frode@toaster.SFSU.EDU (Frode Odegard) writes: So you are saying that acting in one's own rational self-interest is compatible with acting upon somone else by force? (Yes, in case of protection of one's life or, in some cases, one's property. I didn't say the government was acting rationally in everything (or indeed, most things) they do; only that force is a natural response to being threatened. That we perceive the government as the real threat has little bearing on their actions, I suspect.) Um, and how can you epistemologically justify looking upon the government as being a rational being, as having a consciousness? It consists of many separate individuals, does it not? (Indeed, but history is full of individuals banding together to act in their own self interest. I may not share the interests of the federal employee unions, the lifetime bureaucrats and career politicians, but I can certainly see what their motivation is for acting the way in which they do. Does government have consicousness? Certainly not. But does it, through its various entities and arms, exhibit the characteristics of both mob-rule mentality and a cornered animal? Yes, quite often it does.) Finally, isn't self-interest nirvanna a contradiction in terms? Nirvanna means merging with something greater, extinction of the self etc. But isn't the only rational standard of value, the ultimate self-interest, the preservation and flourishing of one's self, of one's life? (OK, you caught me in a writer's flourish here... Nirvanna was, categorically, not the correct word. As for the second part of your statement above, I agree -- but I also think there are millions of people in government who live and breathe a "box mentality" that convinces them very little of their self-interest is unlinked to the great monstrosity that is our government. They are perhaps the last true serfs in this country, mentally if not monetarily.) (I agree with your subsequent statements)