DOMA and Prop 8. Both History.

[Hammerskjold]

So, obviously you never read one.

Well, let's not be too hasty about that one. Remember who you're replying to here.

Reading his comment it's certainly very plausible he never read Atlas Shrugged, and just went with an echo chamber 3rd hand interpretation. Looking at his past behaviour, I can go with that pattern.

However, given his reading comprehension level, it's also possible he did read it, but didn't understand what was on the page. Then thankfully, his Marxistitious Diuretical training kicked in, and voila'. Rand's nightmare=the complete opposite of what is actually on the page. (edited addition: I was writing this before I read rouge douche latest keyboard beatings, and apparently it's a case of a lil from column A, and a lil from column B. ;P )

Now I actually think Atlas Shrugged is more than a bore for most passages, and can read like a doorstop thick pamphlet of someone's personal political rantings\beliefs.

But, if you're going to critique something, I do believe it's only fair to see\read it firsthand, and do one's best to understand the work.

TL,DR: Rand's novel is -obviously- about the nightmare of unchecked capitalism and warns the danger of extremist objectivism. che. che.

In Libertaria, what's your is yours. So, when you leave, you take it with you. In Commietopia, there is no property, so you only share what the State says you can share. If you leave, you leave empty handed.

That is assuming a lot on the better nature of humans, on both cases. Again call me cynical, but just because this hypothetical island\nation\planet is filled with like minded people, I don't see that as an ironclad check on the worse impulses of our species. But allrighty, let's play a slight detour here.

So if an inhabitant of Libertaria decides to leave and pack all his\her belongings, they're certainly free to do so. It's in the name after all. And what happens, if that individual is, say the owner of the community power plant.

Or holds some key structure that is necessary to the survival of the community. I mean literally, like this guy\gal owns the grain mill, or the industrial oxygen re-combinator unit that allows people to breathe air, or the unobtainium reactor that powers everything in Libertaria.

There is no US gov't oppressor here, Libertaria is made up of refugees who fled that awful awful place remember. The Libertarianites are the gov't, and the gov't is the Libertarianites. (And this is even playing it straight that there will be no accusations of 'he is a US mole!' Kill the outsider!!1111 Kill the Traitor! He is not of the Body!)

My pessimist side says the other Libertarianites are quite likely to say, 'you're free to walk away, but you leave the things that keeps us alive right here. Otherwise, you will kill us, and we can not let you do that.' That's the polite version. The blunt version and again, pessimist me is more inclined to bet on, 'you want to live, walk away -without- the lewt. You walk away -with- the lewt, you won't make it past the door.'

For Commietopia, I'll make it even simpler and shorter. It might be assuming a lot that the 'state' will allow a Commietopian to leave, period. In Commietopia, state pwnz j00. Oh right, that's not real commie-ism.
(edited addition: And as usual, comrade jackass brays the same song at the expected moment. It's like (a stopped) clockwork at this point. 12:00...12:00...12:00)

Short version on both IMO: They're both on the extreme scale of things, and that's the problem. One advocates extreme independence, the other extreme dependence. Both ignores the reality that in real life\nature\society, it's not always an either or situation. And both seems to ignore the corruptible nature of humans in general.

Anyway that's enough of a detour for me. More on track to the original topic. It was Pride day a week ago was it? It was celebrated without incident (at least nothing serious to write about thankfully) in Toronto. In other places, not so much. There was literally blood spilt in some parts of the world.

I don't see the recognition of others who are different but does no harm to me, as watering down anything. As long as it does no harm to others, someone else's happiness does not detract from my own. And no, homersexhuals getting hitched does no harm to me or society's morals. Paris Hilton vacant stare and soul-less antics has done more damage to society's mores than gay marriage ever will.