1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Audience Questions & Responses - ( I thru IV )

 
 
 

Questions about which ideology imposes coercion upon members, the idea socialists believe morality is superfluous, the comparison of liberal political view in relation to the debate, and what concepts may compare religion with morality      
 

 
 
 

Audience Questions & Responses - ( I thru IV )

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

Question I

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   Yes, one for each side if I may. For the capitalists, I'm curious to know why in modern society you view physical force as the exclusive or even the most insidious form of coercion in a society in which you may build a home and find a toxic waste dump built next to it. If there's no such thing as zoning laws do you think that you can legitimately restrict your analysis to physical force and which side is most guilty of its imposition?

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

(LCW)   I think the question misses a whole array of distinctions that are corollary to the question itself. I would like to think that no one would suggest that physical force is anything but a negative in the relations between individuals in a society. It is indeed insidious and completely inappropriate, and I consider the answer obvious and almost moot.

But, of course, a caveat is immediately attached to the statement, and the whole paradigm of the question is perverted and irreparably changed. I guess that I cannot say that there are ‘no’ toxic dumps that exist next to reasonable and responsible individuals that live within our society, but the characterization that a toxic dump could be ‘built’ next door is irrational and something that is not sanctioned in any way by our system and especially capitalism itself.

Building a toxic dump next door to a normal citizen of the country is unacceptable, and, to the best of my knowledge, already illegal, so something else is going on here. Corruption and crony capitalism, perversion, and individuals of absolutely no ethics, morality, character, or integrity are really not a reasonable scenario, to begin with.

It is not a part and parcel of capitalism in any way, especially from an Objectivist perspective, so the question loses any real validity or credibility. It is a matter of criminality only, and if allowed, a matter of corruption and an abdication of reason, ethics, morals, and integrity, by any individual involved.

To the best of my knowledge, nothing has been presented definitively as to zoning laws. It would seem that within those minimal requirements of government, zoning laws would be instrumental in the determination of harm instituted against a neighbor, and poisoning my land or water and inevitably harming my family and/or property value would indeed constitute the initiation of force against me, so I am not sure of the question. It would be completely inappropriate to do such a thing, should be recognized as an infraction of force against another, and dealt with accordingly. I am not sure what the interpretation is with such a scenario.

It is my own personal opinion only, but any product or action that results in some kind of pollution of any kind is the complete and undeniable responsibility of the person who created the toxins and would have the obligation to remedy the situation. This is, of course, a weakness in the scenario, since someone who produces the toxins and is unable to do the clean-up, would, in today’s world, simply file for bankruptcy and basically get away with a possible murder.

I, in my own reality, would hold the individual responsible for the remainder of their lives with restitution. I don’t believe in debt forgiveness, or any way to circumvent responsibility. It does not do anything for the neighbor who was the victim nor for the legitimacy of the entity of authority, the state, but short of the death penalty, I find no other alternatives.

But the issue here is the actual building of the dump, and I think that is simply not allowable under any circumstances. It does call into question the idea of prevention before the fact, which can be an extremely complicated and difficult question in itself.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   I'd like to answer your real question which is the first part, your example does not illustrate, if there is a toxic waste dump if someone dumps toxic waste next to your home that is physical force, that is the infusion of deadly chemicals into your property and perhaps into your body, and if you can go into court and prove that you can have the government in a capitalist society make him compensate make him remove it and make him compensate you for any damage.

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

(LCW)   There is no argument with his answer, being in line with my own.

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

(HB)   What I think you want to contrast it with is so-called economic power. Why do I consider physical force the only form of coercion versus economic power where a big business, General Motors, supposedly can make you buy their cars, IBM can make you buy an IBM computer.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that I understand where he is going with his answer about GM and IBM making me buy their products. I may feel compelled to buy something similar due to the exigencies of life in our society. It is difficult to exist without a car or a computer, but there is no compulsion for me to do so in any physical way.

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

(HB)   I have to leave it to the Socialists in the audience or on the stage to give better more convincing examples because I can't hold it in my mind. The reason I make such a distinction, while advertising is supposed to be brainwashing is there's another example of economic power, the reason why I make a distinction is that physical force is the only thing that can cause you to, that can cause your reason to be inoperative. It nullifies your reason, remember my whole case was life as an ultimate value, reason is the major means of achieving it and therefore no force because the force is the anti-mind.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that I am in agreement with his reasoning, or even completely follow his train of thought. While physical force is the worst form of coercion, with violence being the ultimate, there are many ways to put pressure on an individual to do something that they do not wish to do voluntarily.

The issue of advertising can be compulsive but all the more reason to teach our citizens to be able to think on their own. It is true that this cannot be taken for granted. But something like indoctrination and propaganda in our schools is every bit as ominous as physical force and necessarily can be considered a threat every bit as challenging and dangerous as actual physical force. It is not quite so simple.

Reason can be ‘nullified’ in a myriad of ways, and it only complicates the discussion as we uncover more issues where the government may be expected to involve themselves and have to arbitrate in some way. A minimalist state may well already be outside of our abilities to reduce to some great extent.

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

(HB)   If somebody comes up you have a fantastic commercial to try and get you to buy some product that is not anywhere in the same universe from someone coming up pointing a gun at your head and saying give me your wallet. One leaves your mind free to function and it's up to you to judge the validity of the computer, the advertisement, or whatever. The other deprives you of the ability to act on your thinking and that is the very nature of coercion, I mean that's the meaning of coercion, making you act against your will. Well, your will is the ability to act according to your mind's decision so that's why there's a life-and-death difference between force and any other kind of social influence.

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

(LCW)   I think that the problem is difficult to frame properly. The scenario with a gun is fairly specific. There is that physical component. It is quite a bit more nuanced and subtle when we speak of advertising and propaganda. The whole concept of freedom is to minimize government interference with our personal lives and decisions, but that implies that we don’t want them involved with the vast majority of our interactions with other people, even if that means we are harmed in some way. This seems in conflict with the concept of force that we wish to remove from our societal paradigm.

I, for the most part, have not been influenced to any great degree by these subtle influences, to the best of my knowledge, and I may not be as perceptive as I would like to believe, but acknowledge that I can’t be sure to what extent I may have been. I don’t seem to be buying things I later regret, or taking actions, or supporting others that I eventually determined was not my intent or in agreement with my philosophy, but I recognize that there are those that can be susceptible to these pressures and influences.

There is a fine balance between freedom and some perverted security that removes all responsibility and accountability from the individual and is placed upon the government to intervene. That seems like a never-ending attempt to control everything and everyone, and I would be against that in principle, while realizing that it is a complex question, with no easy answers, and many of those representing the proverbial slippery slope that seems to inevitably end in some sort of real or pseudo-state of existence that could only be described as slavery. Perhaps more to our fears than some physical state of being, but compelling just the same.

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

(HB)   I have to give one other example, it's considered force in some quarters, if you're not given help when you need it. Well, that is completely wrong if a woman that I want to sleep with won't sleep with me that is not force. If I break my leg through my own carelessness or through lightning striking it, and someone else won't heal it that is not imposing force upon me.

Force means force. It means physical contact with another's person or property against his will without his consent and that's the only thing that can negate a mind and therefore destroy a life.

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

(LCW)   The problem is that many people may not even realize that they are being manipulated in some way, but where is the line drawn? I think that freedom always will mean the ability to make decisions but also the possibility of making mistakes, and at some point, the responsibility has to be a personal one.

I find that this inevitably brings us back to the concepts of education and philosophy, and the attempt to develop stronger abilities to thwart these influences, but it is impossible to do so on a completely individual basis. Some individuals are simply not able to confront and address these pressures, and many may never be able to do so. What is the recipe for resolution? It is probably different for almost every individual and this gives it a complexity that is almost incomprehensible.

How do we protect ourselves without the incursion of the state into our daily behaviours with the noble intent to help others? I am not sure it can be done to the degree that some would desire, and others demand. Altruism can become oppressive and totalitarian in nature, and I think we see that in our society today. We pass laws that protect the safety and security, or should I say insecurities, but at the expense of millions of others, restricting unfairly, their rights, all in the name of empathy and compassion, and yet, in reality, it is just the opposite.

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

Question II

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   Yes. I'd like to pick up on a claim that Mr., if I can call him Mr. Redpath said that the socialists were just stating values and didn't get into their ethics. I'd like to advance a thesis and have both sides comment on this and that is that there is a very basic metaphysical difference between the Objectivists and the Socialists.

The Socialists seem to be saying that a socialist system is a historical inevitability, that talk about morality is superfluous. The Socialists are just pointing out a trend that must lead to socialism. The Objectivists are claiming that man is historically autonomous, there's no historical context that necessitates the evolution towards any political system, and social ethics are needed to help us decide which political and economic system we should adopt. My thesis then is that there is a basic metaphysical difference between the Socialists and capitalists in this debate.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that this kind of statement gives us any insight into any reasons why. I would posit that every single individual, no matter their common agreement on some issues, is in reality quite different from one another. Making such a statement does nothing to resolve the issues before us.

Of course, we are different. Mankind’s bigotry is rooted in the fact that these differences exist and that many try to label huge swaths of ‘other’ people with labels and attributes that rarely, if ever, are valid except in some superficial, and therefore, contradictory, way. Each individual is comprised over their lifetimes, whether a teenager or an octogenarian, of thousands, if not millions, of experiences that go into the comprehensive reality of that individual and siblings, even identical twins, are quickly comprised of different experiences and interpretations. It does not take long before the uniqueness is well defined, and sometimes drastically evident. If twins are understood to be individuals with no equals, then what chance do the rest of us have to be of a truly like mind with anyone else?

That is a primary reason that I passionately believe in the concept of the individual versus the collective. For the simple reason that the collective can never truly understand the needs and perspective of the individual, and therefore, should create and develop the paradigm that allows the individual to flourish, and not restrict and control them to achieve some kind of security and interpretation of the ‘greater good’ which, in reality, is simply not possible.

Having said that, providing an education based on philosophy and shared principles, that greater good can be achieved through cooperation, voluntarily and not coerced. From what I have heard, the socialist camp seems to promote and espouse exactly that, albeit with the component of force as a part of that cooperation, which is oxymoronic.

If some sort of cooperation is the goal, it needs to be one based on intellect and reason, but not of a single person or specific group or ideology, but a genesis of thought brought about by common goals and philosophy. If this is not possible, then no amount of force will ever bring about that Utopia that the socialist seems to think is possible. It is incomprehensible to me that the concept of cooperation and agreement can ever exist without the freedom to make one’s own decisions towards achieving common goals.

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

Mr. John Judis

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

John Judis:   I suppose the difference, let me put the difference in another way. Our capitalist opponents or I can call them that, I think that they don't have a conception of history upon which they base individual possibilities and values whereas what I would say of our view is that it is framed in terms of what is historically possible and the ideals that socialists believe in are themselves ideals that have arisen through various historical struggles so that I think that's the difference. I think it's a difference between, if I may put it, a kind of a timeless metaphysics of man and a historical philosophy thank you.

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

(LCW)   I find it very hard to accept this statement. It sounds so contradictory on so many levels. Not only does the statement proclaim that the capitalists ‘do not’ have a conception of history to base their concepts of the individual upon, which seems ludicrous at face value, since they continually point to historical examples of where and when these individuals actually accomplished their objectives. It is the socialist that incessantly uses history as an example, but never in any compelling way to validate or legitimize what it is they are trying to present as an illustration. They are the ones that attempt to bring credibility to their views by using history but live almost completely in some future where this socialist theory can only be realized. I see no connection between the two.

I am not sure what ‘historically possible’ even means. If it is or was possible, then there should be a myriad of examples that would make reasoned arguments why their own flavor of socialism should work now, or in the future, but they fail to do so. What struggles are they talking about? The struggles for freedom and liberty? These are inarguably validated through the use of capitalism, Objectivism, American political thought throughout history. When have these things been realized through the implementation of socialism, or collectivism in any form?

We need a detailed investigation into whatever ‘historical philosophy’ is being referenced. I have no idea what is meant by such a statement. The interpretations that have been offered as to historical events are demonstrably biased by the ideology of the speakers and offer no definitive positions on events or philosophies used at historical points. The fact remains, they continue to resist and refrain from giving a clear perspective of what it is that their ideology stands for, in modern and current concepts.

They have not given a clear insight into the rights of the individual, the use of force by the state, the inherent conflicts with rational self-interest, not to mention the differences between that and the uses of irrational self-interests that they arguably misuse as evidence of the overblown ‘failure’ of capitalism itself. They have tried to lecture the audience on what capitalism actually is, even though they do not understand or accept it as a concept of value while refusing to defend and explain their own set of beliefs which I would think would be a primary imperative when accepting the invitation to debate exactly that issue.

What they believe and why they believe it. The morality of the ideology. Remember, this was supposed to be about, specifically, the morality of the philosophy of socialism, not a history class on various unprovable opinions about what happened centuries ago. Is history important? Without a doubt, but context is important as well, and moreso, the morality underpinning the philosophy, which, in the end, gives validity and legitimacy to the ideology. They have failed to do so, with many opportunities missed during this exercise in futility.

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

Dr. John Ridpath

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

John Ridpath:   Hello. I think that in some respects you're right. I don't know that all socialists take the deterministic view that Marx took but I think you have hit on a point that the Socialists, certainly the ones that are historical determinists, may not find it necessary to make arguments for the pursuit of different human values because their view is that these things are innocents historically conditioned, whereas the Objectivists are certainly advocating a view of man which regards men's free will is the crux to all of his moral choices and regards man as in control of his destiny at every moment in history.

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

(LCW)   This sounds fairly reasonable and straightforward. He offers a perspective on his views on man and what is necessary to achieve a modicum of control over his life and his environment. I fail to see the same from the socialist camp. Man’s free will is absolutely the crux to his moral choices. If the socialist disagrees, then he should say so, directly and unambiguously, and they should present their own values, clearly and distinctly, so as to refute and respond to the points already made. I really cannot understand the reluctance to do so.

Events may force the hand of man into action, but it is, in the end, his own decision based on whatever philosophy and ideology that he follows. The objective is to have a well-developed philosophy and ideology that is able to be followed, and he needs to be able to articulate and define those concepts. If not, the philosophy and ideology need to be developed and allowed to evolve to a point where they become relevant.

Man must take responsibility for his actions, and not point to history as to some invisible excuse for his actions, and his mistakes. Historical determinism seems to relieve the individual from any and all responsibility and accountability. ‘It’s not our fault, history made us do it’. I would tend to disagree.

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

(JR)   So, in that sense we don't have, I was just referred to as a historical perspective if you like, human beings for human beings. A question is, what is the nature of a human being, how does a human being live, what does he require what are the needs of human life, and our argument is that this has been true of human beings throughout history and it's not a story the relative thing, that men have required freedom all through history and the fact that they have had freedom so infrequently through history is a sad commentary on human history up until this time, but it does not prove the historical, the determined set of values that some socialist determines determinists believe is the case.

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

(LCW)   His words ring philosophically true. These are the questions that philosophers ask of themselves. They attempt to unravel the mysteries of being human, and attempt an understanding of the what and why of the individual in the context of the environment and society around them, and yes, in the context of history itself.

History does not tell us definitively if something is right or wrong if it is a good or an evil. Even bad events can result, in time, in positive results. Opinion is an important component to that conversation, but only in the fact that to find answers, questions need to be asked. That is the imperative of the philosopher. To think, to act, to contemplate, to decide. But in the end, it is just another opinion, albeit perhaps at times more defined and insightful than another. History was what was, not what is, and the ramifications may not be as apparent as some would like us to believe.

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

QUESTION III

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   Let me, first of all, say that I think that the most promising thing we've heard tonight for the future of our social system is that Mr. Binswanger has agreed not to have children. My question to you, Mr. Binswanger, my question to you tonight, the question tonight is one of moral justification. I'd like to ask you how you can morally justify, and you attempted to a system which admits to the justification of inequality, economic inequality, where the accumulation of wealth, the ownership of property does not necessarily, as you said, need to be equal. Perhaps if all things were equal to start with, if everyone was starting out on the same starting line the certain ……

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

(LCW)   I include this comment only for the intent to, for the record, state the obvious, and for those that actually agreed with him, and worse, publicly admitted it, I can only say shame on you. This kind of statement is abhorrent and despicable. It is the antithesis of reasoned argument and the search for an insightful and intellectual investigation into the questions that plague mankind. The ignorance and vitriol contained in his behaviour only exacerbate the differences and challenges that exist in a diverse and complicated society.

We should all want to engage and exchange ideas to move in a certain direction in our lives. This is what we call progress. While I still believe that we should continue to engage, even with Neanderthals such as this individual, it is certainly acceptable to reject and dismiss those who attempt to demean and disparage another individual when they know nothing of them, their motivations, their life expectations, or their societal imperatives. The comments were the epitome of all the things that bring hatred and violence into our lives. The essence of prejudice, bigotry, and bias. It never occurs to him that he stands naked before the world as someone who has rejected his education and whatever philosophy he may have at this point.

Does he do this to gain recognition from those of like mind? What does he accomplish? The fascinating part is if he even realizes that it just prevented him from presenting his own perspective in this venue? Does he realize how many people, basically forever, will see him as the degenerate that he is, that they will look upon him in disgust, as I do when I assume his intent was to ask a probing and insightful question? What a waste of time. I am sure his family will look upon this moment with pride and satisfaction in a parenting job well done.

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

Moderator:   Mr. Binswanger has informed me that he objects to the ad hominem comment and will not be answering your question and I would hope that we could keep the level of the debate not only clever but on the point of the issues involved. Next question, please.

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

(LCW)   One does not have any inherent right, especially when asking a specific individual a specific question in a forum such as a debate. There is something in America called the ‘right of association’, which could use further discussion and debate. While freedom of speech is the bedrock of our political speech, it does not ‘force’ another to listen. They have the right to walk away and dismiss those that present themselves in an unfavorable light, especially when they do so in an inappropriate manner.

If only more of these uncouth speakers were not given a platform on which to speak, whether publically or online, perhaps there might be more substantive dialogue that could result in actual progress in understanding those with different or opposing positions.

Is that not why we debate, why we have reasoned arguments? Or is it just to hear ourselves speak, not caring if anything of value ever passes our lips? Are we not trying to persuade and convince others as to our own views? Do we not wish them to contemplate and perhaps see what we see? How is that accomplished when we do nothing but throw invective and disparaging remarks at our adversaries? Does that ever result in changing the points of view that we disagree with? I think not.

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

QUESTION IV

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   I'm going to ask those Harry and John, the capitalist system. I think is I believe the Anglo-Saxon society mostly time thinking exploitation historically with tell us comparing with the theory of the Greek or Roman society. I'm talking about this modern capitalism where is this monopolize, exploit, not only all your policies, this practice, too much exploitation to people however the capitalism is almost 10% up in class so I like to ask you a question please the capitalist is immoral because Jesus was king of the earth also was sympathize with the socialism. True or not please.

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

(LCW)   A little difficult to follow the questioner, but he seems to be making the same errors in interpretation that so many do. Has there ‘not’ been a historical attempt at the exploitation of the individual throughout the centuries? I am not sure how or why anyone would make an attempt to refute the statement.

Of course, there has been. There has also been a consistent attempt by some to rape, steal, manipulate, kill and enslave. Were all of these things acceptable to the speaker, or anyone else? I would hope not. The fact being, that this was only tangentially connected with capitalism. It was not any basic concept contained in the economic philosophy, and if so, I would love to see a citation as to who said so and when. It doesn’t exist, so it would seem that it was not a credible thought.

Modern capitalism does not promote monopolies, exploitation, or any related activity, although I will be the first to acknowledge that it can be used in such a manner, but again, that does not validate the behaviour in any way. It is for us, through our representation, to take away that option for those individuals and corporations.

The problem is that the representation is a part of the perversion of the philosophy, which makes the changes necessary almost impossible to implement, or even acknowledge, at least officially and publicly. But that in no way legitimizes the actions in any sense. Why is this so hard to understand? If you have evidence that capitalism champions these actions, then present your argument, otherwise it really should be shelved until such a time as you can do so.

As for Jesus, while I might accept that he actually existed at some point in time, I find it difficult to agree to any other attributes you may grant to him. But, for the sake of the question, I would tend to think that we are of something of a like mind. I am a socialist, at least in essence. I want much of what they seem to profess, but I find it difficult to proclaim myself a socialist, since it becomes an imperative to disagree, almost without exception, in the means that they seem to intend to use to initiate their recipe for disaster.

Therefore, since I refuse to follow an irrational lead, most people call me conservative, which, again, is both true and false. It is the implementation and the lack of choice and freedom that I would call into question. While Jesus would have promoted loving one another, I personally have no reservations that this would be a good thing. How and why and when might bring some conflicting opinions.

But remember that he is actually cited as saying ‘love your neighbor as yourself’, which, for an Objectivist, is a welcome aspiration. That implies, perhaps demands that you learn to love yourself ‘first’, and therefore understand what love is all about, before going out into the world and making the attempt to love another. This can also be interpreted as the definition of self-interest, and that is an interesting concept. It is impossible to do this without the presence of philosophy and deep introspection in one’s own life. This contradicts the socialist view that the individual should exist for the greater good. Therefore, no, I am not sure that Jesus would have been a socialist or a liberal.

He also was known to have said that if we ‘give a man a fish that he will eat for a day, but teach a man to fish, and he will feed himself for a lifetime’. Interesting and insightful. Sounds much more like a conservative and an Objectivist than a socialist or a liberal, once again.

I think many of the things attributed to him are often construed as liberal or socialist only because they need examples to illustrate their wishes, so they take bits and pieces out of context to use for their own self-interests, but upon reflection and investigation, the true intent is for man to be independent, and to be an individual. He may promote some allegiance to his father, but that is just as suspect if you look at the actual wording of the passages attributed to him.

One must remember that the Hebrew language contained in the texts available to us was extremely limited and the interpretations were historically biased if you look at exactly who did the translations. Some words in Hebrew have as many as 40 different definitions depending on dialect, context, and time period, not to mention the translator, etc., and since even our scholars never experienced those times, their perspectives are, at the very least, less than definitive. We see what we wish to see, then as now. We have difficulties interpreting what politicians and authors said last week. What can we expect from two thousand years ago? We need to at least admit to the possibilities that there are discrepancies in any or possibly all of these statements.

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

Dr. John Ridpath

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

John Ridpath:   The question is true or not that Jesus was a socialist, I would think you have a good case to make. The case that we are making for capitalism is a case for a social system, as I said in my remarks, that hasn't yet existed. All that you hear about the alleged evils of capitalism with regards to exploitation, in regards to monopolies and all of this, is quite frankly a complete misrepresentation of what capitalism is, it is not related to what we are talking about at all.

But I will say, in regards to, you know, bringing in Jesus, that the fact of the matter is that the case we are making is a radical attack on the ethics of Judeo-Christianity, we are rejecting the cross, we are rejecting sacrifice, we are in rejecting state and forced sacrifice, we are standing up for a man's mind for reason for this earth and for freedom, so you're right, Jesus and we are on opposite sides.

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

(LCW)   It may seem somewhat out of character for a self-avowed Objectivist to find fault with comments such as these, but I don’t really have that much choice. My positions are my own. I have no problem with the existence of some Judeo-Christian belief system. I was brought up in the system, and I think that I know it fairly well.

Both my brother and my uncle were Catholic priests. I have severed all ties with the faith, but amicably. For the most part, the ideology neither knows nor cares. I simply do not subscribe to their beliefs, and yet, there are many things that hold value and substance while much of the hierarchy of the administration of said philosophy is suspect and even corrupt. That is not an issue that concerns me all that much. I am not my brothers’ keeper. I believe in freedom, and one of those is the freedom of religion. I would be something of a hypocrite if I tried in any way to affect another’s ability to think for themselves. That is not to say that I would not passionately and vehemently make my own positions known on any number of issues that relate to any religious ideology if I so choose.

I believe that I understand the positions of Ayn Rand in relation to gods and religion, at least to some extent. I see that there are dangers in the acceptance of belief systems, especially those that make the attempt to tell you what to do not only while on earth but as well in the hereafter.

It can be self-destructive to simply follow the diktats of others when you do not fully understand them yourself. You leave yourself open to manipulation and a pseudo-slavery mentality, and that, of course, would impact any possibility of the attainment of a real understanding of the world around you. There is a conflict between objective perception and blind faith. It is also a fundamental aspect of socialism, this lemming-like ‘do as I say, and not particularly as I do’ mentality that I find prevalent in the ideology and an insurmountable obstacle to accepting or embracing the philosophy.

I have found some individuals that actually balance these things quite well, but I would be the first to acknowledge that it is the exception, and not the norm, so I accept Rands’ perspective but feel no need to adopt what looks like fanaticism in relation to these subjects and these individuals.

I tend to make judgments based on an individual basis. Religion can be a positive influence but only under the right circumstances, too numerable to go into at this point. I look more for specifics and context to frame any conflict I may have with a religious perspective. I try to respect the adherent as well as the teachings to the extent my philosophy allows.

While I do not share the beliefs, I find that possibilities exist, and it would be irrational to completely dismiss anything without irrefutable evidence one way or the other. God is welcome to make my acquaintance at any time of his choosing. In lieu of that, I will continue upon the path I have chosen, continuing to question and contemplate those things that life presents to me.

I would like to think of my position in relation to the ethics of any religion, not as an attack, and certainly not a ‘radical’ attack, but more of a concerned questioning of exactly what any particular religion may attempt to promote on an issue, and proceed from there.

There is no need to ‘reject’ the cross, it is but a symbol and only an inanimate object. I find no need to reject, but continue to question strenuously the need for an immortal to play-act his own demise, only to arise once again, having never really died in the first place. In any case, not an issue within my own paradigm.

I understand the rejection of sacrifice, at least in the macro, but even Objectivism leaves all decisions to the individual at some point. The degree of sacrifice, if any at all, lies with that particular individual. They are the one that makes the decision as to their own ethics and morality. If there is no compassion or empathy for others, then I am not sure how comprehensive their philosophy may actually be. It is not for me to decide. That does not preclude me from judgment in any way. ‘That’ would be my own decision, arrived at independently, unless, of course, I felt the need to request assistance from another.

I refuse to put myself at odds with the entity known as Jesus since, to begin with, he may be no more than a fictional character, and secondly, his positions are simply hearsay, with no legitimacy of their own until I have the opportunity to speak with him directly. Since that is a low-probability event, I choose to consider the whole thing irrelevant. But as already presented, I think that we would have much to agree on, much more to discuss, and I would welcome the chance to do so.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Christopher Hitchens:   Yes, those, is my microphone live? Yeah, there's a trite school of thought that does try and maintain that you can derive socialism from Christianity and I hope I said enough to make play that I think that's nonsense.

Christianity is historically the ideology of feudalism and of slavery and with this, it's been very strongly compatible and I think remains. As to whether Jesus was or was not I don't know because I have no view of whether he existed or said any of the things that are attributed to him. Some of the more popular remarks attributed to Jesus, I would say uncontroversial remarks, tending towards a view of the brotherhood of man are of course pre-Christian, wholly admirable points about the interdependence of the human race and the need, the need to help others for one's own sake, these are uncontroversial pre-Christian and obviously easily similar to socialist morality.

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

(LCW)   I find it fascinating to the point of obsession that both sides attempt to paint the other as integrally connected with the concept of religion and Christianity. I am not sure why they ignore all the other belief systems, but I guess it is just a matter of convenience. It is no surprise he finds religion little more than nonsense. I would tend to agree in both cases.

I would like to see socialism stand or fall on its own merits, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards, in any case. I think the connections are a little more substantial with socialism than with capitalism, or at least the irrational, bad scenario perverted form of capitalism, but to each their own. I guess if you believe that all forms of capitalism, no matter how perverted and contradictory they are in relation to some legitimate form of capitalism, are feudalism, then it probably makes some kind of convoluted sense, but from my perspective, is illegitimate and simply invalid. I have seen nothing tonight to really suggest otherwise.

I find it curious that Mr. Hitchens tries so hard, perhaps too hard, to make the connection between capitalism and slavery when socialism actually presents it as a fundamental aspect of the whole philosophy. From each to each? The ‘greater good’? These things reek of the individual surrendering themselves to the existence of another, taking orders from others that may or may not be in the best interests of the individual and probably not what they would have chosen for themselves. This does not sound like freedom and liberty in any way, shape, or form. I would love to hear the argument on the issue.

It is difficult for me to argue the existence of slavery in the capitalistic mindset, but once again, it is more an implication of the intrusion of the state into the workings of the economy that has done so, and it is not a corollary of the philosophy of capitalism that slavery is a desired consequence. But, …. The slavery that does seem to prevail, again, due to the existence of an authoritarian government, is more an economic slavery to which they have succumbed.

There is a certain undeniable burden we all have to accept at this point, to pay so many bills, that if non-existent, would allow us to have more flexibility and freedom in our ability to determine our futures. With the advent of utilities, and their desirability, if not their necessity, not to mention the worst offender, property taxes, we are unable to exist without the payment of said sums, not to mention the myriad of other ‘luxuries’ that chain us to our servitude to ‘the man’. I am not sure how we circumvent these issues.

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