Royce

Royce, debate before you assume we'll label you as "subjective". I don't think I ever did. I labeled some of your definitions as subjective, but not your system.

Though it did descend into rants and rhetoric.

And I apologise forum wide if anyone takes offense. I had hoped it would be more subtle humour. Pessimistic subtle humour perhaps, but subtle humour none the less!

Say what? Where did I ever observe that?

I don't mean to insult - far from it. It comes from previous discussions with other Objectivists - one which Jeff is unaware off. It was my assumption that Anarchism was generally and stereotypically viewed as 'subjective' and therefore evil. On the same note it is a stereotype that Anarchists label everyone else statist, however true that may be.

When I refer my friends to that, you can ask Royce, I always give it to them, then walk them through it very carefully so they can get rid of the dumb ideas.

Because there's absolutely no way I could understand an alternative philosophy on my own.

Welcome to OL. I hope you like it here.

All that aside Welcome!

Thank you both.

Royce; Who are you holding hands with? One could hold one's own hand or hopefully someone elses. All that aside Welcome!

Oh come now, do we have to go analyse a perfectly irrelevant comedic statement.

Royce; Are you the only individualist in Australia? I know you never rebelled against the crown but I always thought Australia had more possibilities. You will now send a post which shatters all these illusions. Since Jeff recruited you are you as young as he is. Are the beaches great in Australia? The pictures I've seen suggest they ar

Ironically enough yes, I'm the exact age as Jeff - to the day. Spooky coincidence.

As for rebelling against the crown, if we had wanted to we could have left the Commonwealth with a referendum held some time ago. Unfortunately a majority voted against leaving the commonwealth. Which means I must accept said queen, despite being politically, morally and intellectually against such a construct. A little off topic but worth a mention, the Australian Government seems to have some innate desire for security as such buddies up with the greatest powers of the time. After Britain retreated in WWII, Australia strengthened ties with America and since then we've been converting from a mostly British influence to an American.

Though I am far from a beach person (I'm more of a city-goer), most beaches in Australia are in pristine condition. If you're brave and willing to risk getting stranded in the wilderness there are some absolute pristine beaches along the North West coast. One in particular is pristine, and completely untouched - no tourists go there. Unfortunately a mining company wanted to rip it up because it sits of a large supply of oil.

This seems to be a contradiction, but it is not. It depends on your view of the nature of man.

Before you start understand that I do not have some Utopian vision of society and nor am I here to spark some revolution. Far from it. Coercion will always exist.

power tends to corrupt a person, some of these groups will become thuggish and/or criminal, depending on their leaders. There will always be gangs somewhere trying to dominate others by force. These gangs can take the form of street gangs on up to entire nations.

Individuals need protection against them. Enter a government

This is one instance I cannot agree with Objectivists or minarchists. Here is where I find the contradiction. Whether or not a government is restricted I see no difference between that and a regular government. You are trying to protect against one gang by creating and institutionalising another thuggish gang. I feel that individuals are perfectly able to solve their problems themselves. Bad solutions to problems will not be repeated, good solutions will be. How they go about this I don't know, but then Anarchists never pretend to have all the answers. Unless of course you're drawn into the whole ANCAP/ANSOC debate (free choice of profanity). In short, if you wish to install an Objectivist government, then go for it. But if you try to stop me from not participating then I am against you.

Honestly Michael, I feel that a conversation between us will ultimately result in you having reinforced your observation that Anarchists are evil, and reinforcing my observation that you are statist.

I'm still trying to figure out why "Individualist Anarchism" and "Free Market Anarchism" are apparently mutually exclusive.

Something to do with Mutualism, a concept I still can't grasp.

To all, I say greetings. This may not be a very dramatic introduction, but it serves it's purpose.

Just a lil about me:

I'm Australian, I enjoy holding hands and long walks on the beach.

It should be known that I am not an Objectivist. My political beliefs could be called rather Libertarian. Though specifically I'm an Anarchist. Precisely I'm somewhere between Individualist Anarchism and Free Market Anarchism. I tend to drift between the two.

Religously I'm an Agnostic.

Anyway, rather a short introduction. If you have any questions, do ask.