• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Whose read atlas shrugged?

LowDown said:
Fairness in financial transactions? Absence of fraud?
Click to expand...

Ok still i dont see how that keep things "fair". As i stated earlier how does safety equal fairness?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Passing laws to regulate the market even if they are laws to supposed to stop people from acting "unethically" would go directly against Objectivism.
Click to expand...

No, that's wrong. Rand often spoke of "unregulated" capitalism, but certain necessary laws make some regulation inevitable.

Objectivism views government as "the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws;" thus, government is both legitimate and critically important[76] in order to protect individual rights.[77] Rand opposed so-called "rational anarchism," because she saw putting police and courts on the market as an inherent miscarriage of justice. Objectivism holds that the proper functions of a government are "the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objectively defined laws," the executive, and legislatures.[78] Furthermore, in protecting individual rights, the government is acting as an agent of its citizens and "has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens"[79] and it must act in an impartial manner according to specific, objectively defined laws.[80] Prominent Objectivists Leonard Peikoff and Yaron Brook have since expressed support for other government functions.[81][82]
Click to expand...
(Wikipedia)
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Passing laws to regulate the market even if they are laws to supposed to stop people from acting "unethically" would go directly against Objectivism.
Click to expand...
Why would you pass laws that interfere with people's voluntary interactions and agreements? What would give you the authority to do so?
 
YoungConserv said:
My great grand father didn't even buy a watch with out researching it so I would expect people to take more care with matters of their health. Also now a days with the Internet do you think without the FDA such tragedies could happen now?
Click to expand...

Did you grandfather have OCD? Was he educated? Many people at that time didn't have the option. To your last question with (or without the FDA): yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom