I'm an Objectivist. Debate me.

Alright, well where do you draw the line? How much government intervention do you need to afford public goods?

 

Depends on the size of the society and it’s needs.

 

So, you place society above the individual? The common good is more important than individuals?

 

I stink, therefore I am..

 

Society is a balance between individual rights and freedoms and the needs required to protect them.

Individuals don’t tend to last very long when society devolves into anarchy.

 

Individuals don't last when there is an over powering government.

 

The problem is that Objectivists conflate literally any functional government with overpowering government.

 

I havnt read any Ayn Rand. I'm often accused of being a follower of her ideology, though mostly by progressives.

I understand Ayn Rand is pretty far on the individualist side of the spectrum, right? What (if any) part does 'the greater good' play in 'Randism'?

 

No, the problem is that people conflate an overpowering government with a functional government.

The proper term is Objectivism. I would say that the greater good serves no part.

 

Seriously you have argued that any government that uses taxes is overpowering.

 

Is it called 'objectivism' because it values logic to the total exclusion of emotion?

 

Confiscating wealth, that people have produced themselves, without their consent is overpowering. Do people have the choice to voluntarily decide what government "public goods" they want to pay for? No. There is no choice. If you disagree, you are thrown in jail.

 

So then you have no functioning society. It all devolves into anarchy until a society that doesn’t care about using force eats it.

 

The only purpose of government is to defend individual rights with three things: the police, the army, and the courts. Those are the only things that can be used to collect taxes. Everything else must be voluntary. I am not advocating for anarchy. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

So taking people’s wealth is okay so long as it go to the army, police, and the courts?

What about protecting the commons?

 

No, it does not exclude emotion. Emotions are important. But they are not to be placed above reality.

 

Yes. So for the missile thing, taxes would be required.

What do you mean?

 

You aren’t familiar with the economic concept of “the commons”?

 

Are we talking about public property, the people, the environment?

If the tax is for the police, the army, or the courts, then I approve. Otherwise, I do not.

 

So you are a child following that bytch Rand.

How funny.

Try Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle first.

 

Fire departments can be privatized.

 

Under the Empiricists -- which support trusting the senses -- that makes perfect sense Stinko !!

 

K, well you're not a nice person.

 

No sh!t. I kick azz and take names and take very few names if any.