Or, as I wrote on Wednesday, Democrats believe "that equality is more important than liberty" while Republicans hold the reciprocal view.

Now that you seem to be on board with we "extreme" Objectivists about how "forced sharing" leads to "perils," I only need to work on you over this "too much" business.

Back to your quote: "The fact that they don't always follow that line doesn't mean people haven't believed them." This derogatory observation on the pragmatism of the Republican party is illuminating. It identifies those principles as good, and admits that people will follow leaders who espouse them.

Now if we can only persuade the R's of this reality and convince them to abandon the absurd "practical" notion that tempering these good principles with a little forced sharing is the only way to win elections and remain in power.

But I approve of forced sharing for Constitutionally permitted activities, the obvious example being national defense. (If convincing ME were the worst of your troubles, brother jg...)

I'd agree with you on the liberty vs. equality but am not sure that enough Dems would sign on. I am thinking that they'd agree to Ms. Brazille's line and that I would then have a point of reference to begin discussions.

--- and, and, and -- I agree about the need to convince the Rs not to deviate. For that I need Libertarians and Objectivists to join the GOP (as many have done) and contribute their ideas.

The main reason for sharing by force is that in reality that is the only way to guarantee sharing. The communist or collectivist view (even if it is an objectivist collective) that everyone will see the reason for sharing just doesn't work that well in practice. The one truth may be man's ability to reason, but I have seen the reasoning of many men be rather, uh, unreasonable. The truth is also that there are things like national defense that can only be accomplished efficiently with sharing of the burden of cost. Efficiency should be the goal, if the government can accomplish the task more efficiently than private enterprise then it should.

The original Democratic ideal was equality of opportunity. Fighting for this took a rebellious nature, to question and attack the status quo, whether it was slavery, voting rights, or non-discriminatory hiring practices. This nature has lead the Democratic party to be in a state of perpetual protest, always looking for the next cause to champion. Keep in mind that many of these freedoms we enjoy today, and consider mainstream, were generations ago radical liberal ideals.

I think the GOP is the rebellious party now. Assetizing Social Security, school choice, and the ownership society are radical ideas. Fred Barnes talks about Bush as an "activist" in last week's Weekly Standard ("They Still Don't Get Him," http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/995hhbsk.asp)

The Democratic Party's history on slavery and voting rights is not quite a point of pride, izzit? President Lincoln ended slavery and Republicans carried the Voting Rights Act over Dixiecrat obstruction.

Well then, since both of you support "forced sharing" for the national defense you must also support mandatory military service and a draft to enforce it, else admit to being inconsistent. And no, a mandatory "national service" doesn't qualify. I'm talking rifles and brain buckets here.

"Efficiency should be the goal," Silence? Then why do you and your family live so inefficiently in a home with more rooms than family members? What are we, ants? (It was no mere coincidence that ants were the alien life form at war with humans in the book 'Starship Troopers.' (The movie was an abomination!)) Efficiency is certainly not MY goal. That would instead be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (That's happiness for ME and MINE, and not the slug who sleeps under a bridge. He's embarked upon his OWN pursuit of happiness and I wish him well in finding it, HIMSELF.)

Please check your premise, Silence: Sharing is NOT something that can, or even should be, guaranteed. Sharing is a choice, a contractual arrangement trading value for value. When the value being offered doesn't equal the value being received, and one of the parties declines to participate in the "share," then "forcing" that party to share is generally referred to as another act, namely "theft."

It really is "OK" if everyone doesn't believe the same thing, or support the same causes, or live the same lifestyle. The one thing that is NOT "OK" is to initiate force against any individual. By this standard, force used defensively against that initiated by another is entirely permissable.

I've no general moral problem with conscription. I think that the volunteer military works a lot better and is politically preferable, but should we have to reinstitute a draft to protect the country, I won't be marching in opposition.

I am having fun because I am always defending myself from the other side. It is always "jk, you are such a meanie!" and never "jk, you are a such a communist with no belief in property rights."

So, I'll go with a draft if needed. Will you not accept any taxation for defense? I know you support a muscular military -- what is your alternative?

Come on JK, you have to give those nasty north eastern liberal elites some credit for slavery and voting rights. As for the GOP being the rebelious party now, I would have to agree.

I believe in efficiency for necessary items so that we have more money left for elective things like a big house for me, cool guitars for JK, etc. What would the proper objectivist method be for paying for roads or national defense?

So you'll go with a draft if "needed." If needed for who? For what?

Will you also go with concentration camps if "needed?" Or deb_tor's prisons if "needed?" How about the "need" to put up homeless people in your spare bedrooms?

Defense is one of the few services that is rightly provided by government. As such, I do support certain kinds of taxation to finance it. Property taxes and consumption taxes are both proportional to what each individual needs to have protected. Income taxes are proportional only to ambition and should be abolished for any use.

Paying for roads is another matter. Public roads are not a necessity. The "public" road franchise would be far more efficient, satisfying Silence's personal desire, were it privatized, rather than the current bureaucratic government monopoly. Said monopoly takes our fuel tax dollars to Washington, doles them out to other states than where collected (guided largely by influence peddlers and social engineers) where they are spent where politicians choose instead of where market forces demand.

Roads should be funded by their users, either directly or indirectly. A fuel tax is a valid indirect toll but it must be a local tax for local use. With modern transponder technology there is no reason why tolls can't be efficiently collected for specific roads traveled (INSTEAD of a localized fuel tax) and the proceeds used to maintain or expand those very roads.

Notice that I said "fuel" tax rather than gas or diesel tax. As alternative fueled vehicles proliferate, the users of traditional motor fuels will be disproportionally charged, effectively subsidizing the H2, CNG and LPG fuel users.

Silence sez: "...tens of millions of people die around the world from lack of health care we have the ability to provide."

Who is "we?" How do you get from "ability" to "obligation?"

In your response, beware of the Animal Farm and Communist Manifesto formula: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Personally, I don't think you can get there from here without using that nasty road.

Time out! Because I would support a draft if our government’s elected, civilian leaders deemed it necessary (say, to repel a Chinese invasion), than I am also on board for concentration camps, d e b t o r s prison and quartering the homeless? That's a leap, my friend.

Actually, you brought up the draft. I approved of taxation (forced "sharing") for national defense, with which you agree.

I would be fine with privatization of roads. yet must admit that there are good historical examples of US participation in transportation. The Erie Canal was critical to our place as a Continental power as opposed to a coastal nation. It could have been done privately, but how long a wait?

The Interstate highway system was pitched by President Eisenhower for its military significance. It created wealth. Compared to most government involvement, roads have a pretty good return on investment. I once saw a study that compared per-capita GDP with per-capita roads -- there was substantial correlation.

Cool, I was going to bring up the historical origin of the interstate highway system but JK has already done it. I too could go along with privatizing roads into toll roads with transponders, but what does privatization mean without free market competition? There can only be one owner of a road, and short of a parallel twin road you thus have a monopoly. What is seems JG is really suggesting is full state or local control, either through tolls or only local/state fuel taxes. (Rather than pay federal fuel taxes and then attempt to get those funds back to use on your roads.) This also I can go along with, now that the necessity of a federal interstate system for transporting nukes or landing aircraft is not so clear. JK does however bring up the point that if you were to start from scratch it would be tough to come up with the funds to build a road either privately or only with local/state funds. Looked at as a federal investment, the interstate system is a good deal.

As for my assertion about health care, (or food could be used here as well) I don't draw a line from ability to obligation. There is no obligation to feed or cure the world, but we have the ability to do so, the only impediment is the method to do it profitably. The market forces people to go hungry not because the food does not exist, but because the seller cannot bring it to the buyer profitably. The simple fact is that people die due to market forces.

No Silence, people die because that is the deal. People create wealth and enjoy longer, fuller, richer lives because of the free market.

Hunger exists in countries that are not free -- compare the Heritage/WSJ freedom index with per capita GDP. Bad government creates hunger -- that is NOT a limitation of the free market system.

(http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/)

JK - I stand by my assertion: Allowing elected civilian "leaders" to force individual citizens to take up arms is no different than allowing them to force other individual citizens into detention camps or the homes of their neighbors.

The problem here is force.

We both agree that defending the homeland from a Chinese invasion is a good cause. I think you'll also agree with me that if a million screaming Chinamen were pouring onto our shores there would be NO SHORTAGE of able bodied men arriving in their OWN VEHICLES with their OWN WEAPONS to blow them to smithereens. Not to mention a spike in enlistments so huge the services would be forced to request that they bring their own rifles if possible.

The reason they would do this and the reason this is the right (read 'moral') way to get the job done is that it is in each individual's own, actual self-interest to do so.

"A man who would surrender a little liberty in exchange for a little security deserves neither." -B. Franklin

What liberty is more important than the decision of whether or not to go to war? Compulsory military service is morally wrong no matter how dire the circumstances.

Silence - Your macro-economic overview of world hunger or world healthcare appear to be causing you to overlook the most basic component of market forces: free TRADE. Those on the receiving end of a good or service must have something of value to trade for them. A seller cannot make a profit from a buyer with no capital.

This basic law of reality still holds when a third party levies taxes/fees/tariffs on the seller and awards the proceeds to the buyer. This is why foreign economic aid is a complete and utter failure.