He is NOT being sarcastic Marverick.
This is why I take all these swipes at him.
Swipe all you like!
You know what I hear when I read "swipes"? I hear frustration that one's own ideas about what is "right" and "good" and "proper", even "rational", are being challenged -- that 'Oh my God, you mean my point of view isn't the only one!? Great gadzooks!'.
People like Alfonso DO exist and are the enemy to
any rational system of government.
That is simply BS axeman, and I think you know it.
If you disagree, then please prove to me how your preferred system of government is any more "rational"? (Or better yet, try proving to me the propositions of objectivism. That should be good. There's a reason why no academic philosopher takes Rand seriously.)
How the hell can you even define what is rational government until you define what the purpose of government is? And in that case, why should I simply accept, axiomatically, your point of view on what the purpose of government is?
He is a die hard socialist, or better yet, as Rearden put
it, "communist light".
Well, I've harbored suspicions before that you really don't understand what I'm on about, otherwise you'd never make such a ridiculous comment. (Unless, in true Randian style, you've invented your own definition of "socialist".)
Lol, would a "hardline" socialist be pro-business? And pro-capitalism (not to the extreme, but generally yes)? Yet those are precisely what I have stated in previous posts of mine.
Just because I think high (very high) estate taxes, on the very rich, would be beneficial to society (and, in the long run, to the heirs of these rich) you cannot go from that to calling me "hardline" socialist. Not with a straight face you can't.
The reason people should be able to work their asses
off to make life easier for their children all comes down
to individual rights, namely property rights.
If I TRULY have a right to my property, then I also have
a RIGHT to CHOOSE who I give it to when I die.
Well, tell me then,
do you "TRULY" have a right to your property?
Can you prove this? Or is another axiom I'm supposed to simply accept "cos I said so"?
Now, before you all rip my head off, I'm in agreement that ironclad property rights are a fundamental aspect of any successful capitalistic (even social
istic) society.
But why should we extend them to you after you are dead?
If we can make certain alterations to the basic principle of personal property, in order to create a better society, why shouldn't we do it?
Something Alfonso, apparently does not have an issue with.
It's OK to rob people of their most basic rights as long
as it prevents these "evil family empires". LOL. What a crock.
Basically, yes. I am in favor of a more egalitarian society. Gee, what a crock.
The real question is.... WHY THE HELL DO THESE OTHER PEOPLE
DESERVE THE MONEY I WORKED SO HARD FOR INSTEAD OF
MY OWN KIDS?!?!?!
Well, why do your kids deserve it any more than anyone else? (!?!?!?!)
Look, axeman, unless you're going to be worth, say, $10MM by the time you die, you really don't have to worry. Because my beef isn't with a kid inheriting a few hundred thousand and a family home, okay.
Any way you cut it, it does not make any sense and is not
a defendable position.
That is just not true at all.
You are completely deluding yourself if you think there will ever be found any "rational" solution to government. It is ALWAYS going to come down to what people think, on an emotional level, is the best thing to do.
That born rich guilt must run really deep in Alfonso 
You know, I suppose in some ways it does. Axeman, if came from a country like mine, where it is simply ludicrous to suggest that the poor -- and they are REALLY poor -- have anywhere near the opportunities in life as someone in my position you might understand me better.
Then again, look at your own country. You have 25% of children living under the poverty line. When and how did caring about fellow human beings become so shameful?
