Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[ZARDOZ]

But it isn't wrong. What is EVIL is violation of property rights. The social outcomes are irrelevant because you have no right to healthcare, food, shelter, to use the road outside your front door.

Which is clearly BS of the highest order.

[Old Greg]

Which is clearly BS of the highest order.

Apparently you are objectively wrong.

[SpontaneousOrder]

- RationalWiki.

I was not criticising, just asking a question. An answer would be good.

From the dictionary:

noun
1.
the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others (opposed to egoism ).

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think that there needs to be a rule of law but I don't like State interference where it's not necessary e.g. 'quotas' for businesses to guarantee that they have the correct numbers of women or minority groups rather than allowing the business owners to recruit according to ability. By the same token I also believe that businesses should be given tax relief on private healthcare schemes for their employees so that the NHS can be freed up financially and can therefore give a much better service to the people who need it

Lisa - OG is only interested in contributing spam. I honestly wouldn't bother.

[SpontaneousOrder]

laissez faire has been proven to be wrong, spectacularly demonstrated with the Banking Crisis which originated through lighter regualtion/control.

IMHO.

That is so very spectacularly wrong.

There is nothing aproaching laissez faire, nor even capitalism for that matter in this country.
And the banking crisis was initiated by the state's interference, whereby banks were practically forced to lend those unworthy of credit - and was sponsored by the state's belief in 'too big to fail'.

[SpontaneousOrder]

To go back to your example, I have no problem wih paying taxes, some of which go to providing benefits which the unemployed guy could live on while jobseeking. Heck I did the same when I graduated. As I understand Randism, or at least SO's interpretation, such taxes are theft backed up by violence, which is just nuts.

Might be worth noting that Ayn Rand was a statist.

[Zero Liability]

I think that there needs to be a rule of law but I don't like State interference where it's not necessary e.g. 'quotas' for businesses to guarantee that they have the correct numbers of women or minority groups rather than allowing the business owners to recruit according to ability. By the same token I also believe that businesses should be given tax relief on private healthcare schemes for their employees so that the NHS can be freed up financially and can therefore give a much better service to the people who need it

Does this include scepticism towards IR35? I would imagine so, as it's a byproduct of the current tax system's arbitrariness, amongst other things and represents an antiquated approach to an evolving labour market.

[ZARDOZ]

That is so very spectacularly wrong.

There is nothing aproaching laissez faire, nor even capitalism for that matter in this country.
And the banking crisis was initiated by the state's interference, whereby banks were practically forced to lend those unworthy of credit - and was sponsored by the state's belief in 'too big to fail'.

That's a red herring, it started with lobbying for lighter banking controls.
Did Lobbying Cause the Financial Crisis? | TIME.com

Or http://rooseveltinstitute.org/new-ro...t-casino-fever

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

In that extreme example, no, that is just nepotism. But where does the line lie? I am currently allowing my son to use my LtdCo as an invoicing vehicle for monies he is earning as a summer intern in the IT dept of a media Co, I will pay some of his tuition fees at Uni, he is currently living rent free and so forth. When does such altruism become 'evil'? Rand never had kids, of course.

To go back to your example, I have no problem wih paying taxes, some of which go to providing benefits which the unemployed guy could live on while jobseeking. Heck I did the same when I graduated. As I understand Randism, or at least SO's interpretation, such taxes are theft backed up by violence, which is just nuts.

Looking after your children is not altruism.

The fact that you answered no to my point proves that the ideology is sound - where you draw the line is up to your own conscience. Everyone who works pays tax that's accepted but would you give 90% of your earnings to ensure that someone else had a happier life - don't just kneejerk say yes because it sounds like something you should do - really think about it

[LisaContractorUmbrella]

And we can have a nice debate about htat - your opinon vs my opinion.

But is all taxation state theft, backed up with violence, in violation of natural property rights?

In an ideal world you would say yes because you could rely on people to be altruistic and to give opportunities to those who have less than themselves but that wouldn't work in real life because people as a species tend not to be naturally altruistic and some people could be offered all the opportunities in the world and still not take them.