You mention one of my favorite books.  I really need to get off my duff and do more reading and that book ought to be near the top of my list.  Unfortunately, lately, I've been more inclined towards the liberal side and have just been too lazy to do anything that productive

To the right, the federal government is analogous to a neighborhood association (NA). In a NA, the residents get together and vote on common rules for everyone to follow as well as an association fee that each neighbor has to pay in to the general fund to pay for things such as trash pickup, snow removal, lawn car and common area maintenance

When the far-left clamors for the government (the ultimate neighborhood association) to provide more and more benefits to individuals, they are hijacking the original intent of the founding fathers.

We rarely agree but on this one you are absolutely correct. Both statements represent the whole issue. and it is just a single, but totally encompassing, Issue.

From that point on, i cant see how we can ever agree on anything else:-)

Just a simple request Draginol, please think a little wider and tell me what a NA and a NATION have in common other than "people living next to each other on an area of the planet EARTH?

Normally i would not even dream of explaining this to you. But it seems that you are absorbed in your own Tech world and have no time to look around. So, here it is. Just few things that makes a Nation and dont exist or apply to NA:

1- A Nation have resources, general resources which belong to ALL of its residents.
2- A CITIZEN, is not a resident who can just move if he/she didnt like the neighborhood.
3-A Nation depends on ALL its Citizens for its survival and progress. (can you imagine ANY country that have only Rich people and Corporations as residents? how can they live?who sweeps their streets, cleans their houses, wipe their babies bottoms or cut their lawns? just to mention few things)
4- A Country does not treat its Citizens the same way as the NA does. For a Nation, people are different with different needs and capabilities. NA doesnt care about that at all
5- A Nation is very interested in its Citizens' well being. Their weaknesses or strengths are hers. NA doesnt care whether its residents are sick or ignorant as long as they pay their fees.

Shall I go on?

I think the reason for the differences are now very clear to me. I always wondered why the views of the left and the right are so different. Now I know why.

Just keep in mind that the founding fathers never looked at it the way of the right. If they wanted a NA they could have done that for themselves and not bother with all these provisions to make sure that NO ONE can ever say to someone: If you dont like it .... move away. They even made sure that NO One can say that even to a foreigner on its soil except through a court order. that is a far cry fron a NA.

It is a Nation, Draginol, A Nation not a neighborhood.

The book Atlas Shrugged works on a similar premise. What if the people who make all the money simply went on strike?

I read it. It works on the premise that a woman who doesn't know how to run a railroad somehow has reality form around her decisions rather than the other way around. I once believed that Ayn Rand had a point though.

Then I mentioned the idea to a friend of mine, who is a bit more down-to-earth. And he told me that if the best would go on strike, the second-best would take their jobs. Often the difference between win and lose is a lot less than huge. I.e. if the geniuses at Intel went on strike, we'd be using AMD CPUs. It's not the end of society as we know it.

Ayn Rand believed that it is a small group indeed that makes the world go around. I agree that it is a small group. I disagree that there are cut-off points between them and the rest of us.

But she did inspire a thought that she probably wouldn't like. What if land lords went on strike?

ThinkAloud. That's the thing, the Founding Fathers did set up a nation of neighborhoods, not as a single entity. Neighborhoods where people choose "community standards", with the proviso, If you don't like it, move somewhere else (or work within the community to change it).

The Founding Fathers also recognized the fact that the Federal Government can do nothing for the individual and shouldn't try. That is why you never once see that word in the Constitution. In fact, in the Bill of Rights there aren't any references to the individual.

In a free society, we as citizens get to choose where we'll live, how we'll live and what part we want to play in society (as well as play no part at all). We have no caste system, class system or titles of nobility that place governmental limits on our freedoms.

Without the freedom to opt out, there is no freedom at all. Without the freedom to fail, there is no freedom to succeed.

Without the freedom to opt out, there is no freedom at all.

People can leave the US and live elsewhere.

If they cannot find a country that works the way they want, they will either have to choose whichever one is the best for their needs (and find out if they can afford living there) or they have to advocate some sort of mechanism to control the market and force countries to change.

There is no moral argument against governments being involved in matters that a neighbourhood association would not be involved in. There might be a practical argument. But those who try the moral argument cannot make it.

Without the freedom to opt out, there is no freedom at all.

Does that principle apply to property rights? I.e. does an anarcho-socialist have to accept that land is privately owned by people or can he "opt out" and live his life as if other people's claims don't matter?

If the socialist was in power and there would be no private property; should those who believe in private property be allowed to "opt out" and own private property without seeing it treated like non-property?

I want an answer that doesn't rely on things one cannot measure. I.e. any answer that relies on private property being natural law will have to come with an explanation of how I can measure the effects of that law of nature. (Does an "owned" rock look different from just a rock? Does land "owned" by an absentee land lord have attributes different from land not claimed but any such lord?)

To be honest, I doubt your principle will be widely applied. There is no opting out other than move to another place. Our anarcho-socialist has the same problem as the guy who wants to live in a complete free market society: others do not agree and have already claimed the entire planet for their preferred systems.

Just a simple request Draginol, please think a little wider and tell me what a NA and a NATION have in common other than "people living next to each other on an area of the planet EARTH?

It is a simple analogy, but one that was designed to bring the complexities of a large government down to a simple lesson.  If you are going to pick nits, then of course it will not work.  It was not designed to "replace" government, only to provide a simple way for most people to understand the workings and intent of government.

People can leave the US and live elsewhere.

And that is just one of the differences that TA was trying to point out that misses the point of the comparison.  yes, you can move to another country, but it is not as easy as moving to a new neighborhood.

It is a good analogy, and I think many are missing the point.  Perhaps if you look at the NA as a place you want to live - or not - then it works better.  And place yourself in the NA both as one of the top dogs (in earnings) and the also rans. 

In the US, NAs are very common.  But they charge fees based upon a set schedule. They provide some benefits for those fees and that is why people are willing to pay for them.  However, if the association decided to start providing benefits to just some residents, and making other residents pay for those benefits, then the dissension would start.

Actually, part of the beauty of the way the United States was INTENDED to be run is that each state would make its own laws for itself. Thus, citizenship in the United States meant freedom to choose from several states with varying laws.

I must also point out that the process of immigration to ANY country is not an easy one. It's fair to say most of our nation's poorer citizens cannot leave the US and live elsewhere. Many nations demand skilled workers to even QUALIFY for immigration.

And that is just one of the differences that TA was trying to point out that misses the point of the comparison. yes, you can move to another country, but it is not as easy as moving to a new neighborhood.

Actually, it is just as easy.

I have moved only once within the same country, and it was always very much the same effort.

Actually, part of the beauty of the way the United States was INTENDED to be run is that each state would make its own laws for itself. Thus, citizenship in the United States meant freedom to choose from several states with varying laws.

Very good. But the same applies to the federal government, whether one likes it or not.

I must also point out that the process of immigration to ANY country is not an easy one. It's fair to say most of our nation's poorer citizens cannot leave the US and live elsewhere. Many nations demand skilled workers to even QUALIFY for immigration.

That's the price I was talking about. It might be too high. But that doesn't mean that the option doesn't exist. A country that needs immigrants will make immigration easier. It's a free market between countries.

But no country wants unskilled workers. Countries that need immigrants usually need skilled employment (and yes, once I finish my Bachelor's degree, I do plan on exploring options in other countries, if need be...why limit myself to one market?

But no country wants unskilled workers. Countries that need immigrants usually need skilled employment

True. And suppliers of goods need paying customers. You can apply those same arguments to limit the free market within a country.

(and yes, once I finish my Bachelor's degree, I do plan on exploring options in other countries, if need be...why limit myself to one market?

Good luck with your degree. I never finished mine. Ran out of money the first time I studied, then moved countries (again), now I have a two-year certificate. I could add a year for a diploma and another for a degree. But it costs 3000 Euros/year and time.

1. A neighborhood association also has community resources.

2. This is correct and is the only leverage that the government has to oppress citizens - it's non-trivial to move to anotehr country.

3. How is this any different from a neighborhood association? Are you suggesting that the government needs to be the one who cuts lawns and wipes baby bottoms?

4. And again, people on the right side of the spectrum do not believe the federal government should care either. A nation != government.

5. A nation != government.  People who live in a neighborhood association are the same people who live "in a nation". They care about the poor, the sick, and the ignorant precisely as much as anyone else. 

You amply demonstrate the left's point of view: To the left, the government IS the nation. To the right, the government, is the neighbhorhood association. 

We do not recognize the federal government as being responsible for "taking care" of citizens. That is the role of individuals to care for their fellow man just as one neighbor might help another.  Conservatives see individual citizens as the nation.

Your friend is wrong. Sorry.

If you take a tour of AMD or Intel you will find that the key innovations are being done by a tiny number of people. 

The curve of capability is not linear. It's exponential.

Your analogy is flawed as well. Rand isn't saying that the best from only some companies went on strike. But rather the most productive from across the entire spectrum of society left.  So there'd be no Intel or AMD CPU innovations for a long while.

You remove say 5% peopulation in which that 5% are the most productive from our society and yes, I think society as we know it would end. We would have mass unemployment, collapse of the tax base, and a very abrubt decline in the standard of living across the board.

In the United States, over half the taxes are paid by those 5%.  If you think that the remaining group would just step in and everything would be hunky dorey then I don't know what to say to that except that be thankful that your belief won't ever be put to the test. 

If you were to remove the owners of every successful small business (i.e. the people who employ the super majority of citizens) I can assure you that nearly all those businesses would go under and most of the ones that survived would be struggling to some degree. 

At the risk of being arrogant (more arrogant than usual) even where I work, where I'm surrounded by extremely talented and gifted people who are hard working and extremely motivated, if I disappeared, the company would be a shadow of its former self in a short order.

ThinkAloud. That's the thing, the Founding Fathers did set up a nation of neighborhoods, not as a single entity.

Like I said to Draginol, i never thought the difference in the view is sooooo different.

Your simple statement above is another example of that. It ignores : "one nation under God", "more perfect union", "We the People" (not the residents ... do you notice that?)... etc.

If they had intentended to set up a natiion of neighborhoods, you would have never heard of these terms .... and why start a Civil War .....???????? Lincoln could have left the southern "neighborhoods" do whatever they like. and if someone didnt like it, they could move .... to the northern "neighborhoods".

The right can continue to think whatever suits its agenda ..... The People of this Nation would never adopt that limited view of their country. I think even the left does not represent what the people really feel regarding this point. The approval rating of the congress now, with the left nominally in charge, is at its lowest point in decades. The people are more in tune with their constitution and their founding father's idea than the left or the right.

I am sorry guys, i never thought that your views are that much limited and so much isolated from your supposedly "fellow citizens".

Yes. The views are sooo different.

Also, you may want to read the constitution and the federalist papers. You will discover that they outline what is, essentially a neighborhood association. I mention the federalist papers because in those papers (written by Hamilton and Madison -- who wrote most of the constitution) they clarify questions that make it abundantly clear that the federal government of the United States was to essentially be a large-scale neighborhood association.

Wow.  What breathtaking arrogance and ignorance combined into a single sentence.  Perhaps you should expand your horizons and discover that more people see the role of the federal government like we do than the number of people who think the federal government exists to play parent to citizens.

For most of our country's history (up until the early 20th) the federal government was run essentially like a neighborhood association.  So for most of our history, "the peple of this nation" not only adopted that view of their GOVERNMENT (not country) but supported it. 

Apparently not given that you clearly have not read it.