Robert Freeman

Thank you all for the advice.

Hello all. I've begun thinking about ideas I have for a web site and trying to figure out what I would have to do to make it. And I think I'll have to do some programming for it. But I know very very little about it. I've heard the names of a few languages and I've seen a few lines of code but that's about it. So I was wondering what the easiest way to start learning how to program was? Which language should I start with (even if I have to start with one to learn programming in general and then learn others to be able to make my site)? I also plan on learn html or css or both (or whatever else I need to), but I would also like to know what the easiest way to learn programming would be if I do end up having to program. Are different languages for different types of sites? What are the advantages or disadvantages of each and how do I know what would be the best one for me to learn in the beginning and eventually the best one for my web site? Thanks for your time and help. Robert

Thank you for the video recommendation. Not only have I watched the video, but Mr. McKeever (the account you're referring to) is who I was referring to in my original post when I said I had asked someone on you tube these questions and tyhey said they would be making a video answering my questions. I do think his video makes a good case for why we need objective law and how a stateless society could not establish objective law, but his arguments are about the practical necessity of a state, not the moral legitimacy of it. I would like to point out, from one of your quotes, that Ayn Rand admits we have to give up one of our rights: "There is only one basic principle to which an individual must consent if he wishes to live in a free, civilized society: the principle of renouncing the use of physical force and delegating to the government his right of physical self-defense, for the purpose of an orderly, objective, legally defined enforcement. Or, to put it another way, he must accept the separation of force and whim (any whim, including his own.)" Whether or not you think it's a fair or necessary trade, this is one example. Let's look at a hypothetical situation: A group of people are on an island. 75% are Objectivist and want to form an objective government, 25% are anarcho-capitalist and are against it. The anarcho-capitalists are already using any of three different services which they feel are fulfilling the role (and are completely voluntary). The Objectivists tell them to either join/comply with the government or to leave the island. Explain to me how the ultimatum of subject some of your rights (use of retaliatory force, freedom to choose alternative service) to the government or abandon your home and property is not a violation of your rights to liberty and property?

What about punishment (jail time, restitution, etc.)? What happens if you have two institutions with the same laws as far as what is legal or illegal (rights) but differ on the amount of punishment for committing a crime? What about budgeting? What if some of the citizens would rather the government spend more money on local security (police) and others would rather they spend it on national (military)? How would these things be decided? If they are decided democratically and you have people that would rather use another institution for their government but they are not allowed, how is that not a violation of their rights? What happens if the people support your law but not your strategy or budget for enforcing it? Can they choose a different government? What if the majority support the law and how the government enforces it but some people do not agree with how they enforce it? Can those people choose to use a different government? Also, how would the law become objective? Meaning, how we we get only objective legislators into office? Wouldn't this require a philosophical movement? If so, how does this differ from achieving a philosophical movement of that scope in a stateless society? Once again, thank you for your time. I look forward to hearing from you all.

To start off I would like to again thank you all for using your time, knowledge and patience to answer my questions. I'm not arguing with you on the practicality of free market anarchism (or any other term for it), on whether or not it could develop an objective law (I don't see how it could but I'm open to hearing both arguments) or whether a government could (I'm not convinced and will address this later in my response) but of whether or not a government, for it's very existence, has to initiate or threaten to initiate force against its citizens to secure either its funding or its monopoly on law. I don't see how there's any getting around this issue. From what I understand: Objectivism holds that the initiation of force is wrong. Government, by it's very nature, in order to maintain its monopoly on law (which may also include military), seems to operate on the initiation or threat of initiation of force. ------------------------ I do have another question regarding the development of objective law in a government and I do hope we can keep this separate from the other questions. In order for there to be an objective law (and enforce it) wouldn't all of the legislators, judges, lawyers, police (military included?), etc. have to think objectively? Wouldn't this require a philosophical movement (for the masses to appoint these people)? If so, how does this differ from attaining a philosophical movement of this scope in a free market society?

Thanks for responding everyone. I apologize for not clarifying the term that I used (non-aggression principle) and am willing to abandon the term for better understanding between us. The following are a few quotes from Ayn Rand on the initiation of force which I found on http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physicalforce.html If the "tax" is not forced, if you can choose not to pay it and you can choose to use an alternative service (without being threatened with physical force) is it still a tax and is it still a government? Would it not be a private service?

Hello Members of THE FORUM, Thanks for taking the time to read and (if you choose to) for answering my questions. If this has been fully discussed/answered somewhere else please direct me to it, I looked through the pages of the political forum and didn't see a title that seemed to address this issue. I've been thinking a lot lately about the nature of government and whether or not one can exist without violating the non-aggression principle. I don't see how one can but I'm still trying to understand the arguments of both sides, by both sides I mean people who agree with Objectivism on metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, except for politics, and those who agree with all of Objectivism. An Objectivist on youtube.com was answering some of my initial questions and then said he would be making a video that would be answering more (or all) of my questions and that I should watch that when he posts it. In the mean time I would also like to ask you. An interesting point he brought up in one of his other videos is the idea of objective law and how, he claims (which I don't know if I would agree or disagree with yet), objective law could not exist without a central system of law (a government). Though I am intrigued by this claim, it addresses the practical necessity for government rather than the moral legitimacy of it (whether it can exist without violating the non-aggression principle). If a government existed only to protect our rights of life, liberty and property wouldn't it still need funding (taxes)? Would the taxes be mandatory (with enforcement through the threat or action of violence)? Since a state cannot exist without being a monopoly on particular services, mainly force, (if it weren't a monopoly wouldn't it be a private entity rather than a state?) how does this not violate the non-aggression principle and my right to choose to use other alternatives (private)? Even in a situation where everyone agreed to use the state/monopoly, wouldn't disagreements arise as of how to use the funds? How would that be decided? If government officials were the ones to decide wouldn't this be imposing the will of the politicians onto the citizens, violating their rights? If it was democratically decided, wouldn't this be imposing the will of the majority onto the minority, violating their rights? Even if a government has a practical necessity (such as providing objective law) how can it be funded without forcing people to pay for it's services? If you agree that a government cannot exist without violating our right to our property (and possibly our liberty) how is this not inconsistent with Objectivism? If I'm missing something here please bring it to my attention. Thanks again for your time, Robert

You are Superman You are mild-mannered, good, strong and you love to help others. Superman 70% Green Lantern 70% Iron Man 65% Spider-Man 60% The Flash 55% Robin 54% Wonder Woman 50% Supergirl 50% Catwoman 50% Batman 45% Hulk 40%

Thank you!

It was pointed out to me by rohan that she does not say "acclamation" but "a conviction."

You scored as a Albus Dumbledore You are Albus Dumbledore. Calm, perceptive, forgiving, and wise beyond your years. Albus Dumbledore 72% Oliver Wood 69% Harry Potter 59% Sirius Black 56% Draco Malfoy 53% Percy Weasley 53% Hermione Granger 50% Neville Longbottom 50% Severus Snape 47% Remus Lupin 44% Lord Voldemort 44% Ron Weasley 41% Luna Lovegood 41% Bellatrix Lestrange 34% One of the questions struck me as odd: "I place a lot of importance and faith in what is logical and reasonable." If something is logical and reasonable is the acceptance of it at all faith? I might misunderstand the word faith but it seems like a contradiction. This reminds me of a video with Ayn Rand (interviewed by Mike Wallace) where she is asked: WALLACE: You have no faith in anything? RAND: Faith? No. WALLACE: Only in your mind? RAND: That is not faith. That is acclamation (spelling?).

Ooooh, yeah. I don't know if that's what I'll settle on but it's good. Thanks for the suggestion, Arnold.

Hello members of THE FORUM, This year I decided I want to put on a play in my area. I've been thinking about publicity which got me thinking of the name for the future theater company and I havent come up with much. I thought of Aurora because I like the idea of a new dawn or light or whatever but I searched yahoo and it was taken. I would like to have something that sounds epic, individualistic, triumphant and all that but something that would fit the artform of theater. Anyway, I'm cmoing up with nothing so I thought I would appeal to you. If you have any ideas please lay them on me. What do you think? Peace and prosperity, Robert

Probably my favorite game, mainly for it's story (which has tons of mythological allusions) and also for it's innovation in gameplay and animation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_the_colossus Probably my favorite game, mainly for it's story (which has tons of mythological allusions) and also for it's innovation in gameplay and animation.