This is a good example of where you (and Dagny) as philosophers diverge from me as a political hack.

I see your point and basically agree with you. We voted a new Lafayette Rec Center right after I moved in and while I think private enterprise would have been better, I have enjoyed it for many years.

The key to both is the local vote. A plurality of Arapahoe County Residents chose this violation of which you speak. Maybe some that do not use it believe it will improve community life or increase property values.

Again, I am on your side. But, by attacking a popular and defensible government service, you risk alienating large voting blocks (think abolishing the Dept. of Ed. in '96).

I let these go by and say "we lost," keeping my powder dry for unpopular government coercion. I'm thinking we attack vehicle emission inspections in Colorado and medical marijuana restrictions at the Federal level.

I'm not sure where you're getting on the circle of your argument, JK. Do you support this confiscation because it's popular, or is it popular because good folks don't oppose it? Keep in mind that Russ isn't writing letters to the legislature, but letters to the editor designed to enlighten his fellow man. Maybe one day our civilization will be advanced enough that we don't vote in favor of legalized theft. It will help toward that end when those who already understand what's happening stop defending it.

You might also want to rethink your "tyranny of the smaller majority" argument, saying that anti-liberty government behavior is Constitutional so long as it comes into being one state at a time. Shall we convert the city, or county, or state government into great big homeowners associations, telling us we can't park RVs or fly American flags on our property? I've come to realize that the "states rights" argument is a canard.

Lastly, unless you keep the bow of your philosophical ship pointed at a proper ideal on the horizon you are destined to be blown and drifted toward someone else's (at your own expense) one "legislation around the edges" at a time.

Cheers!

Well, I had a hunch you wouldn't completely appreciate my comment. I'll rephrase a little so that I might be clear, though I expect we will end up disagreeing in the end.

I don't support this confiscation at all for any reason. I like Russ's letter. As a political hack, I question opposition to popular projects, even for the best of reasons.

And, I find the Rec Center less egregious than many other programs because it halfway follows the motto: less government, more local.

A Homeowners' Association is a great example of onerous restrictions that are okay because everybody really does want them. Bastiat said that just law is "understandable and avoidable." I do NOT buy a home in a place where somebody is gonna tell me what color I can paint my house, yet I have friends who think it's great because they couldn't bear a purple house down the street.

A state law (say, emissions testing) is frustrating because I cannot affect State elections. Yet I cannot agree that "States' Rights is a canard." I pains me to type the phrase -- Federalism is our gift to the world. We inherited Democracy and Property rights and Rule of law. But we perfected Federalism; because it has been beaten down, I'll not abandon it!

Point your bow where you wish, Cap'n -- I am just trying to get the most people onboard...

I think what JK might have been getting at was how might the theories of objectivism break down when put into practice? Dagny's argument for the inclusion of individual rights as the defining difference is a great one, but what are these rights and how do you define them? Can you enumerate this objective, secular, reality based moral code? What happens when my individual rights bump into yours? How you deal with these issues is what determines how (reasonably) fair and just your system is in practice. I think objectivism looks so good partly because it is still a theory, not out in the practical and imperfect world. (Unless there is a working system of government based upon these philosophies of which I am unaware?) Basing government on objective principals and reality sounds great, even scientific, but then again, how objective are our scientific principals that explain reality? All scientific experiments must state their set up , point of reference and boundary conditions, for all measurements are subjective to these parameters. Gravity is not constant, but varies with distance, the speed of light is dependant on the medium through which it passes. Frame of reference changes local reality. How you would define an absolute reality and measure against it is beyond me, and how you would set up a system of governance based upon it seems equally daunting.

Oops, posted here when I meant to post below on the Thanksgiving argument thread. See there for more background.

The philosophy known as Objectivism is based on one absolute: man's capacity for reason. That reason is applied to everything and no observations about reality are ever to be ignored. There is no more objective, moral, philosophy of life than this.

Though many areas of science are indeed incompletely understood, this has no bearing on the day to day activities of man or government. Government has no dominion over scientific knowledge.

Objectivism has a very simple mechanism for taking care of individual rights "bumping into" each other. It's called ownership. When two individuals can't agree they can both take their property and go home (also their property.) Property can be shared through contracts. Force can be used only in defense of oneself or his property. Disputes are properly resolved through the courts.

Whatever nuances are introduced do not subvert these basic concepts (note that they are not theories.) These concepts happen to be the ideological foundation for our constitutional republic. It is egalitarian ideas like "property rights aren't fair" that cause it to break down.

So how do objectivists handle community property, or would that all be abolished? Would highways for example all become privately held tollways? I guess they would have to else my money would be stolen through taxes to pay for roads upon which I don't drive. Would rural roads then lapse into a state of disrepair if the quantity of drivers and thus toll payers were insufficient to support them? It seems to me that for every problem you solve you would create another.

I lived for several years near Albuquerque on a road that was not maintained by the county. The guy up the street with the tractor would grade the road on a regular basis and every year someone would go around and collect $100 from each of us and pay to have the worst section of road fixed professionally. It was never the greatest road but we all got to work and we chose freely to live in that location with that road.

The free market has universally proven to create the most efficient and effective solutions to human problems. Why do you assume that in any problem that is created by change (roads or any other issue) that some government bureaucrat can solve it better? Perhaps some genius would develop a vehicle that will do 70mph over uneven surfaces and roads would become unnecessary. I will give the benefit of the doubt on solving problems to the market and not the government everytime.

That said, market effectiveness is NOT the main reason for insisting on objective government. The reason is because it is morally RIGHT. It is the only way to ensure individual rights and freedom.

Yikes, sounds like you were part of a road collective back in Albuquerque.

Silence, I can't quite tell if you are serious. There is a world of difference between a group of individuals voluntarily sharing a common expense and collectivism imposed by the government at gun point.

But you do have a "commons problem." What if I move in next door and don't want to pay? What if I further buy a large truck that disrupts the grading?

Theory meet Reality. In short order JK I think you would find the members of this voluntary collective instigating efforts to compel you to pay and become an involuntary member.

Wait, I know, we can get the guy with the most expensive house to make up the difference that JK won't pay. (OK, now I am not being serious, or am I, I am a liberal you know)

Silence, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by, "compel." I may rightfully use any means short of force to encourage a neighbor to choose to pay. This disagreeble neighbor may be ignored, ostracized, or picketed. He may not be stolen from. The government doesn't like competition. Rational human beings recognize the benefits to contributing. If he still chooses not to pay, I can decide if I wish to fix his section for MY benefit or not.

I may even ask the guy with the biggest house to pick up the slack. I just can't force him.

JK, if you damage the grading on areas of the road that don't belong to you, you can appropriately be sued for the cost. You have in reality initiated the use of force on others. Settling such disputes is an appropriate use of government.

These solutions are based on the concept of individual rights as a primary goal. A free individual may do anything except initiate the use of force on another.