So if we take Objectivism to it's logical conclusion...

[OneOfLittleHarmony]

and get rid of taxation in the US...

How are we going to pay off our debt and prevent China from invading? It's not like a true objectivist would care if who the ******** "owned" the country, so long as no one ******** with his land or his sheep or guns or whatever.

Or ******** with the giant naked statue of Howard Roark he was carving into the mountain...along with a statue of Dominique with her notorious engraved invitation...

Did you get the pun? eh? =)  

[bluecherry]

Well, the problem with China taking over to begin with is that they would not just leave us to go about our lives. We could expect to become subject to "the great firewall of China" and other unpleasantness like that. Our current government > the Chinese government. So, if somebody actually WAS an Objectivist and didn't just say they were (because you can say you're anything and that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, like saying you're an expert on physics when your knowledge of it consists of just the Wikipedia page for physics) then they wouldn't want China to come take over. Though they may not have been personally responsible for the government's racked up debt to China, trying to go to war with China to get out of paying the debt and/or having China take us over would not only probably end up costing even more, plus it would mean our citizens going and getting maimed and killed and such too, so it would just make sense to chip in what money they could to pay off that debt to China and get out of debt to them ASAP. In other words, if you didn't force an Objectivist to pay off the debt to China, they'd contribute funds to what extent they could voluntarily to paying off China in order to keep the undesirable Chinese government off our backs.

 

[OneOfLittleHarmony]

bluecherry

Well, the problem with China taking over to begin with is that they would not just leave us to go about our lives. We could expect to become subject to "the great firewall of China" and other unpleasantness like that. Our current government > the Chinese government. So, if somebody actually WAS an Objectivist and didn't just say they were (because you can say you're anything and that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, like saying you're an expert on physics when your knowledge of it consists of just the Wikipedia page for physics) then they wouldn't want China to come take over. Though they may not have been personally responsible for the government's racked up debt to China, trying to go to war with China to get out of paying the debt and/or having China take us over would not only probably end up costing even more, plus it would mean our citizens going and getting maimed and killed and such too, so it would just make sense to chip in what money they could to pay off that debt to China and get out of debt to them ASAP. In other words, if you didn't force an Objectivist to pay off the debt to China, they'd contribute funds to what extent they could voluntarily to paying off China in order to keep the undesirable Chinese government off our backs.

Let's assume we paid the National Debt owed to China off in full. Let's assume China invades us becuase we're rich and have resources, but we can't defend ourself because we have no military because there's no longer a government.  

[Elektro7]

There are a few things wrong with even that hypothetical example.

First off, you aren't rich, I'd think the mention of the massive debt would somehow indicate that.
Secondly, you don't have any resources either, except for land. If they were after resources, invading Canada would be a much better idea.

And you also have a military and a government.... So I really see no point to your example.


"Hey... let's suppose the moon was hot pink, and was shaped just like an xbox controller... Then X and Y would happen!"

You can't use any of that as a legitimate hypothetical example, because none of it is true, and ever will be true in the foreseeable future. You having no military is almost certainly never going to be true.  

[bluecherry]

OneOfLittleHarmony

bluecherry

Well, the problem with China taking over to begin with is that they would not just leave us to go about our lives. We could expect to become subject to "the great firewall of China" and other unpleasantness like that. Our current government > the Chinese government. So, if somebody actually WAS an Objectivist and didn't just say they were (because you can say you're anything and that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, like saying you're an expert on physics when your knowledge of it consists of just the Wikipedia page for physics) then they wouldn't want China to come take over. Though they may not have been personally responsible for the government's racked up debt to China, trying to go to war with China to get out of paying the debt and/or having China take us over would not only probably end up costing even more, plus it would mean our citizens going and getting maimed and killed and such too, so it would just make sense to chip in what money they could to pay off that debt to China and get out of debt to them ASAP. In other words, if you didn't force an Objectivist to pay off the debt to China, they'd contribute funds to what extent they could voluntarily to paying off China in order to keep the undesirable Chinese government off our backs.

Let's assume we paid the National Debt owed to China off in full. Let's assume China invades us becuase we're rich and have resources, but we can't defend ourself because we have no military because there's no longer a government.

Why would we have no military and government? Are you assuming that Objectivists wouldn't choose to pay to support having such things? The same logic that is behind voluntarily paying off debt to China is why there would be voluntary contribution to paying to keep up a military to defend us from getting taken over by other crappier governments. Though, if we paid China off and they still attacked us, you can bet we'd seize funds from them afterward to pay off how much it cost us to fight them off. The justification for this is much the same as that behind how in our current legal system if somebody attacks an individual person, the victim can later sue for the cost of their medical bills and the cost of their legal fees incurred in prosecuting the assailant.

 

[OneOfLittleHarmony]

Elektro7

There are a few things wrong with even that hypothetical example.

First off, you aren't rich, I'd think the mention of the massive debt would somehow indicate that.
Secondly, you don't have any resources either, except for land. If they were after resources, invading Canada would be a much better idea.

And you also have a military and a government.... So I really see no point to your example.


"Hey... let's suppose the moon was hot pink, and was shaped just like an xbox controller... Then X and Y would happen!"

You can't use any of that as a legitimate hypothetical example, because none of it is true, and ever will be true in the foreseeable future. You having no military is almost certainly never going to be true.

Pretty sure I can use whatever the ******** I want in a hypothetical example.

Moreover, you are an idiot for thinking the country with one-third of the world's wealth is not rich. How do you even get that out of touch? Has the cold addled your brain up there in Alberta?  

[Elektro7]

Yes, continuing to use unfathomably stupid and meaningless hypothetical examples is totally within your rights. As is searching others' profiles for anything that could possibly be used to jar/intimidate them. Feel free to continue exercising those rights.

And by the way, it's the people that do, very few people to be exact, that's what the whole Occupy Wall Street thing's about. Your government, considering it's debt, is quite poor.  

[OneOfLittleHarmony]

Elektro7

Yes, continuing to use unfathomably stupid and meaningless hypothetical examples is totally within your rights. As is searching others' profiles for anything that could possibly be used to jar/intimidate them. Feel free to continue exercising those rights.

And by the way, it's the people that do, very few people to be exact, that's what the whole Occupy Wall Street thing's about. Your government, considering it's debt, is quite poor.

Still not understanding how you get the US government is poor? Like, because we have a bunch of debt? Please explain the relationship here.  

[OneOfLittleHarmony]

bluecherry

OneOfLittleHarmony

bluecherry

Well, the problem with China taking over to begin with is that they would not just leave us to go about our lives. We could expect to become subject to "the great firewall of China" and other unpleasantness like that. Our current government > the Chinese government. So, if somebody actually WAS an Objectivist and didn't just say they were (because you can say you're anything and that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, like saying you're an expert on physics when your knowledge of it consists of just the Wikipedia page for physics) then they wouldn't want China to come take over. Though they may not have been personally responsible for the government's racked up debt to China, trying to go to war with China to get out of paying the debt and/or having China take us over would not only probably end up costing even more, plus it would mean our citizens going and getting maimed and killed and such too, so it would just make sense to chip in what money they could to pay off that debt to China and get out of debt to them ASAP. In other words, if you didn't force an Objectivist to pay off the debt to China, they'd contribute funds to what extent they could voluntarily to paying off China in order to keep the undesirable Chinese government off our backs.

Let's assume we paid the National Debt owed to China off in full. Let's assume China invades us becuase we're rich and have resources, but we can't defend ourself because we have no military because there's no longer a government.

Why would we have no military and government? Are you assuming that Objectivists wouldn't choose to pay to support having such things? The same logic that is behind voluntarily paying off debt to China is why there would be voluntary contribution to paying to keep up a military to defend us from getting taken over by other crappier governments. Though, if we paid China off and they still attacked us, you can bet we'd seize funds from them afterward to pay off how much it cost us to fight them off. The justification for this is much the same as that behind how in our current legal system if somebody attacks an individual person, the victim can later sue for the cost of their medical bills and the cost of their legal fees incurred in prosecuting the assailant.

Well, it's not a difficult thing to make coupon payments to China, it's only like 30 billion a year or so in payments we would owe them. That's like a thousand dollars a person. But nevertheless, I still would assume that it would be incredibly hard to coordinate let alone get enough voluntary payments a year to sustain our military anywhere near our current capacity. I think we spend somewhere near 600 bil right now on defense, so that's like 20thousand a person? Certainly those more well off will pay more, but...how much? I suppose it could be financed through deficit spending in case of an attack and the remainder paid over several years, but it seems a bit uncertain which would probably incur higher interest rates.

I find the invading them to seize assets thing highly unlikely. It would probably cost us more more to go over there and invade than it would be to just absorb the cost ourselves.  

[bluecherry]

OneOfLittleHarmony

bluecherry

OneOfLittleHarmony

bluecherry

Well, the problem with China taking over to begin with is that they would not just leave us to go about our lives. We could expect to become subject to "the great firewall of China" and other unpleasantness like that. Our current government > the Chinese government. So, if somebody actually WAS an Objectivist and didn't just say they were (because you can say you're anything and that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, like saying you're an expert on physics when your knowledge of it consists of just the Wikipedia page for physics) then they wouldn't want China to come take over. Though they may not have been personally responsible for the government's racked up debt to China, trying to go to war with China to get out of paying the debt and/or having China take us over would not only probably end up costing even more, plus it would mean our citizens going and getting maimed and killed and such too, so it would just make sense to chip in what money they could to pay off that debt to China and get out of debt to them ASAP. In other words, if you didn't force an Objectivist to pay off the debt to China, they'd contribute funds to what extent they could voluntarily to paying off China in order to keep the undesirable Chinese government off our backs.

Let's assume we paid the National Debt owed to China off in full. Let's assume China invades us becuase we're rich and have resources, but we can't defend ourself because we have no military because there's no longer a government.

Why would we have no military and government? Are you assuming that Objectivists wouldn't choose to pay to support having such things? The same logic that is behind voluntarily paying off debt to China is why there would be voluntary contribution to paying to keep up a military to defend us from getting taken over by other crappier governments. Though, if we paid China off and they still attacked us, you can bet we'd seize funds from them afterward to pay off how much it cost us to fight them off. The justification for this is much the same as that behind how in our current legal system if somebody attacks an individual person, the victim can later sue for the cost of their medical bills and the cost of their legal fees incurred in prosecuting the assailant.

Well, it's not a difficult thing to make coupon payments to China, it's only like 30 billion a year or so in payments we would owe them. That's like a thousand dollars a person. But nevertheless, I still would assume that it would be incredibly hard to coordinate let alone get enough voluntary payments a year to sustain our military anywhere near our current capacity. I think we spend somewhere near 600 bil right now on defense, so that's like 20thousand a person? Certainly those more well off will pay more, but...how much? I suppose it could be financed through deficit spending in case of an attack and the remainder paid over several years, but it seems a bit uncertain which would probably incur higher interest rates.

I find the invading them to seize assets thing highly unlikely. It would probably cost us more more to go over there and invade than it would be to just absorb the cost ourselves.

Subway seems to do just fine managing voluntary payments for their goods and services. I think the government should be able to handle taking voluntary contributions if they can. razz Higher volume they'll have, but it's not like they aren't used to working with large numbers and coordinating them.

I kind of expect though that we would have a bit less in the way of military expenditures to handle on average though if we were to assume the government was run how Objectivists would want it run (since I don't see what is otherwise like our current government and lack of forced taxation ever crossing paths). We wouldn't be spreading ourselves so thin. We would only be acting against imminent threats. So, we could pull out the military from all kinds of places we just have people sitting around right now, or places that just don't have anything to do with us. We could afford to increase our stock pile of supplies for the military by just not using stuff up so quickly.

As for seizing assets from China, if we went to war with them in the first place we'd have to not screw around with it and get serious. If we genuinely went scorched earth, blew apart everywhere we went until they backed off, it shouldn't be hard to go pick out what valuables can found in the rubble. This though, of course, would be very brutal on both sides of the fighting and could possibly even end up having some of the fighting come over here too, so it would take something serious (such as actual plans or attempts by them to come take us over) and a strong stomach to go ahead with this.

 

[OneOfLittleHarmony]

bluecherry

OneOfLittleHarmony

bluecherry

OneOfLittleHarmony

bluecherry

Well, the problem with China taking over to begin with is that they would not just leave us to go about our lives. We could expect to become subject to "the great firewall of China" and other unpleasantness like that. Our current government > the Chinese government. So, if somebody actually WAS an Objectivist and didn't just say they were (because you can say you're anything and that doesn't necessarily mean it's true, like saying you're an expert on physics when your knowledge of it consists of just the Wikipedia page for physics) then they wouldn't want China to come take over. Though they may not have been personally responsible for the government's racked up debt to China, trying to go to war with China to get out of paying the debt and/or having China take us over would not only probably end up costing even more, plus it would mean our citizens going and getting maimed and killed and such too, so it would just make sense to chip in what money they could to pay off that debt to China and get out of debt to them ASAP. In other words, if you didn't force an Objectivist to pay off the debt to China, they'd contribute funds to what extent they could voluntarily to paying off China in order to keep the undesirable Chinese government off our backs.

Let's assume we paid the National Debt owed to China off in full. Let's assume China invades us becuase we're rich and have resources, but we can't defend ourself because we have no military because there's no longer a government.

Why would we have no military and government? Are you assuming that Objectivists wouldn't choose to pay to support having such things? The same logic that is behind voluntarily paying off debt to China is why there would be voluntary contribution to paying to keep up a military to defend us from getting taken over by other crappier governments. Though, if we paid China off and they still attacked us, you can bet we'd seize funds from them afterward to pay off how much it cost us to fight them off. The justification for this is much the same as that behind how in our current legal system if somebody attacks an individual person, the victim can later sue for the cost of their medical bills and the cost of their legal fees incurred in prosecuting the assailant.

Well, it's not a difficult thing to make coupon payments to China, it's only like 30 billion a year or so in payments we would owe them. That's like a thousand dollars a person. But nevertheless, I still would assume that it would be incredibly hard to coordinate let alone get enough voluntary payments a year to sustain our military anywhere near our current capacity. I think we spend somewhere near 600 bil right now on defense, so that's like 20thousand a person? Certainly those more well off will pay more, but...how much? I suppose it could be financed through deficit spending in case of an attack and the remainder paid over several years, but it seems a bit uncertain which would probably incur higher interest rates.

I find the invading them to seize assets thing highly unlikely. It would probably cost us more more to go over there and invade than it would be to just absorb the cost ourselves.

Subway seems to do just fine managing voluntary payments for their goods and services. I think the government should be able to handle taking voluntary contributions if they can. razz Higher volume they'll have, but it's not like they aren't used to working with large numbers and coordinating them.

I kind of expect though that we would have a bit less in the way of military expenditures to handle on average though if we were to assume the government was run how Objectivists would want it run (since I don't see what is otherwise like our current government and lack of forced taxation ever crossing paths). We wouldn't be spreading ourselves so thin. We would only be acting against imminent threats. So, we could pull out the military from all kinds of places we just have people sitting around right now, or places that just don't have anything to do with us. We could afford to increase our stock pile of supplies for the military by just not using stuff up so quickly.

As for seizing assets from China, if we went to war with them in the first place we'd have to not screw around with it and get serious. If we genuinely went scorched earth, blew apart everywhere we went until they backed off, it shouldn't be hard to go pick out what valuables can found in the rubble. This though, of course, would be very brutal on both sides of the fighting and could possibly even end up having some of the fighting come over here too, so it would take something serious (such as actual plans or attempts by them to come take us over) and a strong stomach to go ahead with this.

Well, I am kind of making the assumption that we'd need our entire military as it currently is to take on China, because I am assuming even with inferior technology their numerical superiority would hurt us quite a bit.

However, maybe the logistics of them actually carrying such a thing out would prove quite impossible and would still be able to always have numerical superiority ( at least in terms of us fighting them).

However, would the objectivist still be able want to or even feel the need to contribute to research and development for the military?

I pretty much feel that objectivism would lead to countries being steamrolled by other militaries and then after a bit of repression the objectivists rise against the oppressors, overthrow them and then go back to their lives, but eventually they get tired of this and it leads to a system very like what the US was thought of as supposed to be as ideated by some of the US's founding fathers.  

[bluecherry]

OneOfLittleHarmony

Well, I am kind of making the assumption that we'd need our entire military as it currently is to take on China, because I am assuming even with inferior technology their numerical superiority would hurt us quite a bit.

However, maybe the logistics of them actually carrying such a thing out would prove quite impossible and would still be able to always have numerical superiority ( at least in terms of us fighting them).

However, would the objectivist still be able want to or even feel the need to contribute to research and development for the military?

I pretty much feel that objectivism would lead to countries being steamrolled by other militaries and then after a bit of repression the objectivists rise against the oppressors, overthrow them and then go back to their lives, but eventually they get tired of this and it leads to a system very like what the US was thought of as supposed to be as ideated by some of the US's founding fathers.

Why would they all decide to not fund research and development for the military? That, again, puts us in danger of being overtaken eventually by another, worse government. Being taken over by another crappy government sucks, so funding research to stay on top of things militarily would be desirable. There's lots of stuff like this where currently we're forced to pay for things by taxation, but that just make sense to fund to keep things from going downhill so Objectivists would choose to keep funding them voluntarily. It's kind of like how you don't need a law banning the eating of mercury to keep you from eating mercury.