Great response, MichaelM!
A few issues, though. How would objectivists fund a government if not through taxation? Is it through a 'recognised agreement' that a government is in their interests, and subsequent donations? I don't think that's a very feasible way of setting up a state, even a very limited one.
You use the word 'value' frequently, as in:
Quote:
|
no human may initiate the use of physical force to gain, withhold, or destroy a value owned by another human.
|
But the definition of value here is a bit vague. Do values include ideas, ethics, etc.? Are they only referring to physical properties? Are you referring to 'rights'? Could you go into it further?
Finally, you say that ownership of land is established by the principle of 'whoever has improved the land, claims it'. Doesn't this just present a simplistic 'first come first served' argument for land ownership? Who adjudicates what constitutes 'improvement', and who divides up two miles of a stream because one has been used for irrigation and the other for fishing? It's a fine principle, but the nitty gritty of it doesn't seem to hold up.