1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Rebuttal: Jill Vickers

 
 
 

Property is not an aspect of human dignity at all. There exists a morality to social welfare and education, health, and housing are 'owed' to those in need simply because of that need. We are one community and exist for that alone            
 

 
 
 

****************************************************************************

Jill Vickers

****************************************************************************

Dr. Jill Vickers: “ …. Well, I guess I've just been declared a ghost since I neither have property nor think that my human dignity is bound up in having property. I don't think your human dignity is bound up in having property either. I'd like to bring this debate down to reality, to Canada in the latter half of the 20th century, and talk a little bit about the Canadian context in which we're living because I find some of my worthy opponents observations from the planet mars or from the 19th century somewhere else. I cannot believe that there is more than a handful, I hope I'm right, in this room who genuinely believe that paying their O-hip payments (Ontario Health Insurance Payments) is some kind of slavery.

I cannot believe that most Canadians at this point in the 20th century believe that the dismantling of Medicare would be anything other than an immoral act, and it seems to me we have been enormously fortunate in Canada in that we have had some small important practical experiences with socialism as a community. Now I know it's true that a lot of Americans think that all Canadians are socialist under the skin. I hesitate, I certainly urge you to believe that Pierre Trudeau isn't one of them. Nonetheless, even the Conservative Party of Canada and Mr. Mulroney considers in his own words that Medicare is at the basis of the morality of the Canadian community, and I am proud, as a Canadian, to join with Mr. Mulroney, and with the liberal leadership and with my own party in defending against those who would tear us back to a time when if you were poor, or if you were black or you were Indian, or you were the wrong sex or the wrong heritage, if you got sick you died.”

****************************************************************************

(LCW) Ms. Vickers immediately jumps in to negate some of what Peikoff has said, and that is indeed a component of a debate, but she twists his words into a convoluted presentation that has no relationship to his actual statement. She says she must be a ghost, for what reason is undecipherable to me. She says she has no property and does not feel that her human dignity is wrapped up in ‘property’. Interesting. Amusing, even. Does she have no property? Does she have no house or apartment? That must be difficult for someone, a teacher, with a Ph.D. Does she live in her car? Well, that would be property as well. In fact, she has written books. Does she get paid for her efforts? That would come under the heading of property as well. Is food a part of her life? Perhaps a fridge with some goodies?

Actually, her Ph.D. itself is property, intellectual property. Does she acknowledge this? And with her station in life, she does realize that she has more ‘property’ than many of those that she presumes to speak for, doesn’t she? Is she willing to ‘donate’ all of what she has to the cause? That is what is expected, isn’t it? ‘From each according to their ability, to each according to their need’? I realize that this is more communist than socialist, but is not the fundamental message the same? I acknowledge that the ‘sacrifice’ that Peikoff and Ridpath depict may be a bit harsh, but is that not what is expected and desired? Not really a sacrifice, since you are supposed to offer it of your own free will. It can be argued that it is therefore ‘not’ a sacrifice.

But I do assume that she is doing fairly well, with the introduction that she received. Is she willing to part with all of that, or perhaps she even desires and has designs on more, being more successful, and making more money, and owning more property? I would appreciate if she could address this question, as it seems to be invaluable in discerning her ‘morality’ in context. Her statement that she has no property seems to be somewhat irrational. Or is property only manufacturing plants and yachts and planes and hedge funds and trusts? It should be fascinating to see how she would separate the ‘wheat from the chaff’.

She would like to bring our debate down to reality, to a Canadian ‘context’. Will this be a morality-based context or just another digression of her own choice? Whenever will she be addressing the target concepts of the debate? Where is that pesky moderator? Has he fallen asleep? Did he go home? I am at a loss why he was here at all.

She again references her ‘worthy opponent’ and immediately tells us his vision is from Mars or the 19th century. Her blatantly false decorum does not fall on deaf ears. At least some of us hear what she is really saying.

Where did her ‘worthy’ opponents make the connection between health-care payments and slavery? I am losing my patience, watching her continually insert unsubstantiated comments and adding whatever she wishes, never making a single effort to explain, put in context, or relate to morality, irrespective if she sometimes inserts the words into her narrative. It’s like watching a TV show, with the audio from another channel at the same time. I am so disappointed. If you are a socialist, you should be as well.

She finally brings up the concept of morality, or at least peripherally, speaking of the ‘immorality’ of dismantling Medicare. I thought this was not supposed to be about political specifics? Does she say why this is immoral? Of course not, it is enough to tell us that it is what she believes. No explanation is required, or available.
She lets us in on a little secret that most Americans think that ‘all’ Canadians are socialists under the skin. How does she know that? Is this an assumption on her part? You know what they say about ‘assuming’ things, right? I happen to be an American and lived in Quebec for twelve years. Interestingly enough, I was still there in 1984 and never thought that all Canadians were socialist. What does this have to do with anything of substance?

No sense quoting anything else she says at this time. A diatribe about her ‘pride’ in supporting Medicare, which I still can’t understand the significance, and then continues on to talk about all of her normal issues, like those who would tear us back to a time when if you were poor, or if you were black or you were Indian, or you were the wrong sex or the wrong heritage if you got sick you died. I guess that she has a point in there somewhere that is not politically based, but I fail to see what it is. It’s like going to a pizzeria and expecting to get some nouvelle cuisine. Very unsatisfying.

Just for the record, a lot of people die when they get sick. The idea is not to just stay alive but to do so with a meaningful quality of life. She is certainly focused, I just wish it was on the issues at hand. If I had to pay to get in, I would want my money back.

****************************************************************************

Ms. Vickers: “ …. I think we have to understand a much more normal political spectrum in which we have some fundamental agreements on the morality of cooperation and on the morality of social welfare to a significant degree. I think we believe that education, that health, that housing, and the number of support systems for those who desperately need them are that which we owe to one another not in any sense out of slavery or coercion but because we are fellow Canadians because we live in the same community because we are brothers and sisters. Well, I hope when Medicare gets rolled down you don't get sick.”

****************************************************************************

(LCW) I am trying to appreciate her efforts at inserting the word morality not once, but twice in her comments. The problem is that she is not presenting any clarity. She talks of a normal political spectrum but gives no insight into what that means. She speaks on the morality of cooperation but it makes no rational sense. Cooperation cannot be moral, only the individuals that comprise that cooperation. I feel guilty because I am beginning to think that she does not even comprehend the fundamentals of what morality actually consists of. Morality is not a ‘feel-good’ sense of the world around us, it is specific and definable attributes that go into any and all decisions that we make, based on something tangible, not mystical. I see this a lot with many people, not just socialists or collectivists. Their understanding of terms is extremely vague and nebulous. They do not resist defining it because they don’t want to, but because they are not capable.

I am always disappointed when someone jumps to the completely unsubstantiated conclusions that capitalists, conservatives, Objectivists, and others have no concept of social welfare, education, housing, and other support systems. It is simply the worst kind of mistruth that you can imagine, extremely disrespectful and insulting. All of these things are not only necessary but instrumental in creating an environment where ‘everyone’ gets to reap a benefit, although maybe not in the sense that the collectivist interprets it.

The fundamental difference is in the use of ‘coercion’ or the ‘initiation of force’ to do so. If you truly believe that those arrayed against your philosophy don’t help people then there is only one word to encapsulate such a perspective, and that is ignorance. They do so voluntarily, and they do so consistently. Of course, there are those that do not, and we encourage them to do what they deem appropriate, but not at the point of a gun, or of legislation unconstitutionally initiated and forced down the throats of the society. The point is that a majority of this country, socialists and capitalists alike, are giving people. From my perspective, some do so out of guilt and misplaced altruism, with a mean streak that is difficult to disguise, and others do so from a confidence and knowledge that it is the right thing to do, because of their fundamental philosophies. The fact that you dismiss them outright only makes me that much more confident in my opposition to having individuals that think that force is ever appropriate in positions of power, ever get the opportunity to attain any level of government.

First of all, many, if not most of those that receive ‘welfare’ from the government, aka, the citizenry of the country, or anywhere in the world for that matter, are not legitimately in need to the extent that they need a massive benefit from the rest of us. Many of them simply need more opportunity, more education, more incentive, and more information, and less unrestricted and impersonal ‘alms’. In my 68 years, I have seen and heard each and every representative in Washington and across the board talk about going after graft, nepotism, fraud, incompetence, corruption, ad nauseam, with absolutely no results of any kind except increasing budgets and increasing pain and suffering for those that don’t need even more pain and suffering. If any real efforts were made, you would have many more individuals such as myself much more amenable to your own objectives.

It cannot be assistance with no transparency. There must be accountability. I have found myself in need at times in my lifetime and was extremely appreciative that the so-called ‘safety-net’ existed. But I was grateful, and never wanted anything long-term except being independent and able to take care of myself, and not be a burden on my neighbor, or my community, in whatever form that may have taken. I passionately believe that human beings wish to have pride in their existence, no, they have a ‘need’ to be in control of their own lives, and we should do whatever we can to help them reach that level.

I was grateful for the assistance I received, at any point in my life, from family to government. I see no shred of gratefulness from most of those (certainly not all) that receive help from government. They treat it as an entitlement, which has come to mean something completely different than the actual term implies. I pay into unemployment, Medicare, Social Security, and various insurances for what I own, my ‘property’. These are instances of true entitlement. I paid for it, the benefits and responsibilities have been explained to me, I have agreed to the terms, at least in principle, and I am entitled to its benefits. If you could explain why they exhibit no gratitude for the ability to not take care of themselves, for whatever reason, then I would again, be inclined to be open to your alternatives. Why is it that there never needs to be any legitimacy when the liberals and socialists see a wrong and want to right it, but when the opposition sees alternatives, they are always mean-spirited and condemned as racist, homophobic, ad infinitum?

Ms. Vickers speaks of her love for all Canadians, who she declares are her brothers and sisters? Are not fully half of those ‘Canadians’ also conservative, capitalists, and Objectivists? Do you owe any of that sentiment to them as well? Why do you demean and condemn every word they say, and attempt to destroy every possibility they offer? Why are you not working closely with them, even when they do not agree with you? Why are you not donating every piece of property that you say you don’t even own to those who are less fortunate? That is the ultimate goal of socialism and collectivism, is it not? And let the state determine the best place to re-distribute those resources?

When Medicare gets rolled down? It’s been thirty-seven years and it is as strong as ever, and just as mediocre in solving the issues. Why is that? Why isn’t it working? Why does the coverage continue to dwindle, and the costs and investment continue to skyrocket? With all of the regulation that the government wields, why is there no progress? Why does this happen under conservatives and liberals alike? Why are we talking politics when this is supposed to be about the morality of the opposing ideologies? I am just responding, while the socialists are in control of the debate for the most part. When are you going to start talking about what you promised us? Why is impossible to talk about anything ‘besides’ your political aspirations?

****************************************************************************

Ms. Vickers: “ …. we've heard a lot about rationality. I'm very much in favor of rationality but I always like to ask whose rationality is being applied to the situation. Is it the rationality of self-interest, is it the rationality of power, is it the rationality that those who have imposed on those who would like to have Mr. Peikoff asked how you could indeed get rich off the backs of the poor since they didn't have any money to start out with, how do the poor stay poor, how do the poor continue, side by side with you in this community if indeed you cannot be construed as in some sense or another living off them, how many of the men in this room live off the unpaid labor of their wives? That is not a key point. Thank you.”

****************************************************************************

(LCW) Yes, we have heard quite a bit about rationality, unfortunately not from one particular side of the dais. It is refreshing to hear that you approve of rationality. I think that we all should do so, on a regular basis, but that for one thing means listening to comments and actually responding directly to them without digression or diversion. It is extremely interesting to me that you now ask exactly whose rationality we speak of, when only moments ago you talked of the voice of the community, without explanation, and without any hint of exactly ‘who’ speaks for the community. Sounds an awful lot like the same concept and same imperative to actually say something of substance.

There is a distinction to be made here. The rational aspect you speak of, when it comes to Peikoff in particular, is in relation to his own personal belief, and more generally in respect to Objectivism, not an imperative for everyone to do anything, but what he would do for himself, and his interpretation of what that would mean for someone who ascribes to the philosophy of Objectivism. I would have to agree that I am of like mind. The ‘rationale’ that is put forth through socialism, from my perspective, is a directive and an imperative for all that simply agree in principle, and not something that is up for discussion or debate. Once again, I would really enjoy someone going into detail about what they perceive as the differences as they pertain to the two philosophies, from the point of view of the socialist.

I am very willing to acknowledge that my expertise does not cover the theory of socialism. I am confident that I have a working knowledge, but no expertise of any kind. That is what these debates are primarily for, to introduce people, or to go into some depth, explaining why many of the things that people may think are in error or misinterpreted. I am open to the opportunity to learn, but I am finding so much extraneous material that is irrelevant in that discussion, that it can be only detrimental to the learning and comprehension of the philosophy, in theory, or practice. I find it disheartening and counter-productive to the subject and issues involved to be inundated with inconsequential information as has been the case to this point in the debate, and it is more than half over. I would have liked to see so much more substantive discussion. Very disappointing.

Ms. Vickers has the opportunity to confront and address some of the comments of Dr. Peikoff, and I just finished with a few concerns of my own, and she does nothing but repeat what was said, add some paraphrasing that is irrelevant, and never gets to the meat of the issue, and show in some detail just how those with means can live off of those with no means. There is certainly an argument, valid to some degree that can be made against the statement but she makes no effort in doing so. It is incomprehensible to me, that even when there is an opening to make some legitimate point, she refrains from doing so, instead of making a conscious decision, I assume, to make another, insignificant feminist reference about men, all-encompassing and completely unfair and prejudicial without substantiation, living off of the unpaid labour of their wives.

I find this to be disrespectful and insulting. Not to me, because I know some facts not in evidence in any of her comments. If you have not been able to discern, at this point, that I am a male of the species, let me make that abundantly clear. I would like the distinction and the recognition for all of the time and effort that I put into my own relationship with my wife of forty-five years.

It is true, undeniably, that she does things, completely gratis, for my benefit, but do you think that the situation is not reciprocal? She does the dishes and makes the meals, for the most part, and whenever she asks, sometimes even without asking, I do what I can to help with putting away the dishes and chop and peel and wash and stir whatever she points me to, without argument. If anyone has a husband that refuses to do so, then I think you have made some bad decisions in life as to relationships and philosophy to be saddled with such a demonstrably inadequate mate. My wife does more than I ask for, and more than I feel I can adequately repay. I would like to think that she does so for love, and there is no accounting taking place, with a list of pros and cons that I should be afraid of.

She does many of the things that are traditionally ‘female’ tasks, and I am embarrassed for you that you put things in such a distorted and sexist reality. I usually do the vacuuming, which I believe is not considered ‘mans’ work. I do, or did, almost exclusively all the food shopping before retirement, and still do actually. I take care of the cars, I rebuilt the roof and put in a drainage system around the base of the house, as well as a deck and installed the pool, and take care of the pool on a daily level. I do all the testing on the different aspects of the house, do all of the plumbing as well as most of the electrical work. I take care of all of the cars and boat and trailer, as well as the grunt work in the garden, schlepping the sand and stone, potting and top soil, fertilizers etc. I am the one that has taken down hundreds of trees over the last twenty years, and had her help in picking up the branches and debris. I have never asked her to do anything she is not comfortable with, and she often does more than I need or expect. By the way, I don’t receive any remuneration for any of that time and effort. I guess I could pay someone else for the work but felt that it would be better for ‘us’ in the long run, to save and be prudent with our expenses.

I consider her ‘donation’ of her resources to be superior to my own, and she refutes that saying it is me, and not her. She is my most prized possession, although not ‘property’, and she considers me hers. Don’t tell me that is insulting or demeaning, since what we feel for each other is none, and I adamantly reiterate, not a damn ounce of your business. This is something else that I find with liberalism and socialism and the ‘collective’ mindset, there is always someone that knows better, or they would like to think they do, than decisions I can make for myself. No one has ever been so wrong or so full of themselves. The fact that they may not be so good at making their own life decisions, and maybe cannot come to terms with another human being to sustain a lasting relationship is not a problem that I am concerned with. In any case, that will be determined by the two intimately related individuals, infinitely intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves, with no need, although always open to suggestions, on how to run our own life. If we are interested, we will ask your assistance. If not, your input has no significance whatsoever besides what we assign to it. I find the hubris of the liberal as well as the socialist to be without equal. It does not reflect well on the individual nor the ideology, and again, the willingness to use coercion and force is the reason for my opposition, not the actual philosophy itself. feel free to convince me if I am in error.

****************************************************************************