"Romney was wrong with his 47% comment; he underestimated by 5 or 6%."
I always agreed with Romney's comment, give or take a few percent. About half the people don't pay income taxes, so income taxes won't be the biggest issue for them. It's just a fact. I don't understand the controversy.

I don't think that's related to this article though.

Need to be careful here. What do you mean by "collectivist".
Hmm that was interesting -- this was supposed to go under helidrvr.

"(All Politicians)" -- are there really no exceptions?

that's when it works great. sometimes...there are cases where even though a party agreed, they pull back when the decision is handed down. Often, this can be a party who does not realize that the point of mediation will start with-you will both lose something in this. Then, there is enforcement as the best alternative

If you read Atlas shrugged, when Dagny accidentally crashed in the Gulch, she was being shown around. John G. told her there is not really much of a government around, just a courthouse. So I would say very, very, very limited Government. Ironically, the founding Father's also viewed very limited Government as seriously important, hence the 10 specific enumerated powers the Federal Government should be limited to, but which they (All Politicians) have ignored especially since Woodrow Wilson.

In this dumbed down society Objectivism cannot compete with Santa Claus! For those who do not understand freedom and liberty it is far easier to sit back and follow orders.............as long as the checks keep clearing the bank!!

Agreed in most cases. I always in my agreements avoid that by using a "mediation" agreement, whereby a mutually agreed upon mediator is selected. In the two cases where a mediator was in process of being chosen, both myself and the other party decided to come to our own agreement and settled the issue using good old fashioned communication.

yes

my other point is once there is a dispute, there needs to be a remedy. a third party makes that decision usually. that 3rd party? that is a form of govt

I was taking heldrvr's definition and exaggerating it.

I think that would depend on the agreement.

An agreement written or verbal, forged by mutual agreement free consent by and between parties, is not "collectivist" in any way shape or form.

Of course, if the agreement between parties is to FORCE someone or some other group to do something against their best interest or against their will, or coerce in some way to provide something in support of others. Then you have a collectivist agreement.

ObamaCare is one such agreement, made 100% by Democrats against the will of the people to force some to pay for something they may not want or need to support others who demand by virtue of tears and guns Health Insurance. Refer to Francisco's speech on money.

My point exactly. We agree Blarman!

You are indeed correct. Well said.

Uh, I think you may be using the wrong definition of collectivist.

A collectivist is one who believes that the majority should be able to be forced by the government to subsidize the lifestyles of others. Objectivists strongly reject this idea.

Even our founding fathers didnt guarantee private property and forbid the government taking from one and giving to another. Over time, people realized they could use government to get what they wanted and have others pay for it. Now there is an entitled class who feels these goodies are due them, and others should pay for them (called the "rich"). The rise of government is predictable in that the only way these people can get goodies is by the force of the guns the government has.

any contractural agreement between two or more individuals could be classified as "collectivist" which would include a group of anarchos all agreeing to enforce some sort of property right-"I won't steal your stuff if you don't steal mine." which is also, incidentally a form of government the minute you assign adjudication to someone in a dispute.

I agree with the intent, but Objectivism can't really succeed without participation. And it is that potential for participation which is being undermined. My title was a tongue-in-cheek attempt at pointing out that until people actually think and take responsibility - two primary pillars of Objectivism - it can not move forward.

It would be gone EXCEPT for Al Sharpton and his ilk! They have to invent things because that is the only way they can maintain their power base.

Thanks for the clarification. I probably should have just left it as left-leaning - as its close enough to a religion for my terms.

I hope your example is like the few examples of flat earthers and cannibals.

My ex-mother-in-law says things like, I have nothing against black people, I just don't want my daughter to marry one. My kids don't even understand what the difference and all the fuss is. Two generations, just about gone, except for Al Sharpton and welfare.