Ayn Rand utopia?

Apparently it exists... in Svalbard. And for them it works really really well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/world/europe/a-harsh-climate-calls-for-banishment-of-the-needy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

What would you do if the government passed a law requiring gun ownership, making it illegal to be unemployed, and removing all taxes from alcohol and cigarettes?

admin: Illegal unemployment? How does that work in a capitalistic society like da US of A?

18Karl: Deport anyone without a job to Mexico I guess.

admin: A law requiring gun ownership-Thumbs Up!-This would be good for weak people who may be incapable of defending themselves. Also some people will now have an obligation to protect themselves and their family rather than blame society for their defenselessness.

Illegal Unemployment-Thumbs Down!- What happens if someone wants to retire? Or perhaps someone is fired from their job? If someone doesn't want to work, that is a different matter altogether.

Removing Taxes on alchohol and cigarettes-Thumbs Down!-I believe transactions should be taxed not incomes.

Tophatdoc: Revised-Ilegal Unemployment-Thumbs Up!- The retired are deported if they can't support themselves.

Also how does this relates to Ayn Rand? Norway is a very socialist country. I think and would be very hostile to Norway nevertheless this region of the country.

admin: You can't deport nationals to a foreign country, at least not without that country's consent.

nzlockie: Not currently anyway. Exile used to be pretty normal once upon a time.

Tophatdoc: Svalbard is largely self-governing though. Ayn Rand comes in with the decisions their government has made.

admin: DA wha.....looooool

admin: Thanks for pointing that out. I read more about it on other pages after I posted here.

nzlockie: Unfortunately in some countries, the elected officials encourage their citizens to immigrate elsewhere.

admin: This has nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

She would have condemned two of the factors you named.

She would have considered a law requiring gun ownership to be a violation of rights, and she would be correct. If someone wants to be eaten by a polar bear, that is their decision to make.

She would have considered a law making it illegal to be unemployed a violation of rights, and she would be correct. If someone wants to work for themselves or not work at all that is their choice, what she would require of that person is that they don't decide to start stealing at a later date to survive.

She would have probably been OK with removing taxes of any kind, but I doubt that is the singular reason for svalbard's success.

ADreamOfLiberty: I probably could have phrased some stuff better. It's not illegal to be unemployed per say, only to not have a legal source of income. You can stay if you can support yourself without having to steal from others, but you need to be able to prove that you don't need to steal from others. If you can't prove that, you're removed. So the second one is more of an issue of my poor phrasing.

The first one is probably accurate though. Having said that, polar bears are the number one cause of death there, so clearly they have that choice anyway. I believe some British teen was mauled there not too long ago, and it made world news. I think it was in the wake of that that they began requiring guns for personal protection.

admin: Svalbard is a small community though

admin: "but you need to be able to prove that you don't need to steal from others."

Rand would not have supported that, it is sufficient that they do not steal from others. She would have been wholly opposed to a government or committee determining if you can take care of yourself with what you are doing, much less being able to exile you if they think you can't.

"Having said that, polar bears are the number one cause of death there, so clearly they have that choice anyway. "

Lol, yes I suppose they can choose not to shoot or forget the gun, but they are still forced to buy one.