free and been turned down because - you didn't have qualifications? Screenwriting isn't brain surgery. It's putting film on paper. If you screw up all that happens is you start over.

That's how ridiculous this is. I offered to write free of charge. Where's the risk? They lose nothing by sending the files and seeing what I would do with them.

Rewriting screenplays from FDX files is so much easier than transcribing them from watching films or manually digitizing them from PDFs. All I can guess is, they don't want to know what someone else would do with their story.

Again Will, improper language fails your argument

You say the difference between a state and a mafia is that the citizens of a country "hire" the state.

What is the definition of "Hire"?

I would say it is when you voluntarily pay someone for a service or for their labor.

The key part of this definition is the fact that it is 100% voluntary. You can "hire" a roofer to do your work. You can even "Hire" a security service to protect you and your property.

But what makes it voluntary, is that you don't have to do it!

You always have the option of not hiring the roofer. You can do nothing. You can replace your roof yourself. You can live with holes in your roof if so desired.

That is what hiring means.

Please don't avoid this fact. We both know this is not what the state is. we know we do not "hire" politicians.

Having a say in who the leader is (elections) does not make the state personal 'hired".

You can only call it hiring if I have the option not to do it.

Even if 99.9% of people refused to vote, there would still be a state and people getting elected by the so called majority.

I didn't hire anyone to rule me? yet there are still rulers that do. Am I not a citizen of the country? Am I not an American? Why do you have the right to impose rulers over me?

Wanderer,
You greatly confuse what I think and what my arguments are. I don't believe in a world where everyone is honest. I don't see anarchy as some means of eliminating theft or evil people. I am just a rational person, so the fact that there is a lot of evil in society tells me that you don't let people rule other people, If there is evil among men, then obviously if men can rule other men evil is amplified not reduced.

All, I wish I was, but I have 6 kids and I am just as afraid of the state as anyone. I wish I could take a stand. I would love to try to publically refuse to pay my taxes and let the world see the force behind the state, but my own value judgments holds my family above that. I honestly don't know what the answers are to fight this state

Your post and following comments are just a bunch of unsupported statements. That's not an argument, its just nothing.

"You have a number of contradictions"

Okay, what are they?

"Anarcho-capitalism is irrational"

If you just say something like this with no argument as to why, then it is meaningless. Don't bother to post if you have no argument.

"Anarcho -capitalism is not capitalism"

There you go again, a statement that Im just supposed to accept because why? You said so?

Then define capitalism.

I define it as free markets absent force. All men/woman/parties etc.. are free to produce and exchange absent any force or threat of physical violence. (this does not mean there can be no force and force cannot be used as a means to protect property and person, it does mean that only defensive force is justified so in a true capitalist society, force is not a means of appropriation, only a means of protection).

"She never advocated theft and you clearly do not know the definition of theft"

Okay? once again, just a statement with no argument. What is your definition of theft? Mine is in these comments several times but here it is again. theft is the taking of ones person or property by aggression or threat of force/violence.
In order to have any state, there must be theft as I have defined it.
So before you just make a bunch of statements without any argument to support them, why don't you check your own premises.

I never said rights were not objective. I agree that natural law is an objective concept. We all understand and know natural law through reason. The example of the hovering Alien was to help with a thought experiment to remove the subjective (which it does effectively) not to say that only what is seen as empirical is the only objective here. In fact I use the word theft as part of my objective argument. The word theft only makes sense if you objectively understand that rights are objective

Disruptive behavior can be identified and rejected for what it is by anyone registered to post here. That is not "acerbic". Sarcastically denouncing "someone who is not even a 'producer'" is.

it's interesting that someone who is not even a
"producer" here in the online gulch can be so
acerbic. -- j
.

No one is threatened by his or your nonsense attacking and misrepresenting Ayn Rand and her ideas. It is simply rude, ignorant, insulting and disruptive.

He submits his disqualifications in every post here and is becoming increasingly arrogantly snide and personally insulting in his personal attacks. Of course he is ignored.

Wanderer has been ignored by the AS producers for good reason. He is the worst kind of conservative statist who repeatedly misrepresents Ayn Rand and her ideas. He is insulting, doesn't know what he talking about, and has nothing to offer. His posts are full of ignorant, gratuitous snide insults misrepresenting the people he attacks and for whom he has nothing but contempt.

No, he hasn't "struck a nerve", he's just full of hostility and misrepresentation that serves no value here.

The goal is good acting and production that presents the story as Atlas Shrugged and not something that exploits the plot to present an opposite theme.

It's much worse than his false assessment of Ayn Rand out of his ignorance and inability to think in essentials in his attacks like the one on use of the word "dollar", which he didn't even understand and misrepresents but tries to turn into a major "contradiction". Wanderer's posts are increasingly snide, hostile and insulting as he tosses out nonsense like "Complete logical bull" and strawman irrelevancies intended only for snide sarcasm like "Rand wasn't god. She made mistakes" and "Oh, oh, sacrilege". His nonsensical hostility only means that he has nothing to contribute, ignores and undermines the purpose of the forum and doesn't belong here.

There are some here who are threatened by opposition to their core belief. These insecure types take point without explanation because they know any challenge to what they think can rock their foundation. Sad really.

I do understand where you're coming from, I do the disappearing act too from time to time. I think this post will get the anonymous down vote... though it could just be the ONE person I ignore here.

have you submitted qualifications or examples of
your work, to support a screenwriting role? -- j
.

I try to be precise with my words. I never said anything about Rand being irrational but, this site is full of completely, utterly, foolishly irrational Rand fanboys, who cannot bring themselves to look at anything about her with clear eyes.

I joined this site just after AS2 came out, trying to contact the producers, to prevent AS3 from becoming the disaster I foresaw. They failed to respond to any attempts to contact them.

I hung out for a few weeks but, couldn't handle the discussions. This place is like Comicon for dolled up capitalist wannabes, like people playing dungeons and dragons but, insisting it's real life.

I went away for about 3 years but, heard rumors of a remake so, I came back. I'm still trying to contact the producers but, they're still not talking.

I offered to rewrite the screenplays free of charge, just give me the FDX files and, got nothing from them.

I now wonder whether their problem is really fear someone else can do what they couldn't, put AS on film and make it work.

If I don't get anything from them soon, I'll disappear again because, this site is just too painful to endure.

The whole concept of determining the value of ideas by allowing the masses to vote them up or down is absurd and would have drawn Rand's wrath. Do you suppose Ayn Rand would have got any upvotes in 1955? No. She'd have been voted out of the country by those around her unable or unwilling to think.

That's what I find here, people devoted to something they don't understand, unwilling or unable to look at it in the broad light of day, willing only to kneel down at the totem of someone who'd be repelled by the things they say.

Rand was not a fangirl, she was a thinker. There are far too few thinkers and far too many fanboys on this site.

you have struck a nerve, Wanderer;;; 2 markdowns
in 2.5 hours! . I don't see Rand as irrational, but as an
inspiring leader who blazed a new trail through reality
which should be trodden by millions -- and AS as a
book which deserves adoration in multiple forms.
I love the movies and would energetically support
a tv series. . doing it with or without a specific actress
is just coincidental, IMHO. -- j
.