Contract Insurance
What is an image?
Atlas Shrugged?
Uninsured Property?
Table of Contents
Responses A-C
Responses D-R
Responses S-Z

9.  Referring to answer number one (1) the fourth paragraph (P4):  What would happen to the property?

The uninsured common property would remain right where it is until all its owners came to an agreement, although its value probably would decrease from lack of use.  Since the purpose of government is to eliminate force from human relationships, anyone who tried to dispose of property that he or she did not solely own would be stopped from doing so by the government.  After a while, the uninsured partners probably would begin to compromise and agree to a division of their common property, although probably not to the complete satisfaction of all.  This potential loss of value in a relationship is the reason contract insurance would be a much sought after commodity.

With contract insurance, people could enter agreements with the peace of mind of knowing that if they later decide that their relationship is not as beneficial as they originally thought it would be, they can take the value that they had created and move on.  The highly developed capacity we humans have of specializing in a line of work that interests us and trading our products for those of others can be unleashed with the adoption of contract insurance.  The first group of people to understand this principle will be rewarded with longer, healthier lives and the power to travel throughout the universe.

10.  1P3:  What would be the price of a contract insurance policy?

One percent of the value being insured.  For example—in order to buy a house—if I sign a contract with a bank to repay one hundred thousand dollars over a thirty year period, I would pay our government one thousand dollars per year to insure the deal.  If I continue to make the agreed upon payments, I could enjoy my house without interference from anyone.  Multiplying these common transactions by the number of Americans, our government could earn billions of dollars.

This is the revolutionary idea:  "our government could earn"—just like what every other law abiding citizen has been doing since governments were invented.  Instead of politicians persuading one group to impose a tax on another and then using that money to buy votes for the next tax, politicians would be elevated to the honorable status of people who provide a valuable product, and work to satisfy their customers.  This new job description probably would not appeal to those who enter government to gain power over people—a great byproduct of contract insurance.

If the one percent premium was too low to operate our government, our politicians could either increase their efficiency or raise the price.  If the price was too high, either the voters could elect politicians who would lower it or people would be free to operate without contract insurance.  With this innovation, we finally could bring government into the civilized world, where people offer value for value.

11.  1P3:  Could anyone else provide contract insurance?

No, a nation can survive only if there is one final judge of contract disputes.  Our Supreme Court provides us with this service, which explains the success of our system.  It takes little effort to imagine the results of two contract insurance providers disagreeing on the disposition of one piece of property—a degeneration into warfare would be inevitable.  Of course anyone could provide the service of drawing up a contract, but only our government would have the power to enforce its provisions.  If anyone tried to seize someone else's property—even if it was a provision of a signed contract—our government should recognize that as robbery and intervene.

Robbery (when one takes by force from another) is the most important issue affecting the health of an individual and a nation.  In your body, the immune system has evolved specialized cells that float around bumping into other cells with nothing happening until a foreign cell is detected.  Protecting itself, the immune cell quickly surrounds the invader and breaks it down into harmless molecules.  This wonderful process allows your other cells to continue their life sustaining activities.

In your nation, the government system solves this problem with the police who travel around until someone starts to use force against someone else.  To protect themselves, the police sometimes have to break down the criminal into harmless molecules, but usually they put the law breaker in prison.  This allows us to continue our life sustaining activities.

To live, we must use force, from the expansion of our lungs for the air we need to the ingestion of organisms for their essential nutrients.  But the use of force against people is unwise because of the greater value that people can create if they are free from aggression.  If you act like you own people by trying to control them or by voting for politicians who tax and regulate them, all you will get is a bunch of angry captives who spend most of their time thinking of ways to either kill you or move away from you.  But if you create an environment where people are free to produce and trade, you will be rewarded with a wonderful standard of living for a relatively small amount of effort.

Of course if some people are unwise enough to attack other people, they probably cannot be persuaded to stop, so the use of force against them is the only way to protect you.  Government is an effective tool to retaliate against those who initiate the use of physical force against others.

12.  1P3:  Who would insure the contracts between citizens and our government?

Our government would continue to settle disputes between it and others.  Our beautiful system, with its three separate parts, could easily incorporate contract insurance.  The Legislature could adopt the program; the Executive would run it; with the Judiciary overseeing that the program was operated correctly.  Of course, with their power to elect, the majority of voters would continue to have the final say—the strongest feature of our great system.

If people become dissatisfied with the service provided by one company, we are free to take our business to another or to do it ourselves, but because our government would be the only provider of contract insurance, dissatisfaction would be expressed at the ballot box by electing better politicians.  While people would be free to operate without contract insurance, it would be such a valuable product that most people probably would continue voting for the best politicians to keep the program running smoothly.

13.  Referring to the first advertisement (ad1) the fifth paragraph (P5) [Page 1]:  Would you send our military into another country?

No, unless attacked, and then I probably only would send missiles in retaliation to reduce the risk of injury to our military personnel.  Fortunately, our military is so strong that no large group has attacked our country in over one half of a century, and it appears to be as strong as ever.  Our elected politicians and those they hire are responsible for the protection of all the people inside our borders, and I appreciate their efforts.

Because I like to do business with those living in other countries, I send my literature around the world trying to persuade people to vote for me to become the President of the United Nations.  Of course, I must first get enough people to agree to improve the Constitution of the U.N. so it will resemble that of the United States.  The relationship between the participating national governments and the U.N. government would be the same as the relationship between our State governments and our national government.  Those doing business outside their country could purchase contract insurance from the U.N., thus supporting the efforts to protect their property in other countries.

14.  7P1:  Are you an Objectivist?

No, Objectivism is Ms. Rand's philosophy—the ideas that she chose to guide her life.  She focused much of her attention on philosophy, which has another meaning—the study of what is fundamentally going on.  One good method of study is to analyze other people's explanation of what is going on.  Because most of Rand's ideas are true, she successfully explained most areas of our lives.  I have not seen a need to name my philosophy, but I have learned from many teachers and have created my own ideas to set the course of my life.

I wrote Rand a letter stating that Atlas Shrugged was the best product on the market and thanking her for all the time that she had saved me, but I had to take every mental step that she took in forming her concepts, which then made them my concepts.  I wish that she was alive to read my arguments because I am constantly looking for any errors, and if they exist, I bet she would find them.  Also, I wish that she could benefit from my ideas like I have benefited from hers.  I loved her very much.

15.  ad1P5:  Would you abolish any government programs?

No, but I would make them all voluntary by refusing to prosecute anyone for tax evasion.  Take Social Security for example:  The old parties have taken money from millions of citizens for many years and we have a claim against our government to provide for our retirement.  My argument is that we do not have a claim against our neighbors.  Our government is the wealthiest institution that has ever existed and should make good on its promises—I just think that we should stop it from robbing people to meet its obligations.

If not forced to continue, some people may stop paying into Social Security and provide for their retirement in other ways.  Our government probably would have to sell some of its assets, such as its vast land holdings, to meet its obligations.  A nice byproduct of this idea would be a gradual shrinking of our government to a manageable size, and its eventual exit from services that are better provided by others.

16.  8P11:  What is the evidence that Rand's statement, "...all his emotions, of course, are determined by his thinking..." is false?

The evidence (e = from + videre = to see) is that from the day my son was born, I have seen him experience emotions (e = out + movere = move).  When I enter his room, he looks at me and moves toward me.  I conclude that his brain has triggered a memory of me picking him up and he wants me to do it again.  I always oblige, giving him another memory to store.  Although my child is obviously brilliant, he just now is showing signs of thinking (tongere = to know).  For the first year of his life, he was sucking his bottle with his tongue—not using it to explain something that he had learned.

The word all makes her statement false and indicates that some emotions are not the result of thinking.  The value of this idea is that we are less likely to repress our emotions if we understand that some of our emotions come from an integration of sensations performed by our brains, and are not a sign of irrationality.  This is important because our emotional process is the backup for our thinking process.  In our technically advanced society, reason is the only way to prosper, but if we make an error in our thinking, and the resulting mental anxiety is not acknowledged, then without warning, we can suffer the physical pain that results from not understanding our environment.

Whether it is the emotions which are formed before or after you begin to think, the important fact is that your unique means of survival is your ability to think, and to act based solely on your emotions is dangerous.  But equally as dangerous is to act based solely on your thoughts while not acknowledging your emotions.  Happiness is understanding your environment, which includes understanding your emotions.

17.  ad1P5:  What is your occupation and education?

I am a charter bus driver, which allows me to study during most of the day while my customers are visiting places like Disneyland.  I have the Degree of Associate in Science from Chaffey College and am pursuing a Bachelor's in Biology.

18.  ad1P5:  What is your stand on abortion?

I would not stop anyone from removing anything from her body.

19.  ad1P5:  What is your stand on gun control?

I would not stop people from owning anything—except other people.  Nor would I stop them from using what they own in any manner they see fit.

20.  ad1P5:  What is your opinion on social programs?

Our government should defend the property of all Americans within our borders from anyone who tries to rob us.  Our government should be the only provider of contract insurance, which would resolve contract disputes and pay the cost of defending all of us.  Any other "social programs" should not be provided by our government, but if they are, our elected officials should have to compete for customers on the open market and not force anyone to be part of their plans.

21.  ad1P5:  What is your opinion of President Clinton?

He speaks for about half of the voters.  They seem to want our government to tax the wealthy to pay for programs like health care.  I wish his supporters would understand that if they continue to give our government this power, their "wealth" will be used to pay for other programs, and our President does not stop at our borders in his quest to set up more and more programs.  Philosophically, I disagree with his support of taxation—a nation cannot survive if anyone is allowed to rob another.

22.  ad1P5:  Are you a Libertarian?

Yes, I joined in 1996 by calling 1-800-ELECT-US and was elected secretary of the San Bernardino County region.  "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals"—that is to say—I will not start the use of force against other people.

23.  1P3:  Is there a contract that our government would refuse to insure?

Yes, if it does not have instructions about dividing the partnership's common property.  When any insured partner places a claim with the government, the partnership is over.  All that should be done is the complete separation and distribution of all property.  Forcing people to stay together is a good way to get someone hurt and allowing them to fight over their property is dangerous for everyone.

Of course all partners should be free to re-negotiate their deal at anytime and even change their insurance coverage, but this involves no government intervention because there is agreement among the participants.  Government should step in only when there is disagreement.  Hopefully this will be a rare occurrence and everyone's relationships will succeed, but to have some peaceful recourse if things go wrong is a valuable service that a government can provide, which makes the money to protect all citizens from those who have yet to learn the futility of starting the use of force against others.