1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Audience Questions & Responses - ( I thru V )

 
 
 

Capitalism is a more productive and honest system and socialism more humane. Capitalism is neither moral or rational. We (socialists) offer a benevolent form of capitalism. The morality of sacrificing the fruits of my labour to another

          
 
 
 
 

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

Moderator: The debate portion of the evening has ended.
The floor will be open for the question period after the break.
The question period will begin.
The questions are to be directed to either or both of the two sides, not to the individual speakers.
This will ensure that your questions receive the best possible answer.
The sides will decide among themselves who will answer it.

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

QUESTION   I

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

Kevin Nightingale

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

…. “my name is Kevin Nightingale” ….“Given that the crucial points made by both sides are indeed valid that is that capitalism is naturally the more productive and honest system and that socialism is the more humane in whatever basic primal or emotional way I ask you whether either extreme is indeed advisable.

Socialism in the name of equality would see basically a star to death and starvation is not moral Dr. Caplan, and socialism is never democratic. True capitalism in the name of individual excellence may drive a desperate few into the hands of a Hitler or a Lenin or an Ellsworth Toohey by calling it revolution. I leave no room for equivocation, yes, it is more a blackmail but morality is defined over humanity and revolution is not moral either, okay.”

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

(LCW) I am not sure that there is much that I can agree with in any meaningful way, as presented. I guess that you can characterize capitalism as the more productive and honest system, but that depends on the players, and the fact that there are so many suspect individuals in the system is the reason we are even having this discussion. Socialism has the ‘potential’ of doing much of what capitalism has or can accomplish, but the parameters to allow this I think have a high probability of failure due to human nature, much the same as capitalism, but even more so.

I have no alternative but to reject in its totality the suggestion that socialism is the more humane system. There is nothing but rhetoric to give credibility or validity to the claim. It is an opinion, based on nothing empirical, from our socialists themselves since they state that it has yet to be tried, and has never been implemented to this point, at least the type of socialism that they present as their example. Is it not disingenuous to take examples of ‘other’ versions of socialism to use as proof in a positive scenario, and to reject any examples of failure as unrelatable? This is a very weak argument on many levels.

At the same time, to say that capitalism is not humane, or the lesser of the two, is impossible to prove in any way. The oppressed and exploited workers, even those below the poverty level in this country, have devices and ‘property’, to use a dirty word, than any other group of poverty level individuals on the face of this earth. While people all around the world live in hovels with dirt floors, no electricity, heating or cooling, televisions, phones, cars, health care, etc., those in the United States ‘enjoy’, for want of a better word, most if not all of these things.

That is a distinction that needs to be made when we talk of these issues. It is irrefutable. This does not mean it is not a reality that needs attention, and it does not mean that the negatives endured by some have at least some connection to the system of capitalism in some degree, but it is not capitalism, per se, but those corrupt and unscrupulous individuals who have infiltrated the system and used it to their own ends, and not the expectations of those who designed and developed the system in its infancy.

Anyone can create a fable with no downsides, but once the experiment is allowed to exist, it can be next to impossible to stop the evolution, both good and bad, of the resultant beast. It can be no different if socialism ever gets to control the conversation. We need to fix what we have. It can be done, but not without the cooperation of everyone within the concept of mutual benefit through mutual agreement.

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

Kevin Nightingale: “ …. can you defend a system where we kill the goose that lays the golden egg or a system where the only egg some get is on their faces even if it isn't from a marketing board. It is then a basically, substantially, fundamentally free enterprise system tempered slightly to accommodate those who are less capable than ourselves, the only morally defensible system.”

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

(LCW) This is a good example of how difficult it really is to use metaphor in writing. While I understand the gist of his words, it really comes across as pretty lame and I don’t see any pertinent point that could be of any relevance.

The only valid point he makes is that many believe the answer is in a capitalistic paradigm, where the excesses of value within the system can be used to bankroll the social imperatives of an inept and corrupt government. It sounds like a good balance if no real thought is exerted in understanding the inevitable result is going to be a social-heavy responsibility as people understand that their participation will not be necessary to have, possibly not a life of plenty, but a life of adequacy with little or no participation.

As that reality grows, the productivity, and hence the wealth used to pay for these social programs, can only diminish over time, create an imbalance and eventually make the system unsustainable, which is where we already find ourselves today. The national debt was 1 trillion dollars in 1981, 200 years into the Great American Experiment, while it now stands, officially, at 26 trillion dollars, or $80,000 for each man, woman, and child in the country. Some say it is double or even triple that amount due to ‘creative’ book-keeping.

The only caveat to add is that it is nice to see someone actually bring up the concept of a morally defensible system. I only wish it were the socialists that were prepared to do so.

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. that question translates into why go to extremes, why not take the middle of the road, a little capitalism, and a little socialism? There are issues on which you cannot compromise, contrary to what Dr. Vickers said, Aristotle did not say all things in moderation, he did not believe that axe murdering should be committed in moderation, or that you should have a balance between food and poison. If it has been established that certain principles are required for human life you cannot say let us temper them with a little bit of their opposite. All you will do in such a case is subvert the principle and lead step by step to the complete extreme opposite, this is why I said that a middle of their own mixed economy welfare state, such as we have now, is an unstable mixture which will gradually get more and more in the direction of complete government control.”

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

(LCW) While I agree in principle with what Dr. Peikoff has said, it seem impractical that one system will win over the other. I am sure that the socialists would be open to their own system being chosen as the primary and determining ideology, while entertaining a mixed economy, since, as Peikoff has said, it will in all probability lead to their success in any case, but be adamantly opposed to any scenario where capitalism takes over primary control.

This is not about what is best for the greater good, but about winning, about power, about total control. There are multiple options in the middle area, but I have yet to hear any entreaties from either camp, which is unfortunate and disturbing. It is an argument that is not going to stop anytime soon.

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. I do not believe, by the way, that that quote ‘being humane’ is an attribute of a socialist system if being humane means being concerned with man, with women, with the rights and the welfare of human life, then I think the argument is 100 pro-capitalism so I don't see that there even is a temptation to compromise.”

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

(LCW) Pretty much every system ever devised by men have had the opportunity to be ‘humane’ with the possibility of being the exact opposite. Any system is only as ethical and moral as the members that comprise the community. It cannot be legislated, and it is not an intrinsic attribute of any ideology, and that includes capitalism, any collective, and yes, even Objectivism. The words may present a scenario where the end result has certain expectations as to results, but it simply cannot be inferred by the intent that it will be successful.

Humane is, as well, subjective in nature, and I apologize if I repeat myself, but the issues of that philosophical behaviour, ethics, morals, and character, and especially integrity, once again inserts itself into the paradigm as instrumental as to the eventual ability to prove legitimacy and value. It is never enough to articulate proper action but to actually enact the proper behaviour.

Intention does nothing to resolve challenges. This is why I see philosophy, not the ideology, but the purest form of philosophy, the thinking, and contemplation of our most fundamental beliefs in what constitutes not only life-affirming values with self but with the community around us as well. We must define these values, and create an environment that allows them to exist. Anything else is simply, as our socialists describe it, a dream. I too, wish to dream, but fully understand the need for a practical component of philosophy.

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

Jill Vickers

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

Dr. Jill Vickers: “ …. sure it's certainly true that in philosophy classes you take extreme positions, it's also true that in real life you try and develop the best mix that you can. I'm a Democratic Socialist, and for me the only tolerable method is the method of persuasion. It seems to me that the sort of lurching that we have proceeded with in the Canadian context is the test case, it's the test case for me not just because I'm a Canadian, and it’s a test case for a lot of other people to look at. Politics is the art of the possible and it involves compromise. I think we have an ability to learn from other people's mistakes whether they're to the south of the border or to the north of the border.”

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

(LCW) I think that it is inarguable that in many instances, the only way to truly illustrate an example is to use an extreme. I find that if the examples are too nuanced, it is too easy to lose the focus of the issue and get caught up in the weeds, so to speak. But that does not absolve the speaker from still making a point that is specific and towards some demonstrable result.

I say this because this statement attempts to make a point with no substance. I fail to understand what ‘best mix’ is being discussed. We can’t talk in generalities and ever hope to come to an understanding, a ‘compromise’ as presented. Compromise is not an easy task. It is not to give in to one aspect just to get your own position included in some proffered experiment. It has to be complementary to the whole, specifically, or it ceases to be of any value to even the possibility of some nebulous and eventual achievement.

I am ecstatic to hear that the concept of ‘persuasion’ is being referenced. In context, without it, there can be no meeting of the minds in any respect, and no compromise whatsoever is possible. But persuasion is doing exactly what I am not observing in debates such as this one. To ‘persuade’ is to convince, if not prove, your point, and there are few pathways to do so without the use of a reasoned argument unless one wishes to use coercion, or even violence, to achieve the same result, which is a false one, and certainly not a legitimate ‘compromise’.

The speaker needs to get the listener to ‘voluntarily’ accept and consider some facet of the issue, and the need to contemplate and explore the subject, possibly to come to a new or adjusted conclusion. That, for me, is the essence of a debate, but it requires, neigh, demands, credible and legitimate information, presented in a manner that is acceptable to both participants.

While it is incumbent on the listener to be open-minded and allow the argument to be created and presented, it also demands the speaker to do so in an acceptable, respectful, concise, and reasonable manner as well. Not to mention the following of rules as set forth at the beginning of the exercise. I am not sure that is the case with this particular event. It is rare to see the availability of a forum such as this one to discuss an important topic such as we have defined, and to see the opportunity wasted is a great disappointment and a detriment to all involved.

Politics is indeed the art of the possible, and intransigence is not a rewarding attribute in the search for those possibilities. Nothing presented in the above comments, from what I can see, has brought anything of value to the narrative. What I can understand, I completely agree with. It is the implementation of these things where I find fault.

I still don’t comprehend what the ‘test case’ is, nothing is being done to ‘persuade’ me in any respect, I see no compromise, and I see no alternatives, except perhaps to acknowledge that we can all learn from the mistakes made by the opposition, assuming that means the capitalists. I see no recognition, at any point in this conversation, that mistakes have been made by the socialists, not even those that they do not align or agree with. I see nothing that is debatable if they do not lay down concrete concepts and examples that can be explored and dissected, and eventually discussed.

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

QUESTION   II

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

Susan Rosenthal

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

Susan Rosenthal: “ …. my name is Susan Rosenthal, I'm a physician in Toronto and a member of the International Socialists and I have a question for the pro-socialist side. I can certainly agree that capitalism is neither a moral or rational system when the most productive development of society that has ever existed in the world is used to produce means of destruction instead of providing what people need, but on the other hand I also don't see how what you're offering is any real alternative.

It seems to me that what you're offering is a more benevolent form of capitalism. Capitalism with a more humane face but capitalism nonetheless and that it's not the fact social socialism is not about state control at all it's about who controls the state, and as far as I understand socialism is about ordinary working people controlling society, about working people taking control of their workplaces and running society to in order to meet human needs, and I haven't heard anything about that tonight and that's what I'd like to hear in a debate about socialism versus capitalism.”

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

(LCW) There is a certain frustration factor inherent in talking about philosophical concepts. This speaker is obviously educated, somewhat articulate, at least an equal to our socialist panelists tonight, and yet she presents a number of issues that are difficult to understand, in the context of the debate itself.

She states that capitalism is neither a ‘moral or rational’ system, but the morality has repeatedly been stated this evening and it is concise and rational. She may not agree with it, and that much is obvious, but one of the reasons this event was produced was to talk about morality, which neither the socialists nor Ms. Rosenthal has yet defined or clarified. To be even peripherally considered objective and reasonable, there have to be specifics presented to refute otherwise, which has not been done.

She refers to capitalism as the ‘most productive’ development of society, which seems to be an incredible acknowledgment that is difficult to walk back now that she has stated it. How does one ‘replace’ something that is characterized as the best, with something that is now, by definition, inferior, at least in the category of production? This goes to what I have repeatedly stated, and that is that the system is not the issue, but the members of the community, and that again goes directly to the ethics and morality of those players. The issue is not with the political or economic template, but the character and integrity of those contained within, and yet we continue to avoid and resist the imperative to delve deeply into the concept of the morality of the ideologies, which is supposedly why we are here.

Ms. Rosenthal seems to insinuate that all of the focus of capitalism has been placed in creating ‘destruction instead of what people need’ but neglects to touch upon how that is accomplished if there is not an environment of security, not to mention the means on which to conceptualize, design, manufacture and offer those things that she deems people needing. We do not live in a vacuum. There are a myriad of necessary components to a society so that a vision for the future can ever be realized.

It may be an inconvenient truth, but it is irrefutable that without defensive capabilities, history shows us that someone will eventually attempt to take that which they did not have the ability to create themselves, whether that thing is technological or simply a resource, and confiscate it to use to their own ends. Can there be any disagreement with that statement? It seems inevitable to me. Thinking otherwise is demonstrably irrational to the extreme. Too many people have this weakness, I guess we could call it tunnel vision, where they have difficulty with focusing on more than a single issue at a time, they cannot see the big picture, and that leads, without exception, to a failure of whatever expectation is desired.

I am impressed with her insightful perspective on the state. As oppressive and difficult to control as it may be, it is who controls the state that is the true target of our efforts, not the other way around, although that may only be a matter of semantics. The state, in many ways, is benign. It is a tool, in the positive sense, but unfortunately more often a weapon, in the lust for power and domination that attracts so many inferior opportunist individuals. That is the true obstacle. I believe that a vast majority of people wish the same things for themselves and those that they care for. It is the struggle to misinform and manipulate the masses that ends up being the arena where the battles are waged.

Philosophical individuals, critical thinkers who can determine ethics and morals and integrity are almost impossible to divert from their focus, but those that have none of these things are perpetually in turmoil as to not only their own actions but their own thoughts as well.

I have no real idea of how we change this paradigm and yet know with a tangible confidence, that this idea of philosophy is possibly the only way to resolve our dilemma. Democracy and consensus, or compromise as some call it, is simply an extension of the mob mentality. Wars and slavery, as examples, are often an extension of the ‘majority’ and fundamentally flawed and unacceptable resolutions, and yet people continue to denounce and condemn them both. When is the majority acceptable, and when is it not? Only when ‘you’ are a part of the majority? When your ideology has the upper-hand, if even only for a short time?

America was designed and developed as something that might possibly control those ‘majority’ urges. It was structured to allow the majority to govern, within limits, based on concepts that were ‘debated’ and constructed to protect not only the majority but the minority as well. To talk about things when not embroiled in the middle of an issue, so as to be impossible to actually debate and vote on an issue when it is at the height of emotional experience. America was, and is, that kind of a system, that has continually evolved, whatever its weaknesses and shortcomings over the centuries, to erase much of the discrimination against groups as well as individuals. Where else has the progress we have enjoyed ever existed before today? Any country that you point to has the same issues, and in the past, a horrible history of failures and challenges more than equal to our own.

The beauty of our system is that it already has an internal process to create a paradigm change like no other system. Those that wish to throw out the gains and the future possibilities do a great disservice to the vision that we all seem to have for the future. Not only have we made great changes that turned out to be failures, like prohibition, and to actually return to where we were before making the changes. Incredible.

And those that wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater? What will they do when they come to the realization that the new, untried and unworkable, is not the panacea that they envisioned? What do we do when the opportunity to return to the concept of America is not an alternative anymore? I am not interested in your protestations and your apologies. This system contains every aspect that we need to move forward towards progress and success. Except perhaps that level of ethics and integrity I continually reference. It may not move quickly, and it may not be perfect, but this is by rational design, and if you think that socialism, in any form, will be superior, that is truly self-destructive and completely irrational.

Capitalism, in essence, does not need a humane face, it is by design humane. What we don’t have are human beings with the abilities necessary to implement and administer a humane version. I’m sorry to give Ms. Rosenthals’ dream of ‘ordinary working people’ controlling the government a much-needed reality check. If they cannot control their own individual existence, what makes you even consider for a second that they can become involved in such an undertaking of controlling the highly complex existence of 300 million other individuals, each as unique as a grain of sand, with different expectations, needs, abilities, and yes, even dreams.

It is not possible to dictate such an outcome. It needs to be a vision of independence and reciprocal respect and understanding, the ability to do whatever the individual deems necessary, with the only caveat that they do nothing to disrupt or harm any other individual in their own pursuits of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and property. It is only then that the ‘greatest good’ will be available to the largest number of people, and that system already exists and it is available to us all, and yet despised by many, to the detriment of each and every one of us. It is a sad state of affairs.

The selfishness that is exhibited by those who self-label themselves as selfless is beyond the pale. The lack of justice and equality they are willing to offer others is undeniable and irrefutable. The degree of coercion and violence they are willing to accept is inappropriate. The amount of ignorance that is exhibited is tragic. The hatred they hold in their hearts for those that disagree with their personal agendas is inexcusable. My hopes and my dreams exist in a paradigm where these differences are indeed overcome, and people have the opportunity to live in peace and harmony.

With capitalism there is a chance, with socialism, I see only an impossibility, and nothing but pain and suffering. Just more of the same. Five thousand years, with a technology far beyond our maturity, our species seems to be still writhing in the dirt and the dust, killing, cheating and stealing. All that effort, all that life, with nothing whatsoever to show for it. How sad.

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. Well, I think you're right and I accept your analysis. We are not an extremist form of socialism because both Jill and I insisting that socialism without democracy is not socialism necessarily work within a democratic sphere in which it is impossible to go beyond certain bounds. Those bounds are where you can go through reason, through persuasion, through the ballot box. Running a good election campaign through trying street socialism, you can do that, but it's a long way from the kind of Utopian ideal that many of us would like but is very hard in practice to implement, and so yes, we agree we are moderates, we necessarily go slowly, more slowly, you will be thrilled to know, than we ever want to go, and that's the way it has to be in this parliamentary country.”

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

(LCW) I have a feeling that the doctor has already given up for the night. He talks of reason, but he has shown demonstrably little tonight. He speaks of persuasion, but he has only talked of those things that he cares to, and few of us are interested in what he shares. He is off-topic incessantly. He is a politician, and he talks in a land of rhetoric, where reason and facts do not seem to matter much.

I’ve talked of democracy, he adds nothing to the mix. He talks of Utopia, and yet never gives us any appreciable glimpse into that either. He may in fact be a moderate, but I question in relation to what. He does not speak as a moderate, so his words fall on deaf ears.

I do appreciate his comments on the slowness of the process. I think I have mentioned it once or twice, the American system, and to some degree, the Canadian system as well, works on the assumption that it will be a slow process. Slow and deliberative, a word that does not get much play in politics, and for some reason in philosophy as well. It is not a good thing to decide an issue too precipitously.

When does making a rash and ill-considered decision work well in our own personal lives? Occasionally it does, but more often than not, it only creates a scenario that needs damage control in one form or another. Making decisions for 300 million people should be slow and exhaustively contemplative. Lots of debate, and please do not use this debate as an example, and lots of discussion. Overwhelming information and as much factual information as possible, and then the nefarious vote. And not a vote of 51% but a vote of 80% or even more. If not, back to the drawing board, more conversation, more debate, more points of view, and yet another vote.

Until the result is overwhelming and undeniable. Then and only then do you even attempt coercion on the population. It must be recognized, that even with a vote of 80%, that still leaves over 60 million unhappy people, who are still members of the community, with their own wishes being trampled, and their own dreams being unrealized. If you cannot take their considerations into account, perhaps you don’t deserve the right to vote, and to compel others against their will, to do your bidding. Just sayin’.

It’s not about you. It’s about all of us. Remember all of those terms that get thrown around? Justice, Equality, Tolerance, Love, Peace. Those things sound good on paper. How about making them work in practice? I would rather think of ethics, and morality, impeccable character, and unwavering integrity. Empathy, compassion. Right and wrong. We need all of that, and so much more.

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

John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath: “ …. first of all, I'd like to comment on the remark made in the question about the problem with capitalism being that it leads to the development of mass means of destruction. In fact, the capital of social systems, we've been arguing for it, is concerning itself, the government is concerning itself with the protection of the rights of its citizens.

If capitalist social system lives or coexists in a world with other social systems that are first of all totally devoted to the imprisonment and slaughter of their own citizens and also devoted to the imprisonment, the slaughter of the citizens of other countries that they can get away with it, the capitalist countries have no choice. It would be immoral of them not to arm themselves to the teeth in order to protect their citizens from that kind of threat. Democratic Socialists, being moderates in the end, if an individual's right is violated by a tyrant, or if an individual's right is violated by the vote of the majority, the end result is still the same.

Society has organized in order to use the state in order to violate the rights of individuals and there is, in the end, no moral difference between being forced by a majority vote and being forced by an elite group with all the powers of government. The only solution is to create a social system where the powers of government are constitutionally restricted so the government has no power to do such a thing even if the majority of the people in their misfound wisdom would wish them to do so.”

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

(LCW) The right to defend does not imply the right to destroy. When people make comments such as this one posed by Ms. Rosenthal, while it is not an unreasonable concern, it has absolutely no context for consideration. It is not an either/or, nor a black and white choice. Security has been a requirement since the beginning of time. Action is not demanded, but that concept of community that is so dear to many completely loses validity if there is no way to ensure the ‘freedom’, no matter what form it may take, is not available without some type of protection. In any case, I don’t believe it is relevant to the topics under discussion.

The legitimacy of the wielding of power in order to protect the interests of the community is the responsibility of the individuals themselves that make up the group. If they cannot direct the usage of force in a positive way, for their own protection, how can we discuss those very same individuals making decisions as to the direction of the economic and political systems we discuss today that have specific and long-lasting ramifications for the future of the community itself? There seems to be a rational disconnect when only single issues are covered in an isolated scenario, instead of something more comprehensive that takes into account all the different facets that will, in fact, be under the purview of any form of government that is allowed to control the members.

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

QUESTION   III

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous: “ …. I have two questions one for each side. First, to the socialists, I'd like to know why it is morally right for me to sacrifice the fruits of my labor to someone other than myself.”

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

(LCW) Somewhat refreshing to have someone get right to the point. It is interesting that two of the first three questions have at least a reference to morality in some meaningful way, whereas our socialist panelists seem almost afraid to address and discuss the concept.

It seems that philosophy itself, not an ideological version, is again the center of the issue. Ideology is not supposed to compel individuals to any particular action, it is supposed to be a template, a vision, for behaviour and expectations for the future, for whatever community, whether religious or political.

The morality of sacrifice is fundamental and specific. Everything comes down to the individual or the collective. The individual decides what he wishes to do with his resources, be they physical or psychological. The concept of freedom tries to create a comprehensive environment where the individual has the ability to make decisions as to the distribution of their ‘property’ whether it be something tangible, such as wealth or goods, or something more esoteric, like knowledge or advice.

It is the conclusions that individuals come to accept as legitimate that determine whether any degree of sacrifice is appropriate, to whom, and to what extent. When the collective makes such a decision, it is next to impossible to control what form that sacrifice will take. The fact that you agree with the greater good today, does not mean, in any real sense, that you will continue to do so tomorrow. Sacrifice is fluid, and depends on many circumstances that could change the final decision in ways that cannot be pre-determined, hence the need for individual considerations.

The simple answer is that only ‘you’, the individual, can make a rational decision on the issue of sacrifice, and if you wish to do so, for whatever reason, it is not really a sacrifice, is it? If not, and your choice is not aligned with the collective, it can be nothing but coercion and force, which in fact, does make it a sacrifice, and one that you have no control over.

At least with capitalism, you have the option, which could be characterized as an obligation, to walk away from the issue, and continue your life, while others make their own decisions. You do not force others to follow your own conclusions, and you are under no obligation to do the bidding of others unless you so choose. It always comes down to choice, with one side being sacrificed, and the other being voluntary cooperation and participation. I continually question why altruism always seems to be the former, with argument and coercion, and not the latter, which epitomizes true peace, harmony, and community.

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

Jill Vickers

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

Dr. Jill Vickers: “ …. I wouldn't say it was morally right for you to sacrifice all of the fruits of your labor. Where do you draw the line? I would certainly say that you live in a community in which other people have contributed to your well-being. Does your mother do your laundry? You know there is this notion that you're a hard-boiled individual with this shell and that nobody helps you, that you do it all yourself. It's sort of like the 19th century when men were men and ladies still did the laundry.

I don't think any of us lives in that context. If you're at school, which I suspect you may be, my tax dollars go to pay for your education, and I'm pleased that they do, I am pleased indeed that in our community, in our society, that it's possible for you and for me, it was possible for me to go to university even although my family couldn't afford it personally. I feel that I should give something back, and I hope you'll come to feel the same way too.”

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

(LCW) I have a feeling that it was not what was intended, but Ms. Vickers’ comments bring up a number of excellent points that beg to be addressed, the first being that she admits it might not be morally right for you to sacrifice ‘all’ of the fruits of your labour, and she questions where that pesky line of appropriateness is to be drawn. It is interesting, and unfortunate, that she leaves such a fundamental concept on the table, and launches into her now expected digression.

It is indeed of utmost importance that we determine that line, and again, the morality of the socialist creed is called into question in the answer. Why does the individual not get to make such a decision? Not to mention why we have not addressed as of yet, in any sense, why there is even any need to do any sacrificing at all. That, ironically enough, is a question of morality, and the subject of this debate, although it is beginning to look like there will be no discussion of consequence on the issue this evening.

She brings up the issue of others contributing to your ‘well-being’, but that is defined by her and for her only. There are many that question why people are helping their well-being when they did not ask for it. If taxes were slashed to only the absolute necessities, perhaps I would be able to pay for my own needs? Perhaps I would like to achieve some modicum of independence, and not be indebted to those that I did not ask for help.

There are many, many people that feel that way, but when the system is so bloated with cost and waste, not to mention corruption, and the need to pay for all of these things we supply to others, whether necessary or not, whether requested or not, whether feasible or not, whether ‘morally just’ or not, the options for controlling these issues become moot, since we no longer have any choice in the matter. The budget dictates, which demands payment, which can only be done through taxes. Remember, the government does not own a single dime of its own, which means many, many dimes from many people. Not by choice, mind you, but by law.

There was a time, not so long ago, that the debate (rhetorical) was about the right to have an education, not who was going to pay for it, and certainly only recently that it should be for free, without strings, without responsibility, even if never used to do anything of value or substance. Is that equitable, that we pay for six, eight, ten years of education for someone to defer accountability and responsibility for their own lives? Personally, I have always been a staunch supporter of education, but more as a privilege than a right.

An education, ironically, is something that can be considered intellectual ‘property’ since it gives an advantage to those who ‘own’ it over those that do not. This belies the statement by Ms. Vickers herself that she does not ‘own’ property, or that property should not even exist. I would think that she would appreciate that our Constitutional system, and this great country, have worked tirelessly towards making that a reality.

No one in my community growing up ‘helped’ with my education. The public school system was mediocre at best, and my parents wanted something better for me, so I was sent to private schools. My parents had very little resources, they were certainly not well-to-do, and probably not even middle class, perhaps upper-lower class, but they scrimped and saved and sent me to schools, and the government did not help in any way and was even an obstacle by withholding the monies earmarked for me as a citizen of this country, to receive an acceptable education, which should have been a right, since the confiscation of taxes was done on my behalf.

I wonder who actually received that which was fundamentally mine. Completely inappropriate, but would socialism have handled it any different? Would private schools even be available, or does everyone have to accept whatever inferior products that the central planning committee offers them? Think about it, since this scenario will play itself out in a million similar scenarios throughout the economy and the societal social structure.

Point to be made here. Any failures or shortcomings within the system do not stem from any systemic inability or intent to ‘not’ allow or promote these things, but the inability and incompetence of the representation as well as the ‘represented’ citizens who have failed in their obligations as informed and involved individuals. It is so easy to speak of ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’ but difficult in practice to admit and acknowledge that much of the problems we discuss are self-inflicted. We need to ‘own’ it, and even with a socialistic ideology to replace it, that imperative will not change in any appreciable way.

Does my mother do my laundry? What a specious and condescending comment presented to that student. First of all, you have no knowledge, whatsoever, what his circumstances are, and it is a contrived question. What if his mother actually does do his laundry? Does that put an undeserved obligation on him in any way? Does she not do so because she loves him, and wants to do it for him? Perhaps she feels the obligation since he was never consulted as to his conception and life in general? Do you have any credible evidence about what he may be doing for her? You have no idea, and it does not matter in the least. That is between his mother and himself. How did this get to be any business of yours? Ah, but that is the essence of socialism and collectivism. Helping one another, the caveat being that the help is coming whether you want it or not.

Of course, there needs to be a dig at the 19th-century patriarchal paradigm. Women in the kitchen and barefoot, treated like slaves by men with no redeeming values whatsoever. The ignorance is intolerable at times. Does anyone know anything about history whatsoever? Do you think that ‘all’ men lived a life without care or concern?

I would venture to say that the vast majority of men were not happy with their lives, their jobs, and in many cases, their wives. The women were indeed asked to do jobs, many of them menial, to participate in the life that was available at that time. Working in the mill was menial for the men. Working in the fields was menial, as well as backbreaking. Being conscripted as soldiers was menial, as well as life-threatening.

If you were lucky, you married well, and you were taken care of. I realize that, for many, it was not what they wanted or envisioned, and for many, the obstacles placed before them were many and even oppressive. I am not sure of the relevance of the paradigm. Did they want to work in the coal mines? Did they want to be a lumberjack or a cowboy pushing cattle all day, or a farmer working from before the sun came up till after it went down? Did the women lament their life on the farm, working just as hard as their significant others to achieve something that they could be proud of, not to mention the simplicity of survival?

If you think that life as a housewife was so demanding, why did you accept it? Do you really think that it would be preferable to so many other jobs that men were forced to accept, throughout history, to take care of themselves and their families, to barely survive, with little or no expectations for anything more than their fathers before them? This is not a one-sided scenario, and it would do you well to have empathy and compassion for other human beings that are simply trying to do the best that they can, and nothing else.

Back to education. Can we wish for all people to have the opportunity to be able to gain an education, without creating a new environment where it needs to be free as well? It is absolutely necessary to define ‘necessity’ as well as the morality behind the rationale. Someone should try to present a debate on the issues of morality, but next time, get some participants that will actually engage in the event.

I think a big question that presents itself is that if you wish to ‘provide’ a free education, in the interests of not appearing discriminatory and prejudiced, does that not also infer and demand that we not also provide free housing as well as repairs, not to mention vacation homes for those so inclined, as well as free vacations for those who like to travel, free cars, free business start-ups, free phones, cosmetic surgery, drugs, the list is endless.

I see no intrinsic difference between any of these things. What compensation is envisioned for those that simply aren’t interested in a conventional educational experience? Do we charge those that never realize any tangible results from their endeavours, or lack thereof? As I write this, I have seen information that says many with degrees today have little or no use for them and have yet to use them in procuring employment. We have more people in Colleges and Universities than there are jobs waiting for them. Is this not a real and tangible waste of resources?

Is this really in the interests of the greater-good? You believe in democracy but you don’t seem to believe in choice, and choice is a personal decision as to where you wish to ‘invest’ your time and money towards the future, and an education is a relevant decision that needs to be made. There should be an element of competition for those that wish to work towards, and appreciate, exactly what an education represents.

I have yet to hear a legitimate explanation as to why we do this, except that they are in ‘need’, but need is an extremely subjective concept. We don’t even do these types of things because it makes us feel good, which is irrational, since doing so for personal reasons would be selfish, and they have already painted themselves into a corner with that argument.

They claim it to be something called ‘selfless’, which means we do things out of obligation, maybe, but not because we want to, because doing anything that brings us pleasure is inappropriate. This brings us back to socialism, the ideology where no one should ever be happy, but we should put our attention into supplying happiness to others?

I have to continue to question why it is that this ideology exists. Capitalism proclaims as one of its by-products the happiness of the individual. Objectivism promotes rational self-interest. Collectivists have a great aversion to both of these ideologies. What exactly is it that they are working towards? Until we can come up with an answer, I am suspicious and skeptical of the intent and expectations of the philosophy.

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. in a capitalist society you do not derive benefits from quote, society as a whole, but from specific individuals who have done specific things and there are mechanisms to determine exactly what it cost and how you compensate the person. You do not take general tax money for instance from people who have no children, extorted from them, and use it to pay schooling for people who do have children. Life is not a systematic raid on whatever you can grab off with the implication that you are then mortgaged as a serf for life to pay it back.

As far as your mother is concerned she has a moral obligation before she does your laundry, in fact, earlier than that, before she decides to conceive you. You did not ask to be conceived, she has to say to herself, it's a one-sided choice on her part, you were not consulted, she has to say to herself, if I have this kid it's going to mean 21 years of doing laundry, is it worth it to me or not? Do I regard the pleasures involved as sufficient payment, and if she says no I would say do not have children, but the moral, practical, proper attitude, is not to say I resent doing it but I'll do it bitterly as a sacrifice for 21 years and then the kid will be a slave for life to repay me. I don't believe that parenthood consists of breeding slaves.”

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

(LCW) I am not saying that Peikoff is completely correct in his assessment. In fact, I would say, with many qualifications, that we may have to be a part of components of society that do not directly benefit us, to help in some way towards ‘mutually’ agreed goals and expectations. That certainly does not mean a blank check, forever, for the education of any and all that simply wish to go. There was a time when it was necessary to compete for the openings in Colleges and Universities, but it is insidious the way the ‘goalposts’ continually get moved to achieve other, and less desirable objectives, even when based on a so-called majority vote.

Business continually gets the short end of the stick in a democracy, since they constitute a small percentage of the voting public. Just for the record, slavery was something that was normally instituted by way of consensus, that being that the ‘other’ guy was going to be the slave, normally a small minority determined by war, ethnicity or skin color, and the majority, however constituted, would be those deemed ‘free’.

This holds true for the parents of children and the costs of education. While it is possibly noble and admirable to want all children to be given the chance at an education, there needs to be a rational balance as well, so as to be equitable and just. It is my understanding that the initial impetus was to ensure that the ‘opportunity’ was given to all, and not an all-expenses-paid benefit.

Whether one wishes to buy a house, or a car, or, in this case an education, I have yet to hear a valid argument why it has to be ‘gratis’. I see no problem with the government giving the student a loan similar to those given to commercial enterprises, at a rate of 1% for starting or improving a business. If the education is indeed going to increase the ability to find a lucrative career, what is the impediment for the student to paying back even a $300k loan over 30 years at 1%, the same as a desirable home? I know it is anathema to the socialist, but let the marketplace determine who really wants to achieve an education.

I can’t repeat it often enough, what is the disincentive to spending the time going after an education, if there is no particular effort or ‘skin’ put into the process? Those that actually do so with little expectation of using the education are ‘stealing’ a spot from someone who may actually ‘want’ and ‘need’ it to survive in the future. What is the position of those same socialists about the scenario? Is there any obligation or responsibility on the individual to be serious about being chosen to take that spot in the University, or do we leave it to an arbitrary and unfocused whim on the part of the applicant?

Even if I was to entertain the position of free education, should we not have those who benefit be someone who will respect the benefit and work to the best of their ability to use it in the expectation that they will in effect be using their education to the objective of the ‘greater good’ of the community? What do we expect from those that reap the benefits? Is it not ‘selfish’ to take the ‘largess’ of the system, and do absolutely nothing with it? This is not a rhetorical statement, but a question that demands a response.

I realize that it is another inconvenient truth, but I would be interested in what the socialist ideology would counter to the question of the ‘equity’ of the scenario where two couples live next to one another, in similar houses, in a nice residential neighborhood, and while one couple have no children, the other has six, makes a salary triple of their neighbors, and yet both couples pay the exact same in school taxes in their municipality. Where is the justice and benefit in letting someone who can easily pay their own way as it pertains to their own children, pay nothing extra in the process? Could both couples contribute, say, $1000 dollars in school taxes, each, to create a base that supports the schools, and then have those with children pay the balance according to their ability to pay?

Is it not the fundamental philosophy of the collective to have each ‘give’ according to their ability, and receive according to their need? Not that I ascribe to such thinking, but it is not ‘my’ philosophy that we speak of at the moment. How does the collective ‘balance’ a benefit that may be of interest to the childless couple as opposed to the other? I never hear of a discussion with issues such as these.

Perhaps the childless couple need to do some home repairs or start up a small business for retirement. Is there an alternative for them and their own ‘special needs’ or just those articulated by those with a specific agenda? It is more than a little bit disturbing. There is no balance. There is no empathy for anyone except those that agree with the originators of the original benefits. There is no compassion, there is no concept of even understanding that there should be some true equity in the formula that never gets discussed. Why not? Is there something unreasonable in my query? I think not.

I find it interesting that for an ideology that abhors selfishness, and is adamantly opposed to anyone being subservient to another in anything even approaching slavery, they speak of obligation, in relation to pretty much everyone, as something that should be embraced, but if not voluntarily taken upon oneself to take some form of obligation, is it not a form of slavery to demand that they do so for reasons that are not a given?

A child owes no obligation to a parent, although I see no reason to do so if the upbringing is appropriate, and yet it cannot be a demand from the parent, since, as Peikoff states, they had absolutely no choice in the matter, had no input, and while they may have had the best of intentions, the parents are the only ones with obligations in the relationship. What they do as adults is a matter of environment and nurture, and a decision by only those involved in the relationship.

Socialism demands this subservience in the philosophy of the ideology itself. Any sacrifice, if not undertaken completely voluntarily, is a form of coercion, and therefore slavery. Without the opportunity to make their own personal decisions, there can be no other explanation for the intimidation necessary to exact expected results. Call it what you will, but without much more explanation and clarity, a rose by any other name will still smell as sweet, and slavery by any other label remains servitude.

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

QUESTION   IV

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous: “ …. please yes so this is for the capitalists. I'm curious about your concept of reality, I mean what happens if you're just an average family growing up and you happen to have a mentally handicapped child you didn't plan on one, but it came along, you don't have any money, so I guess we'll just throw it in the garbage to pretend it doesn't exist. I wonder what happens in the case of a Canadian Indian who's kind of hanging out there, you know, doing whatever he's doing, these white guys come on and go ‘hey you can't do that, you know, I mean, just because you have money and own something does that mean, did you forget about everybody else, what are you going to do about the people who don't have the money to afford certain medical, educational things, are you just going to forget about them and just let them do whatever?”

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

(LCW) I really feel for this guy, I really do. He sounds like he is six or something, but I can see that he is an adult, and it doesn’t say much for our educational system as it stands today, or at least the Canadian version, that brought him to this point. It is very sad.

I find it fascinating that a perspective can be so out-of-touch with reality, which is ironic since that was the first thing her referenced in his comments, the ‘capitalists’ concept of reality. To begin with, most ‘capitalists’ are pretty much average individuals in a family structure much like everyone else. Very few are what some like to call the 1%, and of course, that would mean that the other 99% are not them.

Did I miss something? The fact that a family has a mentally handicapped child, which can mean a thousand different things, is neither the fault of the family, with some caveats, nor of any other individual on the face of the earth. I find it difficult to place blame, nor responsibility or obligation to rectify the unfortunate set of circumstances that this particular family may have to endure. I am not sure who said anything about ‘throwing’ the child in the ‘garbage’. I feel that is an unfortunate turn of phrase, and an inappropriate scenario to simply insert without explanation or context.

I don’t think anyone says the child does not exist. How many millions of families have children with some kind of impediment to a normal life? What are you asking for, or are you demanding that others do something specific, and for what reason? Should all of the Gate’s, Zuckerberg’s, Bezos’s, and Soros’s be coerced into footing the bill until they run out of their money? Granted, it may take awhile, but then what? Do we then run down the list of those who played no part in the unfortunate situation this family finds itself in?

When do we put even people of modest means on the list, and surgically remove whatever resources they may possess, in the quest to pay for these damaged children? Is there any compassion or empathy for those that are being intimidated into helping, even if they may be helping someone else with a similar or even more difficult set of circumstances? I am trying to ask a reasonable question in response to your own unreasonable one.

Where does culpability lay, where does responsibility and obligation begin, and when does it end, if ever? You are the one that asked the question, so I believe that you are the one that needs to answer this one. You have no answers. You condescend to those that are not saddled with a similar paradigm, and expect what? I fail to understand your reason, your philosophy, or your ideology. I am open to discussion, but you leave little room to maneuver.

The environment of irrationality continues with the scenario with the Canadian Indian who is just ‘kind of hanging out’, when some ‘white’ guys come along and say you can’t do that. What in the world are you saying, or trying to say. Sounds like an irrefutably racist example, no? Does the scenario change dramatically if these ‘guys’ that just ‘come along’ are black? Are you even listening to your own words? Horrendously biased and prejudiced. The ability to articulate is somewhat lacking. A point needs to be made, and a question needs to be framed, based on something a bit more mature. I do not deny your emotion and your intent, but it is baseless and useless without context. If you wish to speak of morality, please do so, since it is not being discussed to the degree that I would have liked, but these kinds of comments do nothing to bring about understanding or even initiate conversation.

The people that are responsible for the ills of the world of which you speak are real, and the problems that you attempt to articulate, I assume, are also valid, but not to the extent that you seem to insinuate. The vast majority of individuals with wealth and position and an ability to create change, do so, at least a majority of them, but to their own ability and intent. It is not for you to decide those kinds of things. You can ask for assistance, if you have something concrete and specific, but otherwise, you have no intrinsic right to demand anything of anyone else.

Do you give everything you have to help these people? Do you ask anyone and everyone to do the same? Why do you rely only on government to help solve these issues, especially when they are so inept and incompetent to do so with those things that they are legitimately responsible for? Why do you not start a non-profit to help these individual families? Why do you not create a charity that funnels 100% of donations to that end?

Why don’t you do anything except complain and demean others, vilify those with resources even when you have no idea what they do in their own personal lives to help others? Why do you talk of things that you obviously know nothing about? What are ‘you’ doing to right the wrongs, and how much time and effort are ‘you’ investing in those ideals that you seem to think are the responsibility of everyone who exists, except possibly yourself? This is not about what everyone else should be doing, but what you do, what examples you set, and how that impacts our society and that very same family you speak of. What do you know about their situation? How much time do you devote to understanding how the system works, and what you, as an individual, can actually do to make a difference?

Remember that everyone is fighting their own battles, and confronting their own demons, as they follow their path in life. It is incumbent that you deal with what you can, within yourself, before placing undeserved judgement and obligation on those that often do not deserve it. That is the fundamental reason to have discussion and debate on the issues, and not simply a display of ignorance and unfair accusations.

Why do you speak in terms of ‘white guys’ when there are over two million black millionaires in just America as we speak, not taking into account those of all the other colors and ethnicities here and around the world. What is their duty in all of this? You are not looking at the ‘big picture’. Your perspective is skewed and bigoted as well as unfounded and highly prejudicial. If you are not a part of the solution, you may well be a part of the problem. Something to think about.

It may seem that no one is caring or thinking about them, but you are wrong. It is a complicated and deeply vexing set of circumstances, but so many people are trying to do the right thing. Do not focus only on those that do not, for it is not for you to decide. Find your purpose in the conflict, and figure out what is the right thing to do, and do it. Stop finding fault with others, especially those that you condemn without any real knowledge or information. Educate yourself and learn how to speak with a voice of reason. Learn how to work with people, instead of nothing but derision and disrespect. If that does not work, then we are doomed to failure anyway.

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. Well, I think that we covered that, but I'll answer it again. Briefly, you either have to believe that human beings by and large, and in the majority, can survive by their own effort or that the whole human race is congenital incompetence, handicapped and helpless if the latter is true. There is no such thing as human survival if it's possible for the human race to survive at all, and it is, it has to be, because the normal case is an individual who is not handicapped or mentally retired or run over by a truck, who is able to afford the things that his life requires when it becomes an adult and becomes productive in the case, as I was about to say, I thought that happened, I was told that happened only in the United States, not in Canada.

In the case of people who are handicapped and in difficulty through no fault of their own they depend upon private charity, that is it. There is no, I do not regard that such a thing as a handicap as a mortgage on anybody else's life. I myself would voluntarily give to charity if I thought the person didn't create his own handicap, I would, on the ground, but I impose on principle the idea that a social system is to be defined by what happens to the handicap.

The social system has to be defined by the nature of man and when, only when, that question has been answered and you lay down the principles that a healthy human being requires to function do you say the surplus will voluntarily be given to those relatively small group of people who are helpless through no fault of their own as far as medical care is involved.
Try to remember that we do not have capitalism now, and the fantastic escalating costs, particularly for people who are unemployed, is not a phenomenon of capitalism but of the mixed economy.”

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

(LCW) I’ve already voiced my concerns with this particular questioner. It is difficult enough to respond to an articulate question. Those that are unfocused is just that much more difficult.
I appreciate that Dr. Peikoff tries to come from a different perspective to attempt an answer. The easiest criticism someone can ever make, on any subject, is to pick a specific example that, if not an outlier, is almost impossible to resolve under the constraints of whatever discussion is taking place. Creating a strawman, so to speak.

Dr. Peikoff wants to set the example by talking about the need to set out what it is we are trying to actually achieve with the conversation. The first thing is to determine what is appropriate for man to exist, and once concluded, we can move on to specific situations that ‘seem’ to delegitimize the concept itself. If the problem is so all-encompassing, then there may be no rational answer to the question. I think he made some good points to that end. His answer is primarily, and he has stated this many times tonight and in other works, that he does not feel it is the obligation, in fact quite the opposite, that the state, the government, has sole responsibility for whatever the issue may be.

First and foremost, it is the responsibility of the individual to do what he can to be as independent as possible. Barring their ability, it falls on the largesse and compassion, as well as that ‘altruistic’ concept bandied about, to fill the need. This is not to say it is easy, or it will even be successful, but it is a philosophical and ideological imperative that the community itself should become involved, on a personal basis, to make an attempt to help those in need.

It is this ‘personal’ aspect that is sorely lacking when the government steps in, with their own agendas and restrictions, not to mention biased and somewhat irrational perspectives, when dealing with the issues. The government should be the object of last resort in resolving this kind of problem, even though it is not unreasonable to call it a societal problem. We need a grass-roots based initiative where the problem can be taken care of organically. It is surprising that this kind of thinking is not more prevalent, especially among those that speak in these terms for other issues.

I really think Peikoff’s mention of the use of ‘surplus’ resources to handle this is somewhat nebulous. Having more than someone else does not necessarily to any surplus. Who is to say what is not needed by another individual, since the inevitable conclusion may well be that everything those ‘others’ own is superfluous, while everything they themselves own is required and necessary. A slippery slope if ever there was one.

If this is not a reasonable template than the future of mankind itself is in jeopardy. We need to do much more exploration and analysis into the nature of the problem, and not just blindly ignore it after voicing the expectation that someone ‘else’ will take care of it, regardless whether we speak in terms of the state or the individual. It is kind of like the society that demands this intervention is not really interested in the issue. It reeks of politics more than anything, and that is not the path to a positive outcome. I often feel that the discussion is ultimately focused, not on resolution, but on revolution, and I find that extremely troubling.

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. the two last questions come together, in fact, I think I want to just pick up Jill's point for a second. We are an interdependent community, as I see it, you're sitting in this hall tonight because the when government go home today and when you go home today you're going to perhaps take a taxi that's inspected by the Metropolitan Toronto licensing commission, it's also paid for by taxpayers money.

In every part of our life each of us benefits and is affected by the structure that's been built in this society, and that may be the problem but you'd be a lot unhappier without that problem. I've been in places that don't have that problem and in return you have the right to expect that you owe somebody something, and I want to tell you there are most people in the hall who don't believe it, who don't share this, and I don't care, but I think, with John Ridpath, and I think what Dr. Peikoff are talking about is such an ugly and mean and heartless system, it is such a throwback to that 19th century Dickensian world that one of these guys lauded as the apotheosis of capitalism earlier, when in fact life was miserable and scummy for most people, that I am thrilled to know that this is a very narrow extremist fringe of the right movement and that most of its advocates are in this room tonight that gives me hope that this kind of miserable way of wanting to run a world will not prevail much beyond where it goes in this room.”

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

(LCW) What a despicable human being. If anything convinces me to resist socialism, it would be the words that continually drool out of this individuals’ mouth. He is incapable of talking of an issue in a respectful or reasonable manner, but has no problem with invective and condescension. The disrespect he shows his adversaries is totally unacceptable. It is repugnant, and if you accept his perspective, and you condone his behaviour, then you are no better than he is. He is the epitome of why the debate has gone nowhere, and the reason our countries find themselves mired in a swamp of hatred, and envy, and fear, with nowhere to go but down into the abyss.

Is it just me or is his perspective completely incongruous to the matter at hand. The connection between interdependence and the Toronto Metropolitan licensing commission is so tenuous as to be ludicrous. While it may, in fact, be a crude example of interdependence, it also represents exactly what he does not want to talk about. The government does ‘not’ need to be involved in every aspect of our society.

The responsibility for the safety and the ‘road-worthiness’ is the individual themselves. In this case, those that use a taxi, and those that own a taxi, should be the only ones that pay for this service concerned with safety. It would be their responsibility as the owners and caretakers and beneficiaries of the service. Those that do not use taxis invariably own cars of their own and that would be their responsibility, nothing more.

Why should I pay for this Metropolitan Toronto licensing commission? Do they pay for my own car, or repairs, or maintenance, or gas, or registration or anything else involved with owning a vehicle? Of course not. Why then I am saddled with culpability for these others? This is a mindless proposition.

This need to take care of the members of society, to an extreme degree, is not what they were supposed to do, and I think that Objectivism, and even capitalism, makes this point repeatedly. The state is simply not able to anticipate every single event that may happen where someone may be hurt or taken advantage of. If they must get involved, it should be after something has happened, or the threat is eminent. If before, it has to be, in the words of the socialists themselves, equitable.

I realize that we could perpetually argue this issue without end, but the point is that this has never been the stated goal of government in the U.S., and to the best of my knowledge, the government of Canada either. When did this insidious obsession begin, I have no real idea, but it doesn’t work that well, costs way too much money, and has never been a point of contention in my lifetime.

I lived for twelve years in Quebec, so I have lived with the issue of vehicle inspection under three state authorities. While the concept is irrelevant in the larger issue of morality, remember morality, this was a debate about morality, not that you could prove it in any substantial way by the comments of some, I will respond to it anyway, since they offer nothing else of substance to discuss.

I first lived in New Jersey, who had their own inspection stations, which must have incurred a great cost for their citizens. I have no idea how they handle this issue today, my experience was some time ago. The cars on the road were horrendous, with items fixed ‘just’ to get through inspection, with rust holes in the fenders and headlights and tail-lights out all the time. New Hampshire, where I now reside, licenses (another instance of overreach) local gas stations to do the work, with the cost becoming prohibitive.

But in Quebec, there is no requirement to do either, again, not sure how they handle it anymore, but the point being that the state police would stop anyone with pretty much anything even remotely wrong with their cars, and give a warning that turned into a hefty ticket if not taken care of quickly, like 72 hours. The roads were full of, not inspected, but repaired cars and the incidence of accidents was minimal. No one likes to get pulled over, and they kept their cars in good repair to avoid the inconvenience. I don’t relay this information to say it should be one way or the other, but to illustrate that it ‘can’ be accomplished without the heavy hand of government, the result being the private sector, and not costing the individual ‘extra’ for the bureaucracy that is never cost-effective.

He talks of the structure of what’s been ‘built’ into society, but fails to mention that I have never seen nor heard the ‘debate’ on these issues, they just happen, much like what will happen with their socialism and their own version of ‘democracy’. Democracy, in essence, means that you get to have input and vote on issues, and not just once every four or six years by voting for individuals that never seem to follow through on their promises.

Again, an issue that is never debated, never discussed, never even mentioned. Direct democracy can be quite complex, and messy. The American version of representative democracy, with its own shortcomings, at least is designed for others to speak for you, and I have innumerable conflicts with that as well, but pure democracy demands a direct intervention by individuals which socialism could not handle. The Canadian parliamentary system is nothing else than a derivative from England with no particular advantages to either.

Dr. Caplans’ comments on ugly, and mean, and heartless demonstrates the lack of cooperation and good-will that can never happen in an effort between the camps. He cannot go through a segment without demeaning and obvious disrespectful commentary. He is truly a cad.

The misrepresentation continues with his statement that his opposition ‘lauded’ the 19th century Dickensian paradigm as the ‘apotheosis’ of capitalism when nothing of the kind was ever said. The disingenuous of the man is beyond the pale. What was said, and is proven in any number of ways, is that mankind and society reaped benefits during that period that were unprecedented until that point, as well as since then, with few exceptions. If he wanted to dispute that, it would have shown some integrity, and he possibly could have made some cogent points, but he chose the ‘low’ road, which seems to be a predilection.

As for the miserable and scummy existence that many had to endure at that time, while it may be true, many of the hardships experienced by those same people were comparatively less, and it can be argued that we continue to have a miserable and scummy paradigm for many today, all over the world, and one of the reasons for that is the presence of socialism itself. One side is attempting to talk about these things, the other wants to talk about torture and taxis and self-sacrifice.

As previously mentioned, these systems of socialism and capitalism are not even responsible for the events we see today, but the individuals of weak and non-existent personal philosophies that have not created the environment where people actually receive the help and assistance they need, instead of the political animosity, and the wasteful and worthless rhetoric where everything is promised, and nothing achieved.

And he closes his comments with simply a vindictive and completely irresponsible characterization of every single individual in the audience that disagrees with him in any way as a ‘narrow extremist fringe of the right’ that leaves little to the imagination of what he thinks of that group. Is this the man that came to refute and explain his positions? Is this the language of someone that comes to offer a glowing vision of the future under this new brand of socialism? Or is this just another bully that comes to intimidate, and ‘initiate’ force in whatever way he can, to bludgeon and manipulate? Is he here to educate, or to indoctrinate? What is it that he fears? Oh, well, ‘haters gotta hate’.

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

QUESTION   V

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous: “ …. the morality of the ultimate socialist system may be seen in facts. One of these facts is displayed in the robust library where now is displayed the artificial famine of 1932 and 33 in Ukraine where seven million people died. This genocide was a deliberate public and political policy of the communist government in Moscow, it was a policy to remove those who did not buy their lifestyle, agree with their own policy. It was also a policy that removed food from the farmer and was used in international trade to acquire money to enhance Moscow, the protector of ultimate socialism. How is this consistent, this genocide consistent with morality, is this the morality which we are to expect from future socialism and its ultimate heir communism?”

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

(LCW) I am not sure that this obscure example is the best illustration of his point. I think the questioner needs to realize that audience and speakers alike are going to have an issue with answering fully and competently something that is somewhat vague and unclear. While the example happened, it is difficult to make the point at this time and in this venue. I do like the effort to tie the question in with the concept of morality, and with more information available, could have been an excellent illustration of state interference in the lives of its people, so somewhat disappointing and incomplete.

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. I guess this is a highly mobile audience because I guess most of you weren't in the room when I talked about our socialist view of communism earlier. I could talk to you about the Kulak murders for hours and tell you things you know nothing about, I can tell you about the horrors of the Communist Empire for hours, things you know nothing about. A democratic socialist is raised on it, is raised on it so that he or she knows not to have a confusion between a tyranny of a new kind in the eastern world and something that's called socialism. It has nothing to do with anything, any democratic socialist beliefs.”

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

(LCW) That’s extremely interesting. He condescends the audience once again on multiple levels. I went over the comments throughout the whole debate and he only mentions socialism versus communism two times, almost in the same sentence, around the 42 minute mark. The only comments he had to make was to walk back any association with communism and his own brand of socialism, which he has yet to define in any intelligible way. I hate to use the word disingenuous once again, but his comments do nothing to clarify his own positions or those of his colleague, or any socialist in any way. He holds that he, and his socialism, hold no responsibility whatsoever for his precursors.

It is irrefutable that the two are intricately intertwined in politics and economics. To say otherwise is irrational. Make the argument that people have perverted the concepts to their own ends. I do so myself with the existence of capitalism. But please don’t try to make the case that they are not part and parcel of the ancestry of the socialist movement. Or …. present your ideology and philosophy in a comprehensive manner so we can decide for ourselves, without condescension, if we accept your perspective or not.

He comes across as a demagogue, telling us he ‘could’ tell us so much that we know ‘nothing’ about, but he resists doing so. In fact, he has yet to explain much of anything. The audience is not really interested, although I have no evidence to that end, of the Kulak murders or the Communist Empire, or the famine for that matter, although the possibility exists, and to a great degree, that there are those in the audience that could offer him insights and information that was unknown even to him.

The hubris he exhibits does not reflect well on him at all. I do not find an intent to share and compare, to investigate and discuss, just to pontificate and intimidate. Very sad, from my perspective. He damages his own reputation and efforts for his ideology with his lack of information and candor about what is supposed to be his reason for existence, not to mention his reason for being on the dais today.

There is no confusion relating to tyranny and what he attempts to paint as a glorious expectation for the future. Most of the socialist experiments of the past started with at least a base of democratic rhetoric. It always devolved in time into tyranny. He has yet to explain why this cannot happen with this new vision of socialism. He points to democracy, but there is no legitimacy in the comment. Debate and reasoned argument is the only thing that might achieve such an end, and he hasn’t even tried to do so at this point.

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

John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath: “ …. I'd like to start by saying that I would not, and I will not now accuse any individual, unless I have hard evidence, of being an advocate or a supporter of that kind of mass slaughter, and I don't wish, just in my remarks, to say that I think that our opponents are in fact endorsing that kind of thing, however, but your question is, is this kind of genocide consistent with the morality of socialism, is this the ultimate end of socialism in my view even though the democratic socialists believe that the uses to which the coercive powers of the state will be put, will be limited by the majority, and that they will not vote for the state to do such things?

They are nevertheless endorsing the morality of altruism, of self-sacrifice, and they are endorsing coerced solutions to problems and in endorsing those principles even though they may not wish it to be the case, and they may not believe it to be the case, that they are nevertheless in the camp with principles that do lead to those results I'm afraid,”

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

(LCW) There is a stark difference between the two camps with the way they interpret and the way they treat the opposition. Dr. Ridpath has gone out of his way to make the distinction that while he does not accuse anyone of actually ‘wanting’ what these tyrants have done, repeatedly, in the past, he does believe there is a real threat that it can be one of the possibilities from embracing such an ideology in the future.

Capitalism has it’s dark side as well, but it is people like him that say we, the people, the individuals that make up the society, have to have the will, and the ability, to prevent the atrocities from happening. He believes, with Dr. Peikoff, that this can happen, while the socialist camp is a firm believer that the ability of the state, with minimal intervention from the population, is more than capable of leadership and management, with no acknowledgement that history shows quite the opposite. We are here to discuss this, and debate with reason and good-intentions, but are having difficulties with starting the process.

There is a real reluctance, on the part of the socialist perspective, to engage in the fundamentals of the ideologies, and to invite and provide some real insight into the philosophy behind the principles of socialism. I have to question how ‘devout’ they are in their thinking, to be so afraid of laying out what they seem to think is not just an answer, but ‘the’ answer for humanity going forward. That is a big expectation. My expectation would be for not just passion, they clearly have that in abundance, but a real understanding of the underlying fundamental philosophy, and have a zeal to share this with anyone and everyone that is looking for answers.

It seems like they think everyone is against them in the audience, and I have no idea of the makeup, so it may well be true, but that does not restrict them from a presentation built on credibility and legitimacy, and not just explain and refute, but to entice and engage with particularly those that are willing to listen.

It seems that they don’t believe their own words at times, like they are speaking to a classroom of unquestioning minions, instead of convincing worthy students that thirst for information and revelation. It makes no sense to me. I have never been otherwise, and I find it hard to understand those that are not. Even if the audience is against them, what better opportunity to turn some heads, and cause some conflict of thought, some contemplation about the profound comments that they have made? Alas, they have chosen to dismiss them all as unworthy of their insight and experience.

These things that he asks, whether the state will use coercive powers if given the chance, and is there the possibility of mass slaughter if there are not enough safeguards, and even though they believe that the possibilities of perversion and manipulation are minimal, is it not something that needs to be considered before severing the few controls that survive in our existing system that could prevent catastrophic ramifications?

To not even consider the reality is something that approaches irrationality and possible self-destruction. That is what debate and discussion is supposed to address. I fail to see the efficacy of the alternative that dismisses and ignores these very real threats. Not that they are inevitable, but that they are threats and real possibilities.

To not acknowledge this is insanity. We need to at least create a legitimate dialogue that investigates these issues. If we actually discuss this, perhaps we can avoid a destructive paradigm. If we refuse to do so, we almost invite undeniable pain and suffering for the most individuals possible, and that seems to suggest that the ‘greater good’ is not our objective. Something to think about.

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