is objective perfection even achievable? does it even exist?
if no(which is what I think) then there can never be a perfect government or system because perfection is a matter of taste isn´t it?
You are probably right. “Perfection” seems entirely constructed by the human mind and thus not objective, unless you suggest intelligent design. If I imagine a society in which freedom and wealth would be entirely frowned upon, a bit like early Spartan society allegedly was, then Democracy and Capitalism would be a terrible choice. But then maybe perfectly consensual rule is in a way this perfection because everyone’s desires and needs are heeded, as utopian as it may sound.
So, Randians don’t believe in individual personal liberty?
What is all this?
Yes, it is achieveable, but only once all of the society’s members are willing to work as individuals, yet respect and understand one another.
I never said that.
No offense to you, but I’m a bit tired at the moment. Would you be so kind as to simplify your wall of text?
I will, however, answer the questions I think you’re trying to ask; correct me if I’m wrong.
-You say that certain large businesses constrict the market by making larger advertisements than smaller businesses, because they have more money, yes? Well let me ask you, how did they get that money? If it was honestly made, then the comapny earned it because their products are what meet the consumers’ wants and needs. Therefore, they must be an excellent company, because people keep on buying their products. But what about the fear of a monopoly? Well, what’s so bad ABOUT a monopoly? Will it destory competitors? Of course! But it’s because the competitor’s products were not good enough. The company in charge has earned their title of King of the Market. If, however, people begin to complain about the company reducing their quality, and call for government regulation, here’s a tip: Start your own business! If people think a big company isn’t producing the way they should, see if anybody else can do better.
Actually, Triage, it’s not that the competitor’s products “aren’t good enough” but a monopoly can and does keep competitors at bay by either buying them out before they get to be too big or undercutting the competitors. Smaller businesses can’t charge the same as larger businesses.
For example, you have a coffee shop. You have a large coffee company, such as Starbucks, as a competitor. Starbucks has large contracts with multiple countries. These contracts, since Starbucks buys in bulk, can get coffee for much cheaper than the small coffee shop. Therefore, you have to charge $5 for a cup of coffee and $3 for the same cup at Starbucks. The business goes to Starbucks. You can’t charge $3 because you can’t make any money on it that way. But Starbucks can. Even if your coffee is BETTER than Starbucks, you will lose the business to Starbucks because they’re cheaper. Also, there are more Starbucks locations so more customers than you can get with your single store.
As for my previous question: An individual wants to join with other individuals to form a government, but you don’t want them to have that liberty.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. But my main point still stands: The larger company has earned their spot by making a good product. If people think the company isn’t good anymore, they can, and will, turn to other suppliers.
And about your previous question: The role of government is to protect citizens and the rights of individuals. If a group of individuals wishes to create an ideal government–that is, one with only a judicial branch (for creating and judging laws), a military branch (for out-of-country conflicts), and a civil protection service (to stop local crimes), and can ensure that no branch becomes overpowered and/or infringes peoples’ rights, then I have no problem with it. IF, however, their goal is to regulate and control the lives of the people they are supposed to serve and their businesses, then those people are corrupt and evil, and do not deserve to hold power of any kind.
Wait, what you’re advocating (a government that creates and enforces laws without any branch becoming too powerful) is exactly what the United States has.
Yet it seems that Randians (no, I’m not going to called them “objectivists”) are against the very thing they advocate.
As to your suggestion about the larger company falling to a smaller company, that doesn’t happen usually. “I’m not going to drive 18 miles to get a cup of coffee when there’s a Starbucks on the corner even if they sell better coffee at Joe-Bob’s Drive Thru Espresso.”
No, the difference between the U.S. government and an ideal government is that the U.S. passes laws that take peoples’ money (taxes) and regulates business.
As long as the product is good, people will buy it.
Now, hold up. You can’t just lie like that and expect to get away with it. The US doesn’t pass laws to “take people’s money”. Taxes aren’t theft. Taxes the cost of “doing business” (as it were). To run a civilization costs money. That money is taxes. Those taxes go to driving the economy. The money doesn’t go into a black hole. If the government spends X amount of money, that money goes right back into businesses’ pockets.
If the government buys 10 planes from Boeing, that’s business Boeing now has that it didn’t have before. If the government buys 1,000 rolls of toilet paper from Kimberly-Clark, then that’s business that Kimberly-Clark didn’t have before.
It drives the economy.
Also, businesses aren’t people, so they can be (and are) regulated differently than people.
Yet the business still has to abide by certain rules.
[QUOTE=danielsangeo;343187If the government spends X amount of money, that money goes right back into businesses’ pockets.[/QUOTE]
same goes for the gun factories (for lack of a better term, im drunk) that fund the government (pretty much idk)
However, when the government spends money on a bomb, that’s the end of the line. It just sits in a warehouse either to collect dust (or become useless) or will be used, in which case, it’s destroyed.
When the government spends money on a bridge, it brings a whole bunch of a return of capital.
No offense, but there is a bit of worldly innocence going on here.
I would like to start my own oil refinery business to break down the oil cartell and supply families that are forced to buy gas at a rigged price. Wait, I do not have the capital, the time (because I have trouble paying rent as it is), or the connections. Looks like we need another “extraordinary individual”. How about you daniel, no? Or you raminator? No? Because these individuals mostly develop new areas of the market, like T.A. Edisson, but never existing establishes structures.
Concerning taxes:
- roads, public libraries, public transportation
- wages of police officers and soldiers (until we create that anarchist utopia where everyone decides never to use violence again that is)
How are we going to pay that if not through taxation? Donations? Which is basically taxes just on a regular basis? Or are we going to do this “the oldschool way” Europe invented and sell state bonds or take other loans until private men literally own our ass, then build an army with that money so we can enforce our economical system and cooperation on weaker states and exploit them?
How would one calculate the running average of every int value held in each node of a binary search tree using a recurrence function with one parameter?
You’ve got to be kidding me, JamesKane. I’ve calculated further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can. Can you really calculate far even as decided half as much to use go wish for that? My guess is that when int really been far even as decided once to use even go want, binary search trees are then that recurrence function has really been parameterized even as decided to use even go want to do look more like. It’s just common sense.
Wow, I leave for a couple of hours and I get this mess!
Anyway, I think that the issue of taxes can be summed up quite nicely here:
https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/taxation.html
I also suggest you read through some parts of the Ayn Rand Lexicon before asking more questions; it can explain many things better than I can.
I’ve already read a lot of Rand and, unfortunately, found her to be an unrealistic idealist. Her ideas on taxes are… well, to sugar-coat it: WRONG!
Taxes cannot and should not be voluntary. The idea, while sounding noble, is just unrealistic. There this story of this town that tried to implement this and you had this guy that didn’t pay his fire department dues and when his home began to burn, the fire department stood and watched to make sure the fire didn’t spread to his neighbors. They didn’t save his house. Is that okay?
No, you live in a country voluntarily and, therefore, use government every single day (you can’t get around it living in a civilized country). You should be forced to pay and it’s not theft. In fact, it’s the reverse. Not paying taxes is theft.
What say you?
Source?
Yes, it is okay. He didn’t pay them, so they shouldn’t help him. It’s his own fault.
No. If people want the government’s services, they will pay. If the government does not help them because they didn’t pay up when they had the chance, it’s through their own fault, and they shouldn’t start crying out “But told me to!” like a spoiled child who forgot to do his homework, and gets in trouble for it.
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life/
Paying for individual services would be MUCH more expensive for the common man. And the poor could not afford these services. It would lead to only the elite having these services. This is not a good idea at all. And precisely the biggest problem I have with “Randianism” trying to call itself objectivist.