1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Rebuttal: Dr. Harry Binswanger

 
 
 

Dr. Binswanger sees a distinct difference between the camps as to equality. He rejects the imperative of exploitation and greed within economies and feels the concept of property is integral to a life of peace and harmony

 
 
 
 

Rebuttal comments by Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

I'm a little bit at a loss since both of my opponents, or our opponents seemed to be presenting themselves as the Republicans used to, to the Democrats, me too, we're for freedom too, we’re for some form of laissez-faire, integrated with socialism.

We are for liberty and we both share a dislike of Ronald Reagan. Well, we all four agree on that one point, that Ronald Reagan is a disgrace, probably for different reasons, probably for different reasons, I didn't vote for him either in either election because I thought he was a phony and I agree with Mr. Hitchens, that he preaches the rhetoric of laissez-faire, or at least of half-fair capitalism, but then his actions seem to be dictated by the New York Times, so I view him as Reagan, a Carter in Reagan's clothing in effect, that's for concrete application, but there seems to be so much rushing to agree with us that I wonder are we doing better than I thought.

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

(LCW)   I would have to admit that I am more than a little surprised as well with the pseudo-support articulated by the socialist camp. I have never seen any real agreement on such a scale. It seems to contradict what has been said about capitalism and laissez-faire over the last decades. It can be interpreted as a certain reasonableness but also confusing as a bit hypocritical at the same time.

It is nice to see that much, or at least some, of what has been said about capitalism in the past is making its way to the forefront as not just benign but actually, possibly, beneficial or advantageous to both sides. But that begs the question if we need a new paradigm of socialism or if the established market values just need to be addressed and adjusted to reach a more legitimate level.

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

(HB)   People used to be absolutely knocked off their chairs by someone advocating laissez-faire and maybe we've become a little bit too successful, so let's bring this down from the clouds a little bit.

We advocate the immediate abolition of the antitrust laws, we advocate the immediate removal of the welfare system as fast as possible, perhaps over four or five years to the total elimination of all welfare, we advocate the immediate abolition of the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal depository insurance company, the CCC ICC, just about any alphabet agency you can bring up.

When we're talking about something very different from socialism we're talking about untrammeled complete free trade where people can buy and sell as they choose as long as they do not initiate physical force against others.

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

(LCW)   While I agree in principle with some of the wholesale changes being presented, I also recognize the fact that it is not going to be easy, and many of these things may not be available to complete expulsion from the dynamic already in place without much more time and discussion. Many of these things are a part of the fundamentals, and the push-back, while possibly legitimate, is not going to be an easy sell even to those that do agree to a change in course.

The investments already made will make it difficult to do a proverbial 180-degree about-face. While things such as welfare should be handled completely differently, it seems obvious that it cannot just be negated by a vote. Like it or not, we cannot just cut these individuals loose after basically indoctrinating most of the country into a mindset of the absolute ‘need’ of such a component within the totality of the system. It will take some time to ‘wean’ them towards something else entirely, and that needs to be debated and developed, and not looked at just from the perspective of this debate. I don’t see how that happens anytime soon. The economic intent in what was just said is very similar.

While arguably inferior and unwanted as well as unnecessary, it still remains that these concepts are interwoven into the fabric of our markets and it will take a concerted effort to begin to turn the dynamic around. I think we need to find a much stronger consensus towards detailing the specifics about what the differences are between the two camps and what needs attention, and how. I don’t see how that happens with the conditions in the political environment that exists today. We seem to be in an inescapable catch-22.

The camps are inadequately championing their respective ideologies, and the individuals that make up our populace simply don’t seem capable, or even interested, in a concerted effort to make any change, much less specific ones, towards either paradigm.

I am not sure that we have a path forward at this point. One camp refuses to use anything but persuasion and reason, while the other espouses the same thing but only as an alternative of coercion and an almost absence of choice involved in the realization of their vision. Stalemate.

If anything, the socialist camp holds a more realistic edge, from the standpoint of being able to initiate and institute their own version of a new reality because they seem to be willing to utilize that force that we have been discussing to achieve their objectives. Reason does not seem to be the deciding factor in any of this, so force looks to be inevitable if real change is to be realized. It does not instill confidence in the final outcome.

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

(HB)   Now, I wanted to just respond to a few implications of ideas in the socialist side that I want to disavow. We do not hold equality as a value or virtue or ideal if by equality you mean anything other than equal rights before the law. That term is used very ambiguously, equal rights before the law, so that there is one system of justice in the law courts for rich and for poor is exactly what I've been arguing for.

Today, all the rights are on the side of the poor and the workers, and all the suffering is on the side of those big capitalist businessmen who are considered guilty in any confrontation without the need for proof or evidence. They're considered guilty because they're greedy capitalists. So equality before the law, yes, but equality of income, equality of life, equality in any other sense, absolutely no.

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

(LCW)   I think that many of these concepts are misinterpreted on a grand scale. It would be beneficial to the discussion if the moderator at this point asked all the speakers if they believe in something we call ‘equal rights under the law’, although that might be a ten-hour debate in its own right. Law does not necessarily equate with the term equal. We have many bad laws, created and implemented by bad people, individuals with personal and political agendas. How do we circumvent that?

As a capitalist, and especially as an Objectivist, I look for a strict interpretation of this equality under the law. It is so easy to accuse the capitalist perspective of wanting to exploit and take advantage of the common man on the streets, and the irrational imperative exhibited by many socialists, in general, seems to display a belief that this is an integral aspect of capitalism, and the inability to make the point that it is undeniably NOT an absolute component of capitalism is frustrating and disheartening.

I try not to deal with absolutes, but in this case, I, personally and passionately believe in the absolute of equality under the law. I don’t want anyone, at any time, to have some advantage due to corruption and misinformation in a conflict between individuals or groups.

I understand the incredulity some people present when asked to comprehend that the poor actually possess more rights than those ‘nasty’ capitalists. While they probably never really win in the macro sense, they certainly do in the micro. In almost every instance, the media portrays the capitalist faction as the oppressor and the ‘little guy’ as the victim. True in many instances, but certainly not in all.

But, as I have tried to articulate repeatedly, it is not capitalism itself that is the culprit here, but dishonest and corrupt players, and the complicity between business, but only specific players, and political representation, again, only specific individuals with influence, or power groups that hold sway over enough representatives to normally get their way. If this is something that you cannot get your head around, then we are doomed to an ineffective objective.

If it were actually possible to grasp what I am trying to present, there could be a counter-offensive of enough individuals that could create some of the change that will be instrumental in making the desired adjustments necessary. The forces we are talking about are formidable, possibly impossible to counter, but what are the alternatives? If this immovable force is truly in complete control, this whole argument is moot.

I think that Mr. Binswanger has made some reasonable and insightful observations in this case, and should be contemplated. Do not just react viscerally. That is what has brought us to this point. I believe it is important to acknowledge that there are not just two players in this dance, but multiple opportunists, and a coalition of sorts is necessary to give ourselves the opportunity to think outside the box and come up with alternatives that may actually be able to make a difference. I find that little is black and white, but rather a million shades of grey, and it is for each of us to determine what shade may be viable. Not an easy task, but an undeniable truth.

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

(HB)   People have different abilities, people work with different degrees of intensity and effort and success and to some extent, just plain luck, and those inequalities have no moral significance whatsoever. I have never, in all my years and philosophy, come across any argument as to why there is any moral issue involved in one man having a thousand times the wealth of his neighbor. I would like to know on what basis is there something wrong with that and on what basis is it better if the incomes or wealth are equalized because there is no such argument.

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

(LCW)   I find it interesting that this argument is not made more often, and more vehemently. As individual human beings, we are simply not equal, and no amount of gesticulation and lamenting will make it otherwise. My strengths are not yours, even if we are compatible with some things. We are all made up of a thousand abilities, and I have never met anyone with my particular skill-set. I have met those who are woefully inept at some things, in comparison to myself, and others that are so much more capable than me in some things it is embarrassing.

Often, they are combined in the same person. Is this person my superior or my inferior? Actually, he is neither. He is unique, and equality cannot be decided by legislation, but by observation and acceptance of our differences. I ask him for help with those things that are a weakness for me, and am willing to help him with the same. I may be envious that he has such abilities, but must recognize my own strengths, and accept the reality. Also, even if someone actually has abilities superior to my own, it does not mean that they will be more successful, or generate more wealth. It is what you are capable of doing with what is available to you, than any actual capabilities. The intangibles, like vision and insight, creativity and innovation, motivation and incentive, often lead to increased advantage and benefit.

If I truly wish to be as capable as my imaginary friend here, I have the ability and the opportunity to put in some effort, possibly an inordinate amount, and make an attempt to learn something new and add to my arsenal of capabilities, or virtues as in the case of philosophical pursuits. I firmly believe, with few exceptions, that every single individual, irrespective of obstacles and disabilities, has the opportunity to be a good person, a better person than they were yesterday. We can talk of helping them, and we should do so, but on our own terms, you with your beliefs, and me with mine. We then have to live with the ramifications, the results of our thoughts and actions. There are consequences to everything that we do. We need to understand that and to act accordingly. What can make more sense than that?

Very much like Mr. Binswanger, I find it impossible to find fault with someone who creates wealth, and in this, if just a bit of time and thought is invested in the question, is not such an easy question to answer. You will find, I hope, that we agree that an inordinate amount of wealth is in the hands of an almost insignificantly small number of individuals, but one has to ask why this is. Is it because they are vastly superior in their abilities within the capitalist system, which would infer that the wealth is actually earned?

I would find it difficult to criticize the effort or the result without some kind of credible evidence. We are back once again to ethical behaviour and morality, character, and especially integrity. I may feel envy that their capabilities are creating more wealth for them than mine are, but I have no rational expectation that we would be equal. If I make $50k a year, and they make $55k, is that inequality? How about the reverse when I am just a bit more successful than someone else? Do you earn your own wealth? Or are you a robber baron, a thief, a fraud? Should someone come to your door and ask for that extra $5k to be distributed to others in need? Perhaps both of us should donate $40k to the cause. Who decides, and when does it stop?

No, our problem is with the individuals that do not ‘create’ wealth, and the resultant loss of benefits to thousands of others by doing so, those that rape the system for ‘ill-gotten’ gains. Those who bribe, and steal, and even kill, to achieve levels that they do not deserve.

We both want those people to be prevented from doing so, is this not so? Objectivism says that these people should be held accountable, since by their actions, by definition, they are initiating force to obtain something that is not truly theirs.

We should be working together to make the changes necessary so the paradigm does not reward the moochers and the looters and the opportunists. Instead, we are arguing about way too many things that we actually agree with, if given the opportunity to comprehend the reality of the problem. I don’t know how else to say it. Sounds pretty obvious and simple to me. Do you agree or disagree? Why don’t you say so?

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

(HB)   As to the family being altruistic I don't belong to a family, we are not Reagan conservatives, we do not stand up here and champion family, we champion the individual. I would like to find someone I can marry. I don't plan to have children and if I have someone that I love whom I marry it won't be someone who joins with me on the basis of from each according to his ability to each according to his needs, it will be a trading value for value both economically and in terms of spiritual values.

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

(LCW)   I have to admit that Mr. Binswanger is making some drastically great points here, points that are not being discussed in our national dialogue or in our schools, at any level. I often ask myself why that is. But I am not sure I appreciate the way he is making his point about individualism vs. family.

I don’t think we need to talk about Reagan conservatives to make our point. I think that the family needs to be championed. While a passionate individualist, the distinction that I think needs to be made is that the individual defines the family, it is not a matter of individuality, per se. Family is an irrefutable aspect of society. A pure and absolute individualist would be pretty difficult to use as a standard for society. He is a loner by definition. But …. It is the issue of choice, ironically, that creates what is termed ‘family’. Not defined by you, or by some nameless bureaucracy or ideology, but by the individuals involved.

I choose who I like, and who I love. I determine the characteristics I respect and those that I want as an integral part of my life. I have to find someone else, with the same expectations and values, and ‘they’ need to decide if they agree with what I envision for the future. That is the initial impetus for a family. We have children, or not, again, none of anyone else’s business in any way, and certainly not a reason for subsidies of any kind, no matter how you present them.

The responsibility for those children is solely taken by the parents since it is directly related to their actions and philosophies. The children are not a burden, or hopefully not, but they are an obligation that should have been accepted fully and unconditionally. Anything less, and the individuals involved are at fault on some level.

When these children reach an age of reason, somewhat arbitrarily set by society, but ultimately set by the family members, they get to begin to make their own decisions, which includes remaining a part of the whole, or not. Family is so important but undeniably has to be a voluntary decision, as is everything else under Objectivism.

This is not to say that there can be no exceptions and adjustments, and at times an imperative of need and assistance, but those things are not the fundamentals of responsibility and obligation. They are a reality and must be addressed, but by each and every individual, and again ironically, each according to their own abilities as well as needs. That quaint little ditty has greater ramifications than most socialists would like to acknowledge.

We seem to have no qualms about the millions that are terminated through abortion, to the tune of over a hundred million yearly on this planet. What is so different about letting millions more die from their inadequacies and afflictions? I see no intrinsic difference. It would be quite a bit more of a visual reality if we did so, but life is life. They are both, for the most part, completely innocent of culpability. I say this only to illustrate that with one paradigm, we spend millions to support death, and in the other, spend billions to prolong it. But let’s not talk about it, it gets messy. As Al Gore would say, it is a very, very, inconvenient truth.

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

(HB)   Finally, the idea of class and collectivism, we totally disavow, there is no such thing as a class, there are just individuals and I would claim if I had time, but that's based on the denial of free will. Their view is based on determinism, the idea that if you're born in such and such a situation you have to have the ideas and values of your parents. We uphold free will, that a man makes himself thank you.

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

(LCW)   Class does not even really exist. It is simply a way of labeling levels of achievement, or wealth, or perceived nobility or intelligence. Or a sign of status or influence or power. Not of any real consequence. Extremely relative, depending on if you are in one of the classes of envy or ill-repute.

We have ‘wealthy’ who are evil and despicable, as well as many who live their lives with impeccable character and integrity. Which ones deserve their wealth? We have ‘intelligencia’ who are charlatans and frauds, while others help to create an environment where people can live in peace and security. Which are the ones that you wish to support and emulate?

We have classless politicians who consider themselves royalty and well above the riff-raff, as well as those that take their position and their oath seriously and at least make the attempt to give each and every one of their constituents the chance to have a life of independence and legitimacy. Which one would you really want to represent you?

All it takes is a little revolution, and nothing will be as it seems, or as it was, and all of the players will be given new roles. Somewhat irrelevant, and yet important to those who benefit by yet another arbitrary construct of the rich and infamous.

There are inconsequential individuals as well as movers and shakers in each and every class that has ever come into existence. It is the individual, in the end, that creates the distinction of value and substance. You may steal money but never ‘earn’ any respect. You may ‘administer’ nations and yet be a vapid puppet. Labels only have value for those that cannot create them by their own means. It does not play a part in my considerations.

I could not agree more with the statement that man makes himself, and it should be the objective of every individual that exists to be a better person tomorrow than you were yesterday or today. That is the path to the resolution of everything we debate. Always was, and will remain so, probably forever.

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