1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Audience Questions & Responses - ( IX thru XIII )

 
 
 

Questions about the disabled under capitalism and objectivism, the concept of environmentalism in the context of the debate and the importance of such as Stalin and Lenin in relation to the issues. The conflict between altruism and welfare between the camps

 
 
 
 

Audience Questions & Responses

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

QUESTION IX

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   Doctor Binswanger, you gave a brief response, regarding how the ‘to each according to his need’ related to the family. I was not really as satisfied with your answer. What I have read of objectivist writing .… sir my question is what does objectivism have to offer to children to people who do not have a fighting chance as adults, what does it have to offer to quadriplegics, to people who are weak and cannot help themselves.

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

(LCW)   I guess that my base reaction, my gut, tells me that the question is a somewhat unreasonable question to be asked. I always find it fascinating that people who do not believe in the concept of the individual in any demonstrable way immediately confront and attack capitalism and Objectivism with an example including, dare I say, a unique and ‘individualistic’, not to mention ‘irrationally self-interested’ question that is supposed to call the whole ideology and philosophy of Objectivism and capitalism into question.

I want to make a distinction here, I am not sure how easy it will be. Socialism is trying to make a wholesale change to the paradigm of life on this earth. They desire to have me believe that all people, not just those that agree with them, but every single individual within America, or the world for that matter, is going to work together for some nebulous common or ‘greater good’. It sounds fantastic. I am on board if you can explain how that is going to be accomplished, but you can’t, and you don’t. I actually believe that a rational answer would go far to having myself and others question the possibility of accepting socialism.

Objectivism promotes a very similar scenario, but vastly different in conception and implementation. Unfortunately, I have to mention that pesky obstacle of the ‘initiation of force’ once again. Just so you’re thinking about it as we talk. The socialist wants to ‘make’ us all work together for this desired result. They don’t explain how that actually happens, but the insinuation is always there.

The Objectivist, on the other hand, gives at least a glimpse into how that happens. Through freedom, through liberty, the discovery of some mutual benefit through mutual agreement. Through free-trade as equals, with value for value. They believe in property, and they believe in wealth. They do not demand that you give anything to another unless you wish to do so, and that of course gives rise to the possibility that no one will give anything to anyone else, but that is a fallacy.

The Objectivist also promotes the search for, the investigation into, and the discovery of philosophical fundamentals that can be used to live a rich and full life. I see no impetus, no suggestion, and no intention for socialists to do anything similar. An individual and I don’t care how much wealth they have accumulated, with a philosophy based on deeply held beliefs of ethics and morals and character and integrity, following the concepts put forth within Objectivism, would seem to have an internal expectation and obligation to become involved in some way with those that have less, those that have in many ways helped that individual to realize their success and good fortune, those that are in need, not perhaps for the rest of their lives, but certainly need in an existing situation that they are not capable of handling themselves, at this point in time.

If philosophy is not going to be the impulse to do good, then what will it be, the dictates of the state, or your neighbor, or some leaderless group or ideology? No, it will come from inside, and nowhere else, because the individual has made the attempt to be the best person he is capable of being, and he then, by his own voluntary decision, (amazing how that word keeps popping up, isn’t it?) he helps to the degree and direction that he so chooses.

As you do, as well. So the easy answer is that my good fortune, in essence, ultimately comes back to help that child, that family, that individual, that has come on hard times. If that child is what you consider of importance, then it is ‘your’ obligation to do something about it, and that does ‘not’ mean forcing others to pay for things that you deem of utmost significance. It means forcing yourself to do the right thing, but as stated, that means that you have to understand and accept the difference between right and wrong, and inevitably make the correct decisions as to what is the appropriate response.

Why is it always the responsibility of some nameless others that have more obligation than you, but rarely do I see that ‘you’, yourself, have any of that obligation? I see this every day, with every protest, with every speaker, with every politician. I am not impressed, and it does not reflect well on those that do nothing, and that is not dependent on ideology. The thoughts are yours, the actions are yours, and the rewards are yours. Do something that you can be proud of.

I help other individuals, I help animals, and I help to preserve the environment. I can possibly help in one instance, or a couple, but I can’t help them all, so it really begins with one person helping another. If you believe that, you just may make a difference. If all you do is an attempt to use the initiation of force to make me do what you deem is best, I will resist to my dying breath, but I ‘will’ help those ‘I’ choose, in a manner I choose, and when I choose. I grant you no dominion over my thoughts of myself or my actions at any time and in any way.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   What does socialism have to offer to those who are able to help themselves and how do the quadriplegic and the weak hope to survive if the producers are throttled so that they can't produce?

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

(LCW)   Where is the gratitude, if not to the individual, at least to the state, for all the assistance offered? I see none of that. It is the reason they are called entitlements, so as to release them from the obligation to do so.

An entitlement is something specific. When you 'receive' Social Security, unemployment, and Medicare, these are things that you ‘paid’ for. All of the insurances that we pay for a home, and a car, dental, health, etc. these things are virtual contracts to receive security.

There is no entitlement for need, there are not any rights to whatever you wish simply because you exist. If you rely on others for that existence, while I will agree that we all need to help those individuals, it should not be under the threat of force, but again, a voluntary reaction because it is the right thing to do, and not because you think so, but because ‘I’ think so, because ‘we’ think so. For those that think otherwise, I highly suggest that you re-evaluate the concept of entitlement and the best way to change the paradigm for the betterment of all.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:    There are really two questions there, one is the issue of parents and children and from each according to his ability and so forth. The parent-child relation is not the relationship of adult citizens to each other which politics is primarily concerned with. Certainly, a parent owes the care to their child and the child owes gratitude for that care if it's provided properly but the point is that you are not a child and the government should not treat you as a child.

There is such a thing as reaching the age of reason but under some forms of government that age is never reached, in other words, they never believe that you reach adulthood and have rights. It is not altruism but love that the parent-child relationship exhibits, it is not of to each according to his need.

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

(LCW):   I would tend to agree with his statements on ‘from’ and ‘to’ each. I was pleasantly surprised when the socialist camp brought up the relationship on a couple of occasions. The differences between the societal example and the familial were poignant and perhaps profound. The family has inherent obligations. The life of the children, and by extension, even other ‘extended’ family members, are the result of your own actions, and therefore obviously your own responsibility.

Can one really expect the neighbors to take care of what is irrefutably the result of your own actions and commitments? This is nothing like the societal version, which is implied to some degree, wanting to achieve some semblance of peace and security between members, but in no way gives the other members, the vast majority of which I do not know, and in many cases may not particularly like, any claim on my property or my wealth or my life. That is an absurdity on multiple levels.

A society should want to help others. If the socialists were paying attention to the multiple occasions that rational self-interest was discussed, they would understand that this wanting to help is selfish, pure, and simple. If we create security for all, then my own security is included. This is the reason that predators hunt in packs, and why prey also moves in groups.

It does not mean an absolute security, but it ensures a higher level. But at no time does the herd respond by all ganging up on the predator, which of course, if they did, they would invariable prevail due to numbers, but they do not even understand that. There still remains the individual need to protect self, and work their way outwards through those that they know and wish to protect, ending up with those that they have entered into a contract with to provide group security, when possible.

There is no agreement to sacrifice one’s life to the benefit of another, although that is not precluded, and may in fact happen. Again, it is a voluntary action taken at the discretion of the individual to do so, and for no other reason.

I think that the socialist does tend to equate need and love, but that is a personal decision and one that is not part of any mutual agreement involved.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Mr.Christopher Hitchens:   The question wasn't really to us I think personally.

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

(LCW)   But it would have been an excellent opportunity to bring clarity to an ambiguous and indistinct position that has yet to be addressed properly and fully. Does it really matter if the question was directly addressed to you? Don’t you have an opinion? What does socialism or collectivism promote?

It could have been yet another opportunity to give us an insight into the mind of the socialist, and share something of value and substance with the rest of us. Disappointing. I question if you care what is important to the rest of us in the context of the focus of this debate. It seems to suggest that this is not of any real concern. Is all of this just so you can listen to yourself?

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

QUESTION X

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   I have a question for Mr. Hitchens. You've spoken on the subject but I'm still not sure of your opinion. On the most basic level of this debate, It seems to me, has addressed the question do the ends justify the means. In your opinion, do they?

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

(LCW)   This is an intrinsically important issue that deserves much more time in discussion than it ever receives. I find it illuminating to find out if someone ever thinks it legitimate to do bad to achieve good. It is the antithesis of reason. The ends, except in extremely rare instances, can never justify the means, but only the opposite holds true.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Mr.Christopher Hitchens:   I don't find it possible to say no to that question. I think there's more absurdity and more contradiction and less interest in the study of history revealed in someone who simply says no to that and then there is to someone who says yes but someone who says yes clearly invites about eight further questions which you haven't asked. I don't mean to be either evasive or elusive.

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

(LCW)   Question asked and answered. Anyone who believes in the initiation of force will never abandon the most superficially reasonable-sounding expediency for that use of force. It may well invite multiple additional questions to expand the subject, but I did say it does not get the attention it deserves, illustrated by Mr. Hitchens not at least giving us a cursory explanation of why he believes it to be a credible consideration. Another lost opportunity to bring information to the audience. Another opportunity denied.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Harry Binswanger:   I could say yes the ends justify the means if the ends are rational then the means will be rational to it. It's a rather vague question which I think is what Mr. Hitchens was saying.

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

(LCW)   I certainly give no points to Mr. Binswanger in this situation. I fail to see how an ‘end’ can be rational if nothing but irrational actions were taken to achieve it. An example would have been welcome. And he as well gives no legitimacy to his answer by the absence of any reasoned argument in any form. I think his reason by way of his answer is completely lacking substance.

There is no evidence that I know of that determines that a reasonable ‘end’, in whatever form, has no choice but to be founded on reasoned ‘means’. It is somewhat simplistic, but nevertheless illustrative that the socialist that sacrifices themselves, or better yet, kills someone else to save the life of yet another individual, in essence, results in the saving of the life, which, out of context would have to be considered a ‘good’ thing, but the killing or sacrifice is undeniably not a valid action to result in that saving of a life, therefore denying the legitimacy or ‘justification’ of the means. I am sure there are debatable examples, but I find it difficult to accept any circumstance where invalid means result in a valid ‘end’.

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

QUESTION XI

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   Thanks. Both sides seemed to address themselves to the rights and responsibilities of humans to each other but there's very little said about the rights and responsibilities of humans to the environment they live in and I think the poor record of both 18th century, rather 19th-century capitalism and modern socialism as far as the environment demonstrates that neither side has very little to offer in that area and I'm wondering what both sides feel that their policies have to offer to those of us who are concerned about the environment.

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

(LCW)   While the environment is an important aspect of our very existence, simply proclaiming that one is ‘concerned’ does not mean that anything that they are concerned about is an actual legitimate issue. There is no argument of the damage that was done in the past, but let’s try to put this into some kind of perspective.

Most of what you are talking about, the totally irresponsible actions taken by a very few, was mostly done or at least started over a hundred years ago, some going back to almost twice that far. In my own youth, the incidences of burning rivers and polluted wells and ‘love’ canals filled the papers, and rightly so. I am a strong believer that any industry needs to control its waste and by-products, with virtually no exceptions acceptable.

This does not give those who scream the loudest, the authority, or the veracity to make the decisions or control the narratives, no matter how successful they have been in the past or would like to be in the future. Capitalism was not responsible for what has happened, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

The irresponsibility came from those same players I have been alluding to through this whole exercise in the unfruitful attempt to discern a moral basis for the socialist movement. The excesses and the damage done could have been stopped in its tracks with the simple presence of representation and legislation from the lips and pens of responsible and competent individuals, with impeccable character and integrity, simply doing the job they were hired to do, to protect the interests of the population at large, or the ‘greater good’ as our socialist comrades would like to say, and to uphold the founding documents and the Constitution, to the fullest extent of existing law, which they ‘swore’ to do upon the bible or whatever concept they wanted to use to exemplify their integrity of self and love of country. Which, by the way, they refused or were incapable of doing, and hence the destruction, damage, pain, and suffering that the rest of us had to endure.

No matter what you may or may not believe is the extent or the source of the damage done, it is still an issue that is wide open. Science, contrary to the somewhat ambiguously accepted idea of what causes these very same concerns, does not have a definitive answer to any of the questions that plague us, not at all. We are not having an open and honest discussion about your concerns, but more a kangaroo court of public opinion where those that disagree are ‘not’ given the chance to refute the evidence, primarily because there is so little irrefutable evidence presented.

I do not believe that this is arguable. Those who speak up are ‘canceled’ without due cause, there is not an environment of goodwill or the willingness to have that conversation that is so valuable in coming to reasonable and practical solutions. There is no benefit of doubt or open-mindedness that could be invaluable in coming to conclusions that make more sense than tying up the world economy and having our farmers revert to using draft animals to be able to farm. And all this without concrete evidence to their own ends.

This is just another example of the liberal and socialist mentality that will not suffer a difference of opinion. I have seen well-respected scientists who disagree with many of the positions held by the current academia and political machines, totally vilified to the extent that they are intimidated and will not stand up and defend their own positions.

It does not give me cause to be optimistic, and it does nothing to instill respect in their non-actions, but it is neither surprising nor unexpected considering the political climate over the last decades. This is not the way to resolve differences. Simply being a political bully to win an argument that could destroy the world economy, is not the way of reason and cooperation, if that is truly what is desired.

I see it as a power grab of the most base sort, and indicative of what I see in the socialist vision for the future. I know that I have little power, personally, but I refuse to capitulate without a stronger case than what I have seen to this point. Why the reluctance? Why not engage with whatever is necessary to make your point?

The only reason that I can see for such a reaction is the reality that the support they claim is not what they present, and the factual evidence will be difficult to defend in a truly public forum. Prove me wrong. Take the challenge and present your case in an equitable and transparent venue.

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

Mr. John Judis

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

John Judis:   OK. Modern capitalism has more to offer than 19th-century capitalism and some extent more than modern socialism, so I would say, as I tried to lay out in my eight minutes, that some modern socialism, as I was trying to describe it, will itself evolve and emerge out of modern capitalism and therefore will incorporate much of the environmental movement today as we see. So I, you know, I accept your point.

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

(LCW)   I have to admit that I am confused and a bit disoriented. So you believe that modern capitalism is an improvement on the capitalism of the 19th century, and even better than ‘modern’ socialism so I feel compelled to ask why it is that we would look towards some unproven ideology, and in the context of today’s debate, loosely defined and explained philosophy, when capitalism is evolving in the right direction?

Capitalism is not static, it is dynamic, and it is constantly making changes and improvements that will inevitably result in an evolution towards a superior product. It would not be unreasonable to assume that it will continue to do so, especially if those in the socialist camp were to co-operate to that end. That fact, in and of itself, would seem to suggest such a direction.

Whatever substantive points that may or may not be made by the environmental movement, if found to be legitimate, and at this point, they are little more than anecdotal, can just as easily be incorporated into the current system. Huge strides have been made over the last 50 years without the need for a complete restructuring or replacement of the existing structural makeup of the national economy, and make no mistake about it, that is what is being demanded by a specific segment of that same movement.

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

Dr. John Ridpath

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

John Ridpath:   If, in essence, is the survival, human survival, the living of human life, requires to go out into the world and produce the values for the sustenance of life, In a certain sense, in essence, life involves attacking the environment. That's what we're doing so that capitalism in essence is a system that unleashes people's energies to go out and try to make what they can from the world, the values of human life requires.

The record of productive activities such as you were mentioning earlier, the dumping poisonous wastes next door to you, etcetera, examples of pollution that actually do attack individuals right to their own life their own health, etc., are examples of the fact that the principle of human rights has not been fully understood. It was not even fully understood in 1776 and it has not been consistently applied in legal philosophy to this day so there are a lot of problems to be dealt with but what we first need in order to deal with those problems is an understanding of what the principle commands rights mean.

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

(LCW)   A somewhat unfortunate, and probably inappropriate turn of phrase here. I see no need to characterize man’s struggle to work together, within nature, to create and define a fresh way of dealing with the obstacles and challenges that we are to face, as an ‘attack’ upon nature. I don’t see it that way at all, and would not have that kind of perspective. I see no reason that mankind cannot synchronize the needs and demands of a chaotic nature with the complex and necessary requirements for man’s survival as well. I see no imperative for conflict, except perhaps with those individuals that have little or no concern with the introduction of force to attain their own personal agenda.

Many individuals in the past have had a convenient situation, where nature was so vast and it seemed impossible to overwhelm her, and there were those, call them capitalists if you wish, even though it is a misnomer, that took advantage of that situation. We have come to realize that is not the appropriate manner in which to deal with these difficulties, so we have to, and we have for the last five decades at least, changed the way we look at these issues and the way we deal with them. I see no reason why that is not a real possibility.

We have the ability. The only question is if we have the innovation, the motivation, and the resolve to simply do the right thing. Unfortunately this is ultimately in the hands of our politicians, and that does nothing to instill an environment of confidence in the outcome. We can act on an individualistic level, but without the cooperation of our representation, it will be impossible to overcome the obstacle of those that do not have the ethics and morals necessary to make the correct decisions towards that future that many speak of, but do little to create the reality.

Man is the caretaker of the planet. Everything that Dr. Ridpath presents, in his somewhat misguided verbal attempts to explain, is true, but only to an extent. Our survival is paramount in his perspectives, and the health and survival of the planet itself are within the ability of mankind to control if he so wishes. And he should. To reiterate a basic tenet of rational self-interest, we take care of the environment, not because some collective directs us, but for selfish reasons.

No coercion should be needed or warranted, except for those that harm the interests of all. We treat the planet with respect because it inevitably means our own lives are enriched by a vibrant and flourishing ecosystem and will be impacted in a negative way by a damaged and declining one.

What could be more obvious? What could be more legitimate than protecting the planet for ourselves and those we care about that will follow us, as well as those strangers that we will never meet, never know, but will experience some mutual benefit by our own actions. And we should do it because we ‘want’ to do it, because it brings us pleasure since our philosophy and ideologies direct us in such a direction, and because it is simply the right thing to do.

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

QUESTION XII

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   My question for the socialists, do you, in your opinion, was Stalin more an aberration or a product of socialist history that preceded him?

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

(LCW)   While the subject of Stalin, in historical context, may give us some insight into those things that we should avoid in the future, I don’t see anyone, although it would not surprise me to find that some exist that continue to support and condone his actions that praise his version of socialism. If so, they should stand up and be counted, if only to know they exist and avoid them. He had nothing to offer then, as his views have no value or substance today. Perhaps only as a warning to those that have never investigated or understood exactly what it is that he accomplished, for want of a better word.

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

Mr. Christopher Hitchens

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

Mr.Christopher Hitchens:   It would be true to say that you couldn't have had Stalin without Lenin, those who make that accusation are, I would say, you know, in an almost banal and self-evident sense correct. It is also true that for the consolidation of his power, Stalin found it necessary to physically exterminate and liquidate what had been Lenin's Bolshevik Party, thus I think there's no one-sided answer to that question.

I think that with the exception of the People's Republic of China, which is now about it seems on its own interpretation of the capitalist Road, there is no other socialist community where the name of Joseph Stalin is regarded with anything but execration. Whether or not this is an irony I leave it to you to decide.

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

(LCW)   I will make a similar comment as it relates to Lenin. He had no value in his prime, and he has nothing to offer us today, except as a call to understand what he did, and make the attempt to prevent anything similar from happening to anyone today or at any point in the future.

Making any attempt to legitimize the actions of physically ‘exterminating’ and ‘liquidating’ anything Lenin-esque is a condemnation in itself. To say that there can be no ‘one-sided’ answer to that question insinuates that you recognize some legitimacy on either side, which is an abomination without merit. Once again, a provocative non-answer, with no expansion or explanation, a refusal to share honest thoughts on the subject with those you have offered to debate and discuss. Not an impressive attribute.

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

QUESTION XIII

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous:   My question is for the capitalist. What kind of political system would you, would get away with welfare since he would take the altruism of the recipients. I mean, the recipients would have to vote against cutting their own benefits, right, so how would you change the Constitution in what way.

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

Moderator:   could you sir clarify the question.

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

Anonymous:   Well, it seems to me that if the new system would have to get away with some civil liberties in order such so that the recipients of, well given that the population now votes half-and-half between getting away with the welfare or not, then the deciding factor is obviously the people that actually have welfare. Now, what kind of constitutional amendments would you suggest such that the welfare recipients would not have the civil liberty of choosing for this vote, or no vote?

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

(LCW)   I find it hard to believe that this will ever get to the level of a Constitutional amendment. First of all, our representatives do not have the courage to initiate the process, which can be onerous, and rightly so. One of the real unique aspects of our Constitution is the ability to evolve to some degree. Justice Scalia made a comment that the Constitution is ‘not’ what many call a ‘living document’ but I passionately disagree.

It is something that sets it apart from pretty much any other document that preceded it in history. Our founders were astute enough to know that a document written in 1776 would have issues dealing with future events and culture, so it would have to be able to ‘grow’ or ‘evolve’ with the population and the reality on the ground.

America consisted of only 4 million people when our Constitution was first introduced, maybe a bit more. Compare that with the over 330 million today, not to mention the existence of the technology that would have been incomprehensible to a citizen of that original era. Having said that, I don’t believe that this is, or will be, a constitutional issue.

Furthermore, I don’t see why this has to be an either/or issue. This concept of from each according to their abilities, whether they agree or not, and to each, according to their needs, whether real ‘need’ exists or not, is inarguably impractical and fraught with so many inconsistencies and opportunities for corruption that it will never work as a viable standard of conduct.

Speakers invariably speak of thinking ‘outside the box’ over the last few decades, and I would think that this is a perfect subject with which to begin a process that considers the problem from multiple other perspectives. Instead of this black and white argument that incessantly stifles debate, we need to cooperate on the creation of something completely different.

As I have stated multiple times, the whole ‘spirit’ of cooperation is one of the bedrock concepts that this new socialism is based upon, so why not use it in the process of making a new paradigm to fulfill the need to help those who cannot help themselves? The first step in such an endeavor would be to identify and admit that many of those who take advantage of the ‘largesse’ of America are contrary to the intent of that assistance and have to assume some responsibility when their lives may be difficult, but they still possess the abilities to be a productive member of the society.

This help that is envisioned for those in ‘need’ is not supposed to be for those that are simply tired of making an effort or incapable of reaching a level of success that they desired, but were unable to achieve. If this cannot be acknowledged, I am not sure if a consensus or level of cooperation and goodwill can ever exist.

The ironic part is that those that refuse to do so create an environment where that same help they wish to offer others becomes impossible to implement for those that truly cannot function in the society as a whole. They ‘steal’ the resources meant for those others, and ensure that assistance is as difficult as possible, instead of providing for those that actually ‘need’ that help.

It is very discouraging that it always seems to come down to an issue of all or nothing, with no alternatives of any kind that are allowed to be investigated and debated. There is no system that will give a perfect answer. There will always have to be considerations.

If socialism really believes that they can create a Utopia for over 300 million disparate individuals, not to mention over 7 billion inhabitants of the planet, then they are completely irrational and will never achieve a level of success in any form, leaving all of those who attempt to use socialism to that end in complete desolation, with nothing but even more pain and suffering than what they had hoped to eradicate. Again, an unfortunate irony, and an unnecessary one.

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger

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

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   Okay, I think the assumption of your question is that you could not get rid of the welfare system unless you took the vote away from those who are its beneficiaries. I don't agree with that. I don't think that people vote their pocketbook.

I think that if you convince people that they're better off in a different system they'll vote for it and as a matter of actual fact welfare recipients are not a happy lot, and as a matter of actual fact they would be far better off under a capitalist society and if we could convince a majority of the electorate, including both welfare recipients and non-welfare recipients, of that simple point, then welfarism will fade away and I don't believe that economic interest determines ideology, the other way around.

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

(LCW)   I think it important to be realistic when speaking of this idea that people will actually vote on the issue of receiving assistance from other people with no responsibility or long term obligations for these ‘alms’, and alms are what they are. There is this insidious undercurrent, and the socialist absolutely promotes this, that all of these ‘benefits’ are somehow theirs by eminent domain or some god-given right. There is, of course, no way to rationally argue this fact, and I don’t believe there ever will be. But they persist, nonetheless.

I am vehemently against the concept of this return of wealth back to the population without any concern for the ramifications of said actions. There has to be a quid-pro-quo, so to speak, to balance the equation. I, myself, easily accepted the pandemic payments from the government, from the perspective that they have, for my lifetime, squandered and ‘invested’ in things that I firmly believed that they had no business getting involved in, giving monies and benefits to extremely partisan groups and issues, to the detriment of the country, and ultimately, on my ‘dime’.

I was ‘forced’ to pay for so many things that, first of all, did not work, and second of all, were paid for by targeted segments of society that were never proven to be responsible to do so. This is why a greater presence of the same ideology can only result in even greater discrepancies. No one has yet clearly explained how these things will be paid for, especially since there is no rational answer. The well, will in fact, run dry at some point.

I don’t see how any reasonable individual can even suggest that a vast majority of those that receive all of this ‘something’ for ‘nothing’ would ever even consider the process unacceptable, except in rare cases of philosophical and intellectual perspectives. They will, of course, vote for the continuation and expansion of these benefits, and as those around them see that it will never be reversed, will take the opportunity to gain access to the system, and get their own piece of that illegitimate, proverbial pie.

It is not only possible but will be inevitable, in the extreme. If it were only 2 or 3 percent of the population, it would not be the same problem as it will be when it reaches 40 or 50 percent, where we actually are as we speak. What happens when that number surpasses the ability to even tax those that continue to produce? You can confiscate from each according to their ability, but when does that reach a point where it actually fails to sustain those that profess ‘need’?

If those that receive assistance continue to be allowed to vote on the existence of these programs the end result is irrefutable. Equality will be achieved, we will all exist at a level that none of us would have chosen for ourselves. It is an inevitability.

I think Dr. Binswanger makes a mistake based on the presence of reason in our deliberations, and unfortunately, the reality is that it will not be the determining factor. I agree that people receiving assistance, for the most part, are not happy individuals, but to vote against their own best-interests, especially when there exists only a superficial philosophical paradigm for them, especially when no viable and guaranteed alternative is available, is simply not an option for them, and while I agree that a capitalistic system built on a stronger philosophical base would be in their best interests, I believe convincing them of that is nothing more than a pipe dream.

I think his perspective is way off base, and an irrational hope in the face of adversity. Many of these recipients have already tried the merit system and competition, and they have not been up to the task. The number that might embrace the option is negligible, and since we may have already passed the point of no return, it will not be a fixable issue. But the issue will remain. Something has to be done about it, but, for the life of me, I have no idea what that might be, especially with the political climate that exists in this country, and around this planet, today.

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

Anonymous:   this man will have to be altruistic to give away their benefits, no more selfishness in India.

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

(LCW)   It would not just be altruistic, it would be self-destructive. If you have nothing without these benefits, and you give them up, that is not altruism, but the sacrifice of your own survival to others. It makes you a noble and caring socialist. It also makes you a dead one.

In this case survival would not be an option, and according to socialistic dogma, since you are ‘supposed’ to sacrifice for the ‘greater-good’, it means that ultimately no one will do anything to help. That is the beauty of the system. Invariably, the sick and the infirm, the non-contributing members of the society will be in the position that to be a good socialist, they will at some point ‘sacrifice’ themselves to the whole, and they will no longer be a burden to them. A self-correcting aspect in an otherwise unworkable philosophy.

Dr. Harry Binswanger:   I'm saying it is not in your self-interest to be a welfare recipient and it's pretty obvious all you have to do is just look at them in the main, they are a pretty mangy lot and if you had a child, would you tell it, and I suppose it could live in one of two societies in one society half the people on welfare and it could qualify for welfare the other society no one can qualify for welfare but the standard of living is ten times that of the other of the welfare society and growing daily which one would you tell your child to enter? So we believe that self-interest is the interest of life and that life is not life as a passive vegetable but the life of productive activity so we don't think the mere fact that someone writes you a check means that's to your self-interest.

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

(LCW)   I have a strong conflict with the ‘mangy’ characterization. I know many who are not on assistance that are nothing if not mangy, or even worse. Mangy, in many ways, is a state of mind, when you lose self-respect and give up on even the most fundamental aspects of self-care. I attempt to have some level of empathy with their circumstances, I contemplate options that may be taken, and I emphasize the alternatives, as well as the effort and investments that may be needed to move toward resolution. But those in these situations have to become involved to some degree as well.

I don’t want to see them treated as animals, and I don’t want them to see themselves as animals either, but that means that they need to take some responsibilities as their own, no matter how small, to be a part of the process, and not just a ‘recipient’ of largesse from those around them.

I see no discussion in these kinds of issues, and they are indispensable in the actual ability to resolve these situations. We seem to all have become numb to the reality, and wish to avoid even the considerations necessary, electing instead to place the burden and obligation on the nameless, and often incompetent existence of some nebulous state, releasing ourselves, and those we wish to help, from any culpability whatsoever.

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