1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Reader - Online Commentary - D

 
 
 

Colonialism in India. Economic and political equivalency. Was Hitlers' National Socialism actually socialism? the importance of education, public education and private education. Nature and Henry George. The dangers of government       

 
 
 
 

READER - VIEWER - COMMENTARY - D

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

Ben Berzai

@Small Might Colonialism was beneficial for India under the Raj in at least it was better than the Mughals. It was also better than Gandhi’s autarkical policies which set India back 40 years. And it was under a Mussolini government that Somalia, after 1000 years of selling Bantus into slavery, the slave trade finally stopped. CG Gordon’s last move in Sudan was to stop Muslims from slave-trading Africans.

And don’t forget that the Romans, Vikings, Saxons, and Normans colonized England. You have a narrow perspective on history .... and economics, especially if you conflate capitalism with colonization.

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

(LCW)   I appreciate the perspective, all of which are true. If all the participants, and audience, of this supposed ‘debate’ could acknowledge these things, we might actually be able to discuss and come to terms with the issues at hand.

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

Curt Bressler

The lunacy of this quote is that the 'colonies' do not exist until colonialism has already begun committing its wrong on the peoples of the land being colonized. Which is what makes it perfect for the debate format.

Furthermore; this position has to be held when capitalism is defended. Capitalism and Colonialism are practically synonymous.

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

(LCW)   Easy to say, not so easy to validate. Where is your evidence, your citation, your reasoned argument? You can say whatever you want, but it in no way gives credibility or legitimacy to the comments. Make your case, don’t just throw words around. You misinterpret both capitalism and colonialism, recognize nothing whatsoever as to the reality except what you already believe, and then equate them, all with no justification. I really don’t know how to respond. I am not going to defend something that does not exist.

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

Capitalism is the pursuit of profit at the expense of everyone else.

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

(LCW)   I unequivocally reject such an assertion. It may be what you and yours do with capitalism, but not what I would do, or anyone that I support. And what you do would not really be capitalism, in a rational or intellectual sense, more ‘gangsterism’ than anything else.

It has no rational connection with true capitalism in any way, and certainly none with Objectivism as presented. Where do you get these concepts? Is there any evidence whatsoever that someone actually promoted this kind of statement in any form? Can you produce something that shows this? Of course not, since it doesn’t exist. I do not protest that it does exist, just that your interpretation of what causes it is irrational, to say the least.

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

Colonialism is the pursuit of land at the expense of its inhabitants. The only distinction is the specification of what and who is being exploited.

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

(LCW)   I am not really interested in the discussion of colonialism, and you may, to some degree, be correct in your interpretation, but it is not capitalism in any respect and has no bearing on the morality of either capitalism or socialism, and without evidence, is a poor representation of a position, or even an opinion.

This digression into colonialism is detracting from the issue at hand, the morality of the socialist ideology or philosophy. Is there anyone that wishes to make a statement?

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

Being that this is a debate....the position doesn't have to make sense or be correct, it just has to be defended.

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

(LCW)   What an intriguingly absurd statement. A position does not need to be correct since this is a debate. Only someone with nothing of value or substance to present would say such a thing. A debate is not about fantasy, it is about reason and reality, and your absence of understanding notwithstanding does not change that. Your comment is a poignant illustration of ignorance at its worst and best at the same time.

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

Debaters DO NOT care about what is right or wrong, good or bad. They have to take a position and ignore its weaknesses and faults to a fault.

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

(LCW)   This is not a high school exercise in playing nice with people who don’t know what they are speaking about. I am not going to defend something that doesn’t exist and give it credibility because you think it is the right thing to do. I speak of what is, and what I believe, and why. What you do is your own business. I will accept or reject based on my own belief system. You seem to say that you don’t care what is right or wrong, you find reality irrelevant, will talk about anything for no reason at all. I could do well discussing these things with a goldfish.

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

This is why lawyers are absolutely indifferent about justice.

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

(LCW)   That is why most people neither trust nor respect lawyers. There are no legitimate lawyers that are absolutely indifferent about justice. That is why we have so little real justice. This is why the unwashed masses lament in the streets the absence of equality and the presence of injustice. Because no one really cares or is ‘indifferent’. Only disreputable lawyers have such a position, and why we are still arguing about the same issues after hundreds of years.

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

They do not care about whether their client committed the crime; they only care to ignore and hide the facts that would convict their client....to effectively serve their client to the detriment of justice....that's the game.

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

(LCW)   And I don’t like games where cheaters win. The goal is ‘not’ to serve their client, but to be an instrument of justice, but ensure the clients ‘rights’ are taken into account. Anyone who thinks the goal is to circumvent justice and reality has no interest in either freedom or liberty and should be treated with the contempt that they deserve. Anything done to the ‘detriment’ of justice is contrary to freedom and liberty and America in every respect.

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

Debate is exactly the same. Instead of "to the detriment of justice" it's "to the detriment of truth".

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

(LCW)   If and when this happens, it is not, in reality, a debate. A debate is about comprehension. It is about investigation, about knowledge, and about truth, at least as close as we can discover. It is about learning, and about teaching, about the determination of concepts, their development, and evolution, and about that ‘greater good’ that so many throw about mindlessly. It needs to be what is good for self, and therefore good for all. To no ones’ detriment, to no ones’ advantage, and with not even the hint of coercion or manipulation. I have absolutely no interest in anything that does otherwise or people that condone the same.

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

Anne-Marie A

About eight minutes in and the first speaker is dead wrong. Survival of man over the millennia has been due to strength, physical strength. That was how women chose mates. It is only quite a recent development that reason had anything to do with survival. He just said that this misconception is what his argument is based on. I can't wait to hear him go down the rabbit hole.

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

(LCW)   Superficially a valid point, but that infers that we should be a ‘might makes right’ species forever? Do you believe in a concept similar to evolution? Should the species even make an attempt at progress and philosophical concepts, or should we remain animals writhing in the mud indefinitely?

While it was the paradigm for quite some time, once reason was actually realized, is it not in our interests, is it not our obligation, to develop and evolve that new paradigm until something better asserts itself or becomes evident? I am assuming that you are female per your pseudonym, so I simply have to ask, do you support the eternal concept of physical conquest, rape, and lack of any rights or benefits for females? I certainly don’t, and I would imagine that you don’t either.

It may have taken a long time, but the way women are treated is undeniably superior to just a hundred years ago, quite a short span in comparison to the existence of our species. Let’s continue to evolve and grow, to learn and make the changes necessary to eventually find some semblance of true parity and equality. I think we have made some great advances recently. I would hate to see them be lost to experiments with systems such as socialism that will not only diminish the value of women but humanity in general.

If there is indeed a ‘rabbit-hole’ that exists, we need to recognize it, define it, and rectify it so as not to impact our interactions in any negative way. Mistakes and failures are not a negative to evolution. The failure to acknowledge and make changes are. Reason tells us that we can learn from our mistakes.

The phrase ‘rabbit-hole’ is itself difficult to define, so what you are saying is somewhat unknown. Are you looking forward to his discomfort or his ecstasy? Is this the proper way for reasoned adults to act, hoping for conflict instead of resolution? It is hard to say what it is that you are expecting. In either case, it is irrelevant to the objective of the debate.

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

omegapointil

"Truth is a liquid, not a solid." I laugh at anyone Self Righteous enough to declare themselves Objectivists. The dishonest License Faith promises.

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

(LCW)   I find that amusing, at the very least, and somewhat disturbing and unfortunate. If you laugh at the self-righteous, then it seems you laugh at self. But I did like your quote since I also think that truth is a liquid, and I am a staunch Objectivist, so what exactly are you trying to say? Is it that Objectivists are rigid and dogmatic in their positions? If so, you are more wrong than it is possible to explain.

You understand nothing of the ideology or the philosophy. The end result of Objectivism is an individual that speaks for themself and does not simply regurgitate the thoughts of Rand. It is an individual that comes to their own conclusions, and those can be very different from another Objectivist, with different experiences, different interpretations, different needs and strengths, and weaknesses.

If you think that there are similarities, it would be hard to argue, but if you think they are actually the same, it displays an unfortunate ignorance of the reality of the circumstances and the abilities, and the lessons learned, by each, according to their own abilities, and to each according to self-determined needs.

As you can see, almost anything can be turned around to mean something profoundly different. Many people interpret things at a strongly superficial level and do not invest the time and effort to fully comprehend that which they are attempting to destroy, not even knowing completely what that is. There should be more questions, and more listening, and less judgment, and less fear, and less hatred. That would probably be more beneficial than an unhealthy focus on destruction and control.

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

Suzann Fulbright

I wonder by what magic persons can have political equivalency in a society without economic equivalency? How many of us can afford to buy lobbyists and outspend corporations in political contributions?

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

(LCW)   A really excellent point. I am glad that you stopped before ruining it with some off-hand vitriol. Having said that, I don’t think equivalency of either is a real possibility. It’s just not a natural thing. It can’t be done. This great concept of ‘diversity’ that so many throw around is an example of why not.

Diversity means our differences. And that means, specifically, the differences between individuals as well as groups, and between the differences within those groups as well. There can be no equivalency of existence or outcome, but there can be an equivalency of opportunity and effort, although that may be just as difficult.

I cannot buy a lobbyist either, but all of us having lobbyists will not resolve the issue. And if you think that you can legislate influence, your naiveté is showing, and it’s embarrassing. I abhor lobbying, and yet I am a capitalist and an Objectivist. How is that possible? Maybe because my philosophy, my morals, and my ethics do not allow me to support the practice. But, unfortunately, my reason immediately responds that lobbying, per se, is not an immoral practice, but only in the way it is used, almost exclusively for less than appropriate ends, that is.

Once again, it is the damaged, perverted, and evil, if you will, intent, that makes it a negative. If you think that you cannot have a positive and moral lobbyist, then you only make yourself look less than informed.

An advocate, at all levels within our legal system, is a lobbyist. Lawyers, in general, can be an advocate for an individual. Protesters on the street are lobbyists for change, sometimes appropriately, other times not. Priests and doctors and teachers are all often struggling to make changes to those things that challenge us at different times and environments in life.

These are all lobbyists. So what you are saying, my assumption only, is that you don’t like political or economic lobbyists, but again, are you opposed to environmental lobbyists? They make up a good portion of the lobbyist industry. Would you have them banned as well? That is why your protestations do not really make any sense and create no change in the paradigm. You need to be focused, involved and informed, and unfortunately, those kinds of individuals are at a premium.

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

palladin331

Economic equivalency does not mean everyone should have the same income, wealth, etc. That would be communism, which will never be even a remote practical possibility. But it's true that the wealthy control the US government, which defeats the purpose. A good start would be the reversal of Citizens United.

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

(LCW)   You get caught up in these petty personal issues that will make no intrinsic difference in the final outcome. You waste resources. You need to focus and determine fundamental changes that might actually result in the evolution you seek. Citizens United is nothing more than a distraction, it has no real value in the larger issues. You have to stop making these sweeping, ignorant proclamations.

The ‘wealthy’ do not control or own the government, even though those that own the government may certainly all be wealthy. If you ever intend or expect to change the paradigm, you will need those wealthy that are not a part of the problem, and make no mistake, they are ‘all’ not involved at that level. Your bigotry thwarts your own intent to foment change. It is truly disturbing how short-sighted it is to not comprehend the issue completely before trying to rectify it.

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

Suzann Fulbright

@palladin331 To most people with knowledge of the English language the word "equivalency" is not the same as the word "equal." The word "equivalency" implies some wiggling room, the word "equal" implies exactly the same. That is why I chose the word equivalency. It is annoying that I have to WASTE MY TIME to address that.

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

(LCW)   If one is frustrated over wasting time, they are not interested in debate or conversation. If you are not willing to persuade or convince even a single person to question their own position, it would tend to suggest that you only wish to pontificate and ‘force’ people to your own will, but I find nothing to this point compelling about your comments, so your protestations fall on deaf ears. I am fairly certain that there is not a single individual following this that could care less about your ‘time’. You need to get over that. It is your obligation to bring clarity to your audience, and there is really no obligation on their part to do anything at all. Funny how that works.

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

The more civilized part of the world has advanced on to mixed economies and have acknowledged the rights of workers while the United States is fixated on achieving authoritarian fascism; the only evil Americans know, is "communism" and somehow communism has been equated with its exact opposite, "fascism."

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

(LCW)   And now you are the authority on ‘civilization’ as well? I never knew that. Good to know. They are not mixed economies because socialism has no economic base, it is only parasitic to the producer of the entirety of the wealth to be ‘expropriated’ for the social aspects of the political system. It is truly a misnomer, no matter how many people say it, to call it a mixed economy.

It’s getting a bit tiresome. Communism believes in the state ownership of all production, while fascism believes in state ownership or at least control of all production. Communism is the state. Same thing. Communism ‘is’ fascism. The American state does not own production. If anything it is the other way around. If they don’t own the production, by definition, which you hold dear, it cannot be fascist. Socialism says that production belongs to the people, who belong to the state, also known as the greater good, and sole administrator, which makes it a close second as a sponsor of fascism. You really have to do better than that.

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

By making these two words one and the same, the far-Right can easily pursue its fascist ambitions and has done so for four decades. And too many in the so-called Left have been willing to follow the fascist Right pied-pipers right down the rabbit hole.

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

(LCW)   There’s that pesky rabbit-hole again.

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

And if one has the intellectual capacity of a two-year-old, they might be intimidated. However, knowing that Marxian analysis was for the benefit of WORKERS, I am not impressed by your excuse, your small attempt to hide your disdain for democracy in the economic sphere.

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

(LCW)   Cute. More ad-hominem. It always seems to make me respect the speaker just that much more, know what I mean? When has that benefit for the workers ever worked out, if you please? I am not particularly intent on impressing you, but it would be nice to communicate.

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

You cannot have political democracy without economic democracy. Period. If you are not for economic democracy then you are not for democracy. I never saw anywhere that that democracy deprives citizens of rewards. I have seen where the founders abhorred the hoarding of wealth, capital, and corporate power. The industrial revolution might have necessitated that, but the founders insisted that if corporations were allowed to form they were REQUIRED to demonstrate the benefit TO the PUBLIC.

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

(LCW)   I just realized that I have no real idea what side of the fence you are on. What exactly is it that you believe? I don’t want to upset you or ‘waste’ your time because I don’t understand you, but I really don’t understand you. You disagree with paladin and I can grasp that, but you hate America and think it fascist, when it’s not, and seem to like Marxism and communism. And now you are starting into democracy.

I agree with you that we cannot have political democracy without economic democracy, and vice versa. So does that make you an Objectivist? That’s also what an originalist in capitalism would say as well. Period! I like that confidence, if not the uncertainty.

Actually, democracy can deprive citizens of rewards. Without the enunciated protections in our founding documents, if not in practice, as to the protection of the minority from the majority, democracy, in a pure form, allows the mob to control pretty much everything, from property to slavery, so that is not a particularly valid point.

But again, I agree with you. The founders indeed believed those things, and gave a challenge and a directive to the corporations, for the ‘privilege’ to even exist, to bring at least some kind of benefit to the people. This has been perverted greatly along the way of American history. Unfortunately, the worst offenders are our own representatives. How disturbing.

You have ‘seen’ where the founders ‘abhorred’ the hoarding of wealth, capital, and corporate power? Where, may I ask, is that evident? It would go far to suggest some credibility to all of your statements.

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

Trickle-Down economics leads to authoritarianism; it is not democratic. The concept means that the average citizen is too stupid to have control or a say in what is done the fruits of his or her own labor and that the economy has to be owned and controlled by people at the top, otherwise known as the 1%, who supposedly have the gift of knowing better.

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

(LCW)   And we are back to disagreements. This is a real roller-coaster ride if you will. I fail to see the authoritarianism in trickle-down. I just don’t see the connection to the fruits of someone’s labour, and I do not recognize the same value that you do as to that labour.

This ‘trickle-down’ was meant to be an incentive to the corporations, rightly or wrongly (my position), to invest more into their industries, and this would mean more jobs and lower prices, which it has done in many cases to some degree, but I reject giving incentives to companies or individuals to do what they should have done anyway.

I don’t agree with child credits or unearned income credits either. They (the government) continually try to ‘tweak’ the system, usually with their hands out, to make some vague and undefined, and usually ineffective change that is supposed to bring benefit to some segment of the society, but they never have any accountability, and never scrap those things that were complete failures, but if never having to prove their worth, there is no need to do anything else, and the corruption and incompetence seem to go on forever.

This is why the capitalists and Objectivists argue for a minimalist government that concerns itself with the task set for them by the founders and the Constitution, and not to make it their goal to micromanage the entire nation. While I have some respect for some of the stated intentions, if not the covert ones, of the political machine and the corporate abilities, I have no confidence in the philosophical, ethical, and moral fundamentals of those entities and individuals.

I fail to see the character I desire, and certainly do not see any integrity in their votes or their actions. I have no expectation of any kind that these people have any insight or knowledge that gives them the ability to make appropriate and beneficial decisions for the people of the country.

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

And Citizens United is just as much about the welfare of citizens as Hitler's National Socialism had anything to do with Socialism. Fascists love to couch their fascism in words that are intended to impress the public while accomplishing the exact opposite.

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

(LCW)   I have already commented on your misuse and misunderstanding of the term fascist, so I will let that lie, but Hitler’s National Socialism had many more similarities than differences, and I have gone into detail on multiple occasions already. Citizens United is a red-herring and does not really impact anything.

The monies invested will be invested under any circumstances. Favors, property, off-shore bank accounts, jobs, influence peddling on a number of levels. Contacts and information. There is no end to how someone can be compensated.

I have no real problem with CU for that reason. At least we see where they ‘invest’ their monies, and a little information is better than none. Without that, the end result is the same and we are left in the dark. I am not sure it is worth the effort. What I see is people like you being diverted from actual actions that may, in fact, bring about some of that change you desire. You dance to the strings of those you detest. It would be amusing if it were not so tragic.

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

vmitchinson

I have read thru a bunch of the comments and nobody mentioned the capitalist remark that every person should be responsible for getting their own education. They are so blinded by their position on the freedom to exploit everything, they forget that a skilled & educated work force is required for their business to prosper.

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

(LCW)   I think that you oversimplify. If not, then I possibly agree with you. I find that few of these posters give the time and effort to contemplate the various options that come with an observation. While it is true that they don’t have enough time to go into a lot of detail, that by itself should have you question exactly what it is that they say, and listening to their presentation, and trying to understand, in its entirety, would help in getting the most value from the comments.

I believe that the statement means more that they should pursue the idea of education on its own merits. I have no problem with investing, at least in the concept of making it available to anyone that wishes it, but not the abdication of responsibility for the purchase of the product of education, and it ‘is’ a commodity. When you give a free pass to someone that does not need it, or does not appreciate it or does not have the capability to use it in any tangible way, you are ‘stealing’ from the rest of the community who has to pay for it. This is simply not rational. We need a skilled and educated workforce, and I am in full agreement with that and making the process as easy as possible, but not to the oppression of others that maybe don’t fully agree, which is, without question, their right.

I want to see a system, for want of a better word, that is equitable in the sense that entry is not a matter of privilege or class, but of ability or motivation or intent. If a child does not have the ability to ever be a physicist, then an education in physics is something that should not be available. If it is their dream, then study to reach a certain level, and perhaps the indicators will change. There is no imperative, and no ‘right’, to go to college at 18, and there is no right as to where you can go. Many individuals, under the current circumstances, go to community college and later get accepted at prestigious schools, when the student body is reduced due to attrition.

I want communities to become involved to help students get motivated and incentivized to make the decision to make the effort to deserve this largesse from the rest of the country to even get in, much less pay for it. This is not unreasonable, this is not racist or biased in any way, except perhaps in relation to ability as opposed to ‘want’ or ‘need’.

I would like to see those communities get involved in covering the costs as well, not that the state may get involved to at least make sure they are reasonable, at least for those that expect government support in any capacity at all. You work with the state, or you take care of all the responsibilities yourself, and those that wish to attend your establishment, do so on their own dime. This can be extended and exists at all levels of the process of education.

We can speak of specifics and issues if you so wish. It is not an insurmountable challenge and would ensure an equity that I don’t see with the present paradigm.

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

Ivan Dafoe

@Pete Allen Don't let corrupt politicians under-fund schools, this is being done on purpose. Education is a right, a public good, and an asset to society as well as the individual.

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

(LCW)   You’ll have to explain how it is a right and not just make a proclamation. There is no right to an education, but there should be no obstacle to one either. The right is to the opportunity to pursue an education. Do you have a right to a degree? No, you have to earn it, the same as a job or any objective in life.

I don’t even know what a public good is, but it sounds chillingly like a socialist and coercive dictum, where my opinion is not necessary since the determination has already been made by smarter people than I. I am fairly certain that I already disagree. As for being an asset to both the individual and society itself, I wholeheartedly agree, but there has to be a balanced and reasonable response other than just making it ‘free’ with no restrictions or obligations. Not only is that a waste of the wealth of the greater good, but it is also self-destructive, plain and simple.

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

Libertarians have always come off as juvenile, selfish, foolish ingrates, in these current times they are seemingly delusional, tone-deaf sociopaths.

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

(LCW)   Glad to see you are into rational and respectful dialogue and not one of those ad-hominem junkies. Sure you got a lot of likes with that one. How pathetic. And you were doing so well.

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

Sheryl Matthew

Elsewhere Prof Chomsky discusses public subsidy / private profits. Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon all rely on an educated workforce, gov’t funded and maintained road system, electric grid, tech including computers developed for decades at public universities, or GPS developed at great public expense by NASA...

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

(LCW)   Good point. Maybe it should not be the government, meaning me and you, that pays for this. Perhaps it should be the companies that will profit immensely from the workforce if properly educated and highly skilled. Not that I really agree with that either, but it makes more sense than holding every single citizen hostage for the education of everyone, without distinction, and without standards of any kind.

Why don’t we have a page of checkmarks on our tax returns as to what we wish to contribute to what issues, and live with the results? That would, of course, mean that everyone files a return, and that is quickly becoming an exception, and not the rule. But why not? Is it a matter of contributions, or a matter of forcing contributions? Is it a matter of freedom, or a matter of oppression? Take your pick, it is rarely both.

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

Tom DiVittis

Henry Ford did a tremendous job of educating his workforce. He recognized it was in his best interest to do so.
As it stands, that has been foisted upon governments, leaving taxpayers to fund the education of corporations. It seems to me, one of the ultimate cons ever perpetrated.

How can you justify off-loading this responsibility onto others? Is it possible that our lack of accepting this responsibility is the primary reason education is so atrocious at this point?

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

(LCW)   Some good points. Henry Ford, by the way, built housing for his workers and gave them benefits and deals so they could buy his products. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Not really sure how it worked, and it may have not been exactly what I read, but then again, maybe it was. Is that not an acceptable scenario for most out there?

In context, and relative to what was previously discussed, I suggested having the corporations pay for the educations of the workers that will deliver profits to the corporation. They don’t do that at the moment, perhaps with a few exceptions. But the point is made here that not only do they not pay, but the government also hands them a myriad of benefits, subsidies, and assorted hand-outs, in addition to this educated workforce.

Is this what we really want? Is it really needed? Is it not just an example of corruption and everything people dislike about capitalism? But the fact is it's not capitalism, maybe crony-capitalism, and not for the people, except to foot the bill. This stuff has to stop. If you can’t stay in business, someone will take up the slack. That, my friends, actually is capitalism.

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

Paul Blair

@Pete Allen There is nothing wrong with public schools. Public school quality is largely determined by the economic conditions of the surrounding area, which schools have no control over.

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

(LCW)   I don’t even want to hear it. My parents were far from rich. My father ran a printing press in a milk container factory. Twenty-five years. Actually twenty-four and six months. Then he got canned and screwed out of a pension. I do not degrade capitalism for these actions against him. I say this to point out that this was not capitalism responsible for this, but inappropriate players devoid of ethics and morals, and integrity. As I have repeatedly stated, these people do 'not' represent capitalism in any way.

Public schools in my town were less than mediocre. I went to a Catholic school in town for elementary, and I am not sure how they could afford it. Didn’t get a penny from the government. Went to high school twenty miles away. School bus, or public transportation, bike or walk. Not a cent from the government. Where were all those socialists and liberals when my parents could have used them? I’m sorry, they were oppressing everyone into sending their kids into sub-standard educational facilities. If you can’t run the business of education, then you shouldn’t be in the business of education.

These excuses for public education are manufactured and disingenuous. They don’t want educated citizens. They tend to think for themselves and vote their conscience, and we can’t have that. Not so easy to manipulate. Now they have the system they want, stupid in, and almost as stupid out. But malleable, and susceptible to carrots.

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

TheShadowblade

Skills can be taught in a business, there called apprenticeships, you can teach people how to do a job on the job.

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

(LCW)   Another good point. And they used to be everywhere. Virtually non-existent today. Talk about the public good of society. Is this by accident or by design?

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

TheShadowblade

@Ivan Dafoe You have a false understanding of Rights. My rights cannot come at the expense of yours and vice versa, and there is no right to enslave or steal property of any sort. A ‘right’ to an education presupposes there is somebody willing to teach, if there is not then do we enslave anybody who has experience and capacity to teach? If they go on strike if it is a ‘right’ then should we force teachers to still teach?

My answer is no, and you do not have a right to the intellectual property of teachers and it cannot be a right. The only ‘right’ that would make sense is nobody stops you from seeking education but nobody is forced to give it to you.

Also, there is no such thing as a ‘public good’ as the government much less the ‘public’ can own anything, only individuals can own property and it is only applicable for them to do so.

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

(LCW)   Once again, I applaud your summation. All good points. If there is refutation, I would welcome the opportunity to see it.

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

Patrick Flanagan

@Pete Allen You reform them and up the standards of people they hire as teachers by offering higher pay and better benefits. Actually, the way businesses get better talent. Make it more attractive to go into teaching as a career.

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

(LCW)   Let’s stop being fascist and make education a private enterprise. Then we could actually do what you say. The schools that are successful will be able to pay their teachers more, which will improve the education (theoretically), et cetera. Let the parents get involved in the investment of their kids' futures. Not the responsibility of government. Fewer taxes, more money to pay for their own educations. People with six kids need to take responsibility for their actions, both before and after birth. People with two kids need to take responsibility for two.

My neighbor, (with six kids) pays the same property taxes as I do, with no child, and he makes three times what I do. How in the world is that equitable? Since more people have children than not, the tyranny of democracy once again decides in the favor of the mob, not reason. There are thousands of examples of similar scenarios. The government has way too many fingers in way too many pies, and there is a cut from each pie that never gets where it is supposed to go. That includes better salaries, better buildings, and books. Don’t you see this? The problem certainly isn’t capitalism, it’s something else, and you need to recognize exactly what that is.

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

Edward Dodson

None of the conventional "isms" address the fundamental imbalance between human and property rights associated with access to and control over nature. In terms of labor and capital goods, nature has a zero cost of production.

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

(LCW)   I am not even sure what you are speaking about. Zero cost of production? Perhaps when picking an apple from the tree but even your labour to pick the fruit is a 'cost', and only cultivated trees bear a reasonable amount of fruit. A tree for lumber needs to be cut and transported and prepared for sale as a product. The fisherman needs to catch the fish and prepare them for sale. Very little has ‘zero’ production costs.

The issue of human and property rights is not codified anywhere. It is not a legitimate claim. More a personal preference, just an opinion.

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

Nature is provided to humans for our use and survival. Almost alone among the great political and economic thinkers, the American Henry George presented a cogent argument for a labor and capital goods basis for property. Nature is, George argued, the commons from which all wealth is produced. Nature is the source of private wealth but is not legitimate private wealth.

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

(LCW)   While I agree with some of these points, at least in principle, you do not present any rational or societal evidence to this end. Again, simply your opinion, and the opinion of George, which is just a single opinion in a sea of opinion, and since your livelihood depends on this cooperative individualism concept, highly suspect as to intent and agenda. ‘Nature is the source of private wealth but is not legitimate private wealth.’ Sounds an awful lot like a socialist or collectivist opening to a monologue. Where does this claim originate? Henry George holds no significant legitimacy in my reality.

Having said that, I find much of what he talked about intriguing and worthy of further investigation. But this was almost 200 years ago, so once again we are hopelessly lost in a past that has no intellectual connection with today. He also was begging for food after his first child, we can only assume that he was incapable of furnishing the rudimentary requirements for his wife and family.

Of course, there are many possible reasons for his circumstances. But he was a democrat, a progressive, a socialist, and closely involved with unionized labour. I find it unsurprising that his perspective is being used as some kind of justification for the discussion being held today. Where are the socialist speakers for the ideology today? Why are they are on the dais, condemning capitalism, instead of trying to champion their own beliefs? Very sad.

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

The ideal structure for accessing any part of nature is under a competitive bidding system for a leasehold interest issued by the community or society. Note that government is, then, the agent of the community and society for administrating such as system.

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

(LCW)   If nature ‘cannot’ be a legitimate private wealth, then exactly who has the authority to set up an auction to ‘sell’ it? It sounds a lot like someone has to own it to sell it. How does that work? Sounds a lot like the beginning of a socialist coercive relationship. Is any of this consensual, or are we back to the original argument? Is the insertion of yet another totalitarian concept really necessary?

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

As deeds to nature had already become a widespread norm, George argued that a second-best approach was for government to collect from every "owner" of land (broadly defined to include such natural assets with an inelastic supply as frequencies on the broadcast spectrum) the full potential annual rental value. This would serve as the fund with which to pay for democratically agreed-upon public goods and services, which the potential for an annual citizen's dividend to be distributed. The term that best described the principles embraced by Henry George is "cooperative individualism".

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

(LCW)   And we are back to this unregulated democracy once again, as well as redistribution. So we have a million ‘land-owners’ and 300 million non-owners. The vote is in and it is 300 million to 1 million. I guess there is no coercion there. You do understand how ignorant the concept is, don’t you?

In what way has this ‘already’ become a widespread norm? Do you mean robber barons getting thousands of acres for a mere fraction of their worth? Do you mean those horrible capitalists getting leases for next to nothing for land on which to drill for oil that will last until, like Maxwell House, to the last drop? If this is your norm, then it is the norm of corruption, crony capitalism, and the worst example of the ‘greater good’ that I have ever seen.

And might I add, I am irrevocably against all of these ‘norms’ of the past, and would like to have them relegated to the dust of history. A legitimate version of true capitalism, as presented by Objectivism, may just be able to do so, but there has never been, and I believe there never will be, a version of socialism with even a glimmer of hope to that end.

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

Edward J. Dodson, Director
School of Cooperative Individualism
www.cooperative-individualism.org

Edward Dodson

@SoulChills The question: "What is the just source of public revenue?" The answer: "Rent". Rent is defined as that portion of the tangible goods we produce that is beyond the contributions of labor and the use of capital goods. This occurs as a result of advantage. Some advantages exist in nature (e.g., superior fertility of soils, climate, nearness to navigable waterways, subsurface minerals, forests, etc.).

In towns and cities, the advantages accrue to locations because of a combination of population density and investment in public goods and services. Rents also arise whenever an asset has an inelastic supply (e.g., frequencies on the broadcast spectrum). Rents also arise whenever government issues competition-limiting licenses (e.g., liquor licenses or taxi medallions).

Taxation under cooperative individualism's principles is an unjust confiscation of legitimate private property. Thus, in an ideal world, the exchange of goods and services should not be taxed. Income earned producing goods and services should not be taxed. Tangible assets (i.e., buildings, machinery, and equipment) should not be taxed.

If one is charged by the community or society the full value of whatever rents are associated with the above advantages and privileges, no additional financial obligation would be owed to the public sector.

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

(LCW)  I already tire of the ‘Directors’ comments, as self-serving as they are. We are here to talk of the morality of socialism, not some interesting and amusing socialistic failure from centuries past. Focus on socialism today, and perhaps we can talk of your garden tax at some point in the future. Better yet, why don’t you put something of substance up on youtube and refrain from trying to hi-jack yet another venue.

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

ryh

@Jeffrey Bowers Thanks for a thoughtful response. So the more appropriate ideal would seem to be, not "no govt", but "as much govt as needed, and no more". A detailed and nuanced discussion about the govt's role in sustaining a functioning market and the trade-offs or limitations therein - as seen in Smith and Mill and even Hayek (ch9 of Road to Serfdom) - would've been more constructive than vague sloganeering about "the state" that makes no distinction between despotism and democracy.

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

(LCW)   That is my interpretation of the Objectivist perspective, and one that I find has some difficulties due to the fact that our American reality has become so fundamentally complex, due to government interference, I am not sure that it can even be ‘undone’.

While acknowledging that the ‘state’ can be rather vague, with the caveat that it should be as minimalist as possible, it at least points towards the intent to relieve that state from being an oppressive or intrusive aspect to the system in place. We have allowed ourselves to be positioned in a secondary position to the state when it should be the state taking the subservient role to the economy as well as the will of the people if that means anything anymore.

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

Jeffrey Bowers

@ryh That conversation would fill an entire debate in and of itself :) Binswanger does, however, point out in the latter half of the video that this is what they are saying, and that capitalism promotes limited government control due to its free market and libertarian ideals. As Hitchens alludes to at one point though, they are overlooking the point that you can graft the capitalist economic system to multiple government structures (many of which have strong government controls).

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

(LCW)   What Mr. Hitchens does not acknowledge is that capitalism, like socialism, can indeed be ‘grafted’ onto multiple structures, but the articulated intent is for it to be one of a much-reduced footprint as to the administration of any system. Any instance where the state takes preference and control is an example of what is not considered legitimate. He is not attempting any reasoned discussion about alternatives, but fitting the square peg into the round hole to justify his perspective, irrespective if anyone agrees with him.

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

ryh

@Jeffrey Bowers The Binswanger part I think you're referring to is 1:26:09, that "the most dangerous thing is a government", and that its proper role is only to protect you from violence foreign and domestic? Granting that he meant "most dangerous" as a rhetorical flourish (otherwise, the statement is contradictory: why would you trust the most dangerous thing to protect you from less dangerous things?), and given the objection I already made about vague umbrella terms like "the state" conflating Stalin's gulags with free lunch programs for poor kids, I'm confused by the intermingling of idealism & empiricism: e.g. he claims that only equality before the law matters (43:15 & 1:05:22) and that there is no good objection to inequality of wealth (44:15) yet empirical facts (which he places great stress on otherwise) show that the latter generally nullifies the former, i.e. great inequalities of wealth lead to great inequalities before the law.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure what to think of your comments. Correcting grammar does not particularly intrigue me. While I agree with your observations that great inequalities of wealth ‘can’ lead to great inequalities before the law, the point I would make is that they ‘should’ not, and do not ‘have’ to result in the same. I think the distinction is that many, if not most, individuals, and certainly governments, make an attempt to pass laws and make changes to right these inequalities when they already have the means by which to prevent, mitigate or reverse, not the inequality, but the abuse of the situation.

I rarely see this inequality result from the legitimate acquisition of wealth, but invariably from those that are, what you might call, inappropriate players. I fail to imagine anyone, under any ideology, that would wish an inequality under the law. I would find it difficult to respect or engage with someone who thought otherwise. As for the ‘inequality’ of wealth, it seems to be more from an envious, ignorant, and simplistic perspective, that the perverted conventional wisdom is that this inequality is the culprit and not these inappropriate players.

Wealth does not compel individuals to act contrary to articulated objectives, such as those presented by the Founders. It is a lack of character, an inability to act in an ethical and moral manner, a person devoid of integrity that is required to create an environment that is contrary to the best interests of the whole. I hope that we can agree on this as well.

This only necessitates and demands that our representation, our state, fulfill their obligations to administer said law and justice in a way commensurate with expectations. This is always the intent, and I see no connection to wealth as being the culprit, although I acknowledge that extreme wealth is a temptation that is difficult for most to resist. I am not sure that because of the failure of the human condition to weather this temptation that we remove legitimately gained wealth from the paradigm. Rather, I think, those unscrupulous and repugnant players should go in their stead. Anything else is self-destructive and contrary to justice, to begin with.

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

Perhaps he would argue that he's against this (but that would be toothless unless he explains how to prevent it, since it's otherwise a proven consequence of conditions he espouses, just as gulags are proven consequences of centralized control), or that the net gain of unleashing producers outweighs the costs of their corruption, or something -- but few libertarians/Objectivists (Binswanger included) seem to even notice a tension or limitation in these objectives, whereas great writers like Smith did and warned against it in great detail.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say with this. It is not appropriate to just identify the problem, one must supply the resolution as well? This is not how life works. Once we recognize that the confiscation of wealth, for false reasons, is not the right course of action, it is the imperative for all of us to ultimately define and develop a response.

Toothless seems to be the norm in our society. Random players articulate what they deem to be the problem, and then, without justification, we create legislation that often deconstructs the ‘inalienable’ rights of one individual and subjugates them to the benefit of others, often in a dishonest and morally corrupt way. I have yet to hear a reasoned argument against ‘wealth’ ethically gained. Wealth has no motives and no intent. It is only those in possession of said wealth that can direct action. We need to focus on that.

Are gulags really consequences of centralized control? Proven by whom? That would suggest that we remove centralized control from any future considerations under any circumstances. Or do you support and condone gulags?

The gain of production outweighing the costs of corruption? Is your name Marx by any chance? What a reprehensible consideration. This seems to support the idea of the ends justifying the means, which is irrational, and with which I passionately disagree.

The fascinating aspect of this is that no mention is ever made of what the collectivist or liberal proposes. I see so much derision of the capitalist and Objectivist positions in these comments, but the proclamations of socialists are rarely questioned, and when asked, are never answered. How does the collectivist control these issues in the future when their vision is realized? How do they deal with corruption? How do they deal with the wealth that always seems to end up in the hands of a select few when socialism and communism are able to take control? What is their position on the use of force? When has forced ‘sacrifice’ ever resulted in successful production?

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

That said, I don't think the Socialists here argued much better and similarly took refuge in hazy language and begged questions. Perhaps (as you suggested) these debate formats and the demands of brevity don't leave much room for the kind of analysis I'm looking for.

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

(LCW)   I can’t argue with that observation. Both sides are restricted by time constraints. Perhaps we should take two hours and only speak of a single issue? The issue is that we had enough time, over two hours in this instance, to talk about the focus of tonight's debate, the morality of the ideologies, but decided instead to talk about almost anything but. Not a time issue, but a real reluctance to talk about morality. But in any case, while far from satisfactory, my perspective is that a demonstrably better presentation was made by our capitalist speakers. They at least attempted to speak of the concept of morality, which, after all, was the objective of the debate itself.

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

kkgauthier

Interesting that the capitalists take credit at every turn for historical advancement, while simultaneously claiming that capitalism has never historically existed.

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

(LCW)   Interesting how the collectivists blame capitalism for every instance of historical oppression, even though they often existed in a ‘socialist’ environment, even though they protest that their own new and improved version of socialism never existed as well. What’s your point? It seems that your bias is showing.

I don’t see the capitalists characterizing every historical advancement as the result of capitalism, while I agree that they say that true capitalism has never existed, which is arguable, but not really an unreasonable statement. They have articulated what they wish to implement, and their positions have not changed at any time I have heard them, so at least they have some consistency, as opposed to our new socialists that today promote not only ‘democratic socialism’ but ‘market socialism’ as well as some cooperative ‘capitalistic socialism’. I wasn’t sure exactly what constituted socialism when we started, and I am even more confused and frustrated as we wade through a morass of indecision and vague concepts that inevitably end up with socialism ‘never having existed’ as well, and for good reason.

Since what the capitalists are promoting has truly never been tried, it sounds a bit disingenuous perhaps, but as stated, it never has. I don’t think that they say capitalism in any form has not existed, only what they promote. If they made some kind of distinction and called it social capitalism, would that be acceptable to you? I really don’t think it would. You would accuse them of hiding from the truth and trying to misinform the audience. Instead, they hold their ground and continue to present a consistent perspective on what it is that they would like to promote and implement. A bit complicated perhaps, but much more legitimate than what I see coming from the socialist side.

I think it is inarguable that certain things that have been tried by different versions of capitalism have been tried and been somewhat successful. Is it appropriate for them to include these positive attempts into their own version, or can we not build on achievement when trying to make something superior to anything that has been before? I think it is an acceptable template and applaud their efforts. I am still waiting to hear what the socialist intends to do, specifically, to compete with anything capitalism has accomplished, no matter how weak or imperfect in its implementation.

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

How is this not blatantly obvious double speak?

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

(LCW)   If this ‘double-speak’ does in fact exist, it is inherent in both narratives. Let’s not get lost in irrelevancies. Let us grant them both the benefit of the doubt, and accept that the versions that they champion are unique concepts, and their references to history are simply to point out the successes when something similar was attempted, with some degree of success. That they envision something better with their new and improved visions.

To that end, let’s have the socialists stop dwelling in the historical past, and focus on what they actually believe today, and have them explain the how and why of their new paradigms. I find that the capitalists at least made an effort, while the socialists made a concerted effort only to remain in their deterministic and tightly held positions. Let’s try something completely different and lay our cards on the table, and make those reasoned arguments, and allow them to persuade us, the audience, as to the veracity of their claims. In fact, I am still waiting to discover what those claims actually are, not to mention the fundamentals of the underlying morality of the ideology itself.

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

Then there's the notion that all the civilizations that were destroyed by imperial expansion were somehow starving and squalid and in desperate need of European influence, and were all made somehow better by it. This notion requires an extreme ignorance of the world and its history.

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

(LCW)   From the standpoint of your own ignorance that may well be true. Your words bring no clarity, no legitimacy, and no credibility. Were actual ‘civilizations’ destroyed? Can you be more specific, with examples and evidence? Most civilizations die by their own hand. Are we talking of India? Has that been destroyed? Is it not a somewhat vibrant nation today? If not India, who are we talking about?

If these ‘destroyed’ civilizations were ‘not’ starving and squalid and in desperate need of European influence, then why was there a need for imperial expansion at all? Why did the people not reject whatever was offered and continue the beneficial existence that was already there? If only capitalism was used as a weapon, then I reject their actions, while, if it was something else, then capitalism holds no responsibility, and the governments and others interests involved hold complete responsibility.

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

What we now call the Third World is a direct result of European exploitation in every single case. Most of the places taken over and turned into plantation states were described by early explorers as idyllic paradises, innocent and ripe for the picking, and nothing like the hell holes that they were eventually turned into.

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

(LCW)   What rubbish. In every single case? One man’s paradise is another’s jungle, especially when they are not living off the land as a savage. While abuses occurred, there was little there to begin with, and it was done with the consent and knowledge of those who were, for the most part, the legitimate voice of their own people.

Like it or not, how do you get to define anything, especially historically? I don’t condone anything done in these areas, but it was not a concerted effort through capitalism, but once again, through the actions and interests of corrupt and ruthless individuals. I find it fascinating that you cannot discern the distinction between the two. Your bias is quite apparent.

An idyllic paradise for those with all necessities and conveniences, but perhaps not for those living like animals in a violent and dangerous environment. Is this really the case you wish to present?

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

Of course, the most ridiculous contradiction is when a person proclaims individual freedom as a primary ideal while promoting a system based upon a hierarchy where people are expected to pledge their reverence and obedience to their designated "superiors".

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

(LCW)   Who does that? What are you even talking about? Your opinion is vapid and without merit. Who is pledging reverence and obedience to their superiors? I see no rational comments here, only manufactured fantasy.

Do you not see the comparison with your own words with the concepts of the many and the few? Not the few with wealth that takes advantage of everyone else, but the few, as in the case of every collectivist regime, where the few, who spoke for the greater good, lived a life far removed from those they directed. Are not socialists expected to pledge their reverence and obedience to the ‘greater good’? Is not the state their ‘superior’? Are you that detached from your own words?

Incredible.

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

The objectivists advocate for the freedom of every man to pursue the domination and submission of his perceived inferiors.

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

(LCW)   Now you are just insulting the intelligence of anyone sho reads this. You cannot reference anyone even remotely involved with Objectivism that has ever made such a comment. Where do they speak of inferiors? If you had any comprehension or even superficial knowledge of what you speak, you could not possibly say this. How disingenuous, how dishonest. Repugnant.

There is no concept of domination or submission of others in the philosophy of Objectivism. I have never perceived such an intent in anything that I have seen, and I am confident that I have read a majority of what Rand produced. Perhaps not so much with those that have come after. In any case, please reference them or have the decency to step back and reconsider your positions.

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

This is the system we currently live in, with the exception of certain weak government interference, and it is that interference that the capitalist side seeks to eradicate in order to pursue a more absolute domination of what they perceive to be the strong over the weak.

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

(LCW)   If you call this current paradigm we live in a ‘weak’ interference, you are well past irrational. There are those that pursue that domination of which you speak, but it is certainly, and demonstrably not the Objectivists, comrade. Nor any capitalistic component. If you have any evidence to this end, notwithstanding your somewhat specious opinion, I would love to discuss it.

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

Kropotkin Beard

Every time I hear "capitalists" speak, the more I move further away from them. They sound like salesmen using the language of freedom to justify their product, blah, blah, blah...In addition, I'm not sure I've ever heard a capitalist speak who knows the first thing about socialism, nor have they've shown themselves to here.

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

(LCW)   I can rarely find a socialist that knows the first thing about socialism either, so I guess we are even? The difference is that I came today to listen and learn about socialism for the specific reason that I cannot find anyone that can explain socialism in any intellectual sense. It just doesn’t make sense and I see that you will not be the one to offer any clarity, nor will your ‘scholars’ that sit on the dais to represent the ideology. Another opportunity missed, for both of us and all of the audience.

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

John Bolden III

Every time I hear "socialists" speak, the more I move further away from them. They sound like religious loons using the language of morality to justify their authoritarianism. In addition, I'm not sure I've ever heard a socialist speak who knows the first thing about Capitalism, or how their "socialist" countries in Europe actually function. Nor do they have any evidence that it would work in the U.S and wouldn't send the economies of European countries spiraling when they don't have the U.S to rely on.

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

(LCW)   Haven’t you been listening? There are no socialist countries. The socialists said it has never existed, so indeed it must be true. There are only capitalist countries that support socialist programs that could not exist without capitalist support. Sad, but true.

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

Kropotkin Beard

@William Your comment demonstrates that you'd probably be better off on a knitting page. Hitler was NOT a socialist in any way, shape, or form, regardless of what Shapiro or Prager U tells you.

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

(LCW)   I don’t know about William, and presumably neither do you, but I have no connection to Shapiro or Prager. Don’t particularly know or care about them. Is that where you get ‘your’ ammunition? Pretty lame. You are not doing your own research if that is what you are investing your time into. If you consider them as sources for anything of substance you are not looking in the right places.

Hitler was of course a socialist, in name and in practice. All you have to do is pry yourself away from Shapiro and research the programs that were proposed and initiated under his administration. All right out of the liberal and socialist platforms. To reject and dismiss this is irrational, and defines your own positions as ignorant and biased, which they seem to be.

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

The other are all different, not much socialism in any of them. NOT all "seriously short on freedom and religion", though the shortage on religion ought to be welcomed. Regarding not just "capitalist leaders", but capitalism altogether, why do you need to ask me? Why don't you know already before coming here? Have you done any research to look at all the failings of capitalism?

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

(LCW)   Again for those who are fundamentally, intellectually challenged, capitalism has no reason, no ego, no expectations, and no imperatives. It is an ‘idea’, whether you agree or not, and it is a tool or a weapon. Those that use it appropriately, use it as a tool, and there is no expropriation or exploitation, and no harm is initiated towards others. Now, when the socialist-minded get control of the concept of capitalism, it is used in a way that is selfish and detrimental to those they take advantage of.

It is then a weapon to control and to manipulate, and all those things the naïve little socialist believes on the street, are used to achieve domination over others through the use of force and propaganda, as illustrated by your own comments. I believe that you need to heed your own advice and research to look at all the successes and failures attributed to both of the ideologies before coming to conclusions that do not include all of the information necessary to make valid decisions.

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

If not, why not? It's not like they're a secret. Takes work NOT to know of them.

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

(LCW)   It does indeed. I can see that you have been working overtime to ‘not’ see what really exists. You have no evidence to the contrary, you have presented nothing of substance, and not even any independent opinions, only the rantings of Marx and Hitchens, and now, you.

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

So, after you make a good faith effort at looking at all of the horrors capitalism has left in its wake, then perhaps we can have a conversation.

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

(LCW)   I may be wrong, but I just have a feeling that conversation is not going to happen. I see no good faith in your comments, and while many horrors have been committed, possibly in the ‘name’ of capitalism, I have made it clear enough why that is simply not the case. Capitalism makes no decisions, people do, and what they ultimately decide is arguably ‘not’ capitalism. Your resistance to the concept only solidifies my own perception that you are not interested in any discussions.

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

But just a hint, you'll likely not find these by looking at sources of those pushing your faith. This is what capitalists most often do.

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

(LCW)   So your expertise extends to the motivations and impulses of the capitalist? Do you understand what a bigoted and ignorant comment that is? Do you actually think that you can paint a ‘capitalist’ with such a broad brush? That’s like saying all socialists are idiots, which would not be true. It may be that all idiots are socialists, but not the other way around.

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

They reference the very sources which confirm their beliefs. That's like a Scientologist asking another Scientologist what's wrong with their detractors' arguments against them rather than asking the detractors directly. Millions killed by capitalism.

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

(LCW)   You are actually somewhat amusing, in a perverted sort of way. Who have the socialists referenced? Is anyone objective and independent? No? Just Marx and Hegel and Hitler and Stalin and Lenin, and of course, Hitchens. What a comprehensive group.

And even more, millions were killed by collectivism. What’s your point?

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

Do your homework and get back to me.

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

(LCW)   Been there, done that. Your positions remain illegitimate. So now what?

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

Vinayak

@seriously short of normal Democracy provides the option to change the governments. But one cannot vote out an oligarch.

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

(LCW)   Good point. How does it work in socialism when change is needed? How does one make changes to perfection? How is that implemented? Is there a socialist constitution? Is there a way to amend the socialist dogma? At least capitalism leaves options for change if the 'people' have the motivation and determination to do so.

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

seriously short of normal

@Vinayak the consumers can ruin any corporation they want to by simply not buying their products or services. You may not be able to vote out an oligarch but you can bankrupt them.

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

(LCW)  Any socialists wish to refute? Economics 101. He’s done his homework, where’s a reasoned response? Listen, …. Hear that? Silence.

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

Democracy has no inherent value, and evil is still evil no matter how many people vote for it. Either way, the core value of democracy is still just plain old "might makes right" in the way that the majority makes the rules and the minority just has to suffer in silence lest the majority (of voters in this case) become even more oppressive, which is starting to happen today in America.

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

(LCW)   There are distinctions. The socialists on the platform are the ones promoting a pure democracy, a direct vote by the people. America was founded as a republic, with its form of democracy constrained, supposedly by the Constitution, which protects the interests of the ‘minority’ as well. The fact that corruption has pretty well rendered this intent impotent notwithstanding, does not negate the fact that the intent and understanding was a part of the Founders' perspective. It is a direct response to the accusations you fling at American capitalism, irrespective of the evidence to the contrary of your insinuations. Really illegitimate insinuations I might add.

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

jonathan priest

Are these two models real? In the sense that there truly is a dichotomy? Is it possible that these two economic models exist only in the collective imagination as a result of the literary tradition? We read Marx, or Adam Smith, and so on and develop discourse based on the literature. We then project these models onto the world around us. Are these models subjective to some degree? Could an entirely different model exist?

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

(LCW)   Of course they are subjective. Anyone who thinks otherwise is only fooling themselves. Of course, different models can exist. Go ahead and introduce one. Does reality exist? Do any of our commenters comprehend what they present? Do they do so from a perspective of reason, or simply one of fear and hatred, which is undeniable? Who is John Galt?

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

Ivan Dafoe

@Max James The "most important part of Randian philosophy" is blatantly misrepresenting social cohesion and cooperation as an overwhelming 24/7 obsession with "selflessness", which is not even close to being an honest argument...it's nonsense. Since such a degree of selflessness is rarely the case (of course we all have our lives etc.), it cannot be the basis of or justification for the extremist, cult-ish Randian view of "absolutely opposing worldviews" where selfishness is all that matters.

How you "Objectivists" miss this basic flaw is astounding.

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

(LCW)   Why you refuse to comprehend that this is not a fundamental of Objectivism is more than astounding. Objectivism represents a true cohesion and cooperation within society because it is based on absolutely, inarguably, on concepts of voluntary trade, and by that is meant any type of personal interaction between adults in any form, and the total absence of coercion in any way. Any form of coercion is anathema to Objectivism and almost exclusively a part of every criticism of Objectivism that I have seen. There is no exploitation or expropriation of any kind, by definition. If the individual takes actions in opposition to this precept, then they are neither Objectivist nor true capitalists. That is not an opinion, but more a demonstrable fact.

If a Christian promotes murder, they are in reality not a Christian, even if they go to church or receive the sacraments. A socialist, if they wish to be a rugged individualist, cannot be considered a socialist, since the ideology frowns on not being a part of the collective. An Objectivist that goes against these principles is an Objectivist in name only, and not really even that. This is not really an opinion, but a reasoned representation of reality.

I find your inclusion, incessantly, of some self-held belief of what ‘selfishness’ is, to be without legitimacy since the Objectivist only speaks of rational self-interest, which has no relationship to that interpretation. If you really wish to discuss such things in a reasonable environment, it is an imperative that you take my own definition of my stated conceptual reality, and refute and argue against that definition only, and not just argue with yourself. That is irrational and counter-productive. You may go home very smug and satisfied with your presentation, from a very single-minded and selfish perspective, but in reality, you achieve nothing, persuade no one, and realistically, only look the fool.

If you truly wish to have a legitimate argument, it is only reasonable if you have an environment that is acceptable to both sides. As an Objectivist, that would suggest that we compete in a way that brings mutual benefit, or understanding as the case may be, through mutual agreement, and while the benefit may not be realized, the agreement must be, or there can be no intellectual engagement or exchange of ideas, and that is to the detriment of all, especially since this is supposed to be a debate based on goodwill and good intent. From what I see, the probability of that happening is not strong.

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

maril s

44:30 No argument against bad luck having moral significance? Is he really saying that in a society, those with great good fortune have no moral imperative to aid a neighbor who is devastated by bad luck? Has moral philosophy really changed this much since 1986?

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

(LCW)   The problem is that I see socialism as not interested in any moral philosophy whatsoever, besides perhaps a rhetorical one. Objectivism promotes the moral imperative to aid a neighbor who is disadvantaged for whatever reason. Luck is not the best example. If ‘good’ luck demands some undefined morality to help others, does it not follow that ‘bad’ luck gives an individual the right to inflict pain and suffering and even death with impunity simply because they feel disadvantaged? I see no imperatives to help another within socialism except in some impersonal, antiseptic environment where all help all, but not by choice but by diktat. Looking at it from my perspective, if I am a part of one of those ‘all’s, I do not see my voice as an independent consideration, so it is ‘not’ all for all, but all, through the insertion of forcible means, for the betterment of all the others, and at times at my own expense, whether I agree with, or wish to be a part of this benefit. This seems diametrically opposed to the stated intent of socialism.

Just as a side note, and FYI, I was just reading something today that made the point that Marx himself did not believe that all men were equal, or should be treated that way. I hope that does not diminish his value in your eyes. He believed all men had different levels of ability, which led to his famous quote about from each according to his abilities, and to each according to their needs. This was actually a sneaky way of demanding that those with abilities superior to my own have to acquiesce and submit to the confiscation of the fruits of their labour, under the guise of ‘donating’ this resource, so it could be redistributed to those with little or no abilities at all. That is something drastically different than the way most interpret the phrase. I always had a profound concern with the quote, and today finally received a true revelation as to the real intent of the philosophy. Needless to say, I was not impressed.

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

Sam Greenlaw

"The Earth is a common treasury" deserves repetition. As we watch the many Lucifers sitting on the many shoulders giving bad advice. All rooted in the notion that greed is good.

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

(LCW)   If only you had some insight into your own contribution. I totally agree with the concept, in context. We are indeed the caretakers of this planet, and all that exists upon the earth. You can’t find another individual that believes so deeply that this is an imperative that exists due to our level of evolution if we can call it that, and the power we hold over the creatures and the land we co-exist with.

The fact that an Objectivist says this must drive most of you crazy. But it’s true. The problem is that pesky concept of force that others think is perfectly acceptable in relation to the issue. As long as we do what ‘they’ want, coercion is acceptable. Me? I say it is never justifiable at all, and only under very specific conditions, such as self-defense, and not just an emotional one, but a reasoned and legitimate situation that can be proven to be a valid and demonstrable one.
I don’t care about Lucifers sitting on your shoulder. That is a personal problem between you and your ego, or yourselves, as the case may be. I accept responsibility for my actions. I do not try to deflect that responsibility by blaming little devils. I suggest you grow up and do the same.

Greed, like the concepts of selfishness and money and profit, to mention only a few, is a benign concept. It is only those individuals, intent on control and self-interest, in the worst possible connotations, that make it a bad concept. Greed is the wish, perhaps irrational and obsessive, to obtain material goods. It does not denote the harming of others, or the taking by force, only the obtaining. There is no negative imperative connected to this concept, except perhaps in the obsession and the waste of time and resources chasing something that does not necessarily help in self-growth or our interaction with others.

This is like the phrase ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. I long ago refuted and dismissed the concept. That was only in the case of corrupt and inferior individuals with the absence of ethics and morals and character, without the strength to exhibit an integrity worthy of respect by others. Bad people will almost always do the wrong thing, but it is not a given, not an absolute. There still remains a conscience and the possibility that they will do the right thing.

And the good person, the individual that has these things? They will invariably do the good thing and rarely step on the other side of that line of integrity. When they deal with rational self-interest or even greed, although I find that somewhat contradictory to the personality, they act with restraint and compassion, with reason and empathy, and they do nothing to hurt another, which ends up as a positive result. What is wrong with either of these things if no one is hurt in any way and results in an individual being the best version of themselves that they can be, and invariably in a position to help others less fortunate? Isn’t that what we want? The Objectivist wants that person to be successful so they can, at the discretion of that individual, help others, while the socialist wants to force everyone to help everyone, and history has shown that, in the end, no one at all is helped, and that is unfortunate.

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

palladin331

Think again. Any system that produces anything that can be traded is creating a capital asset. Capital creation occurs in all economic and political systems. What modern capitalism does is organize and standardize the monetary system and allow the accumulation of massive capital (wealth) whenever and wherever possible. The resulting imbalances are corrected by social (socialistic) policies. If the rich suck up all the wealth, then the system is called 'welfare for the rich'. But the goal is not statism in which the state owns the means of production; that concept must be discarded. It is obvious that capitalism cannot function without socialism; and vice versa.

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

(LCW)   I appreciate your view, and agree with much of it, at least in essence, especially the notion that the goal should ‘not’ be statism. We diverge when you comment that capitalism cannot function without socialism. I would agree with voluntary altruism possibly, but not socialism. Socialism has a component that seems to be mandatory, and that is the issue of force used to accomplish the goals of the ideology. I simply cannot support such an abomination. There can be no liberty or freedom through the use of the opposite.

It is not capitalism that cannot exist without this altruism, but mankind. Capitalism, I must again point out, is nothing more than an ideal, a system of trade, and can be replaced. Mankind, without ‘voluntary’ altruism, will not be able to help those that may need it, but if coerced, it is without legitimacy, since only those that are affiliated with those in control of said force, will be helped, and history shows us that will be inferior as well.

So we need to be careful in the support of those things, that no matter how tempting they may be presented, are anathema to our ultimate goals, and in this instance, an environment that we may all live in some semblance of peace and tranquility, even if not in a world of absolute equality, which is irrational.

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

Samuel Marks

@palladin331 Ridiculous definitions. There is some evidence that Australian Aboriginals produced goods for trading. Does that make them capitalistic? - Your definition of welfare is also off, if I—an individual—give charity, that action would be considered "socialist" under your definition. Outrageous.

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

(LCW)   They are over the top. Your criticisms are valid and appropriate. The essence of capitalism and trade has existed as long as there have been human beings, or close. The aboriginals did not practice capitalism. That was a structured and modern version that came much later, but it is hard to argue that it was not a primitive form of capitalism, without any of the bells and whistles.

My altruism will never be socialistic in nature, as per my previous comments. It needs to be done by my voluntary agreement and intent and through no coercion. When force is used, on principle alone I reject my own actions, and that helps no one. And that is the direct result of socialism and the obsession and need to use force to help others. It does nothing of the kind.

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

palladin331

@Samuel Marks Anything that is traded (bartered, bought, and sold) is a market transaction. It is the exchange of a capital good for another capital good or money. The recipient of your charity, on the other hand, did nothing in your behalf to earn it (you deemed it worthy for its own sake).

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

(LCW)   I would argue that it was not for its own sake, although this may be parsing it a bit too much. It was in direct response to my own needs and philosophy, not theirs. I saw the need existed, and my own ethics and morals, and subjective interpretations of the circumstances led me to a conclusion that I would like to help.

Empathy tells me that anyone, even myself, could be in that situation, or someone I know or love, and I would think it reasonable to think that I should help when I can, but only when I want to, and not when ‘you’ deem it appropriate. That, I think, is the main distinction between welfare and personal decisions.

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

So it was not a market transaction. It was an adjustment of your income or wealth, transferring it from you to benefit someone else. That kind of rebalancing, which can also be achieved through taxation, is socialistic in nature. Do you find this outrageous? Why?

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

(LCW)   You were doing so well. It is indeed not a market transaction, but I could make the case that I was trading peace of mind for a resource, or capital, as it were. I was indeed transferring it, but equating it with taxation is illegitimate. One is by my choice alone, the other through direct force. I was not ‘asked’. No attempt of persuasion was used unless you define physical violence in your lexicon as persuasion. Yes, I do find it outrageous. One has no rational connection to another, except to a socialist, and one who is willing to ‘sacrifice’ their philosophy to a false conclusion.

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

ChannelMath

@Todd MARTIN I just wonder if class can actually be eliminated, as I think Marx intended. There will probably always be factions, and if one faction gains a structural advantage, it may fairly be called an oppressing class?

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

(LCW)   Class is a distinction that is inevitable, depending of course, on what you are trying to define. Whether you accept it or recognize it, or not, they exist, and cannot be legislated one way or the other. There will always be a class of those of intelligence, those of ability, those of wealth, and those of power, as well as many others. Doesn't really matter what Marx or Hitchens wants, they exist, always have, and always will.

I think the whole paradigm of mankind needs to change for that to happen. We can desire some mythical example of human perfection, but it is pure fantasy to think it will happen anytime in the next dozens of centuries, perhaps millennia. No, the only alternative is to focus on the individual, which is anathema to the socialist, and give them every opportunity to become one with ‘self’ and investigate and discover whatever truths exist in the concept of philosophy. If anyone does not agree with this desire, the only alternative I see is the use of that force that is so in vogue with the collective. What other options do you envision? I don’t see any.

We need to immerse our children, from the day they are born, to search for those objective truths that exist in the world around us, or at least the best representations we can find. To not indoctrinate, and I understand that it is so tempting to do so, but if we wish for those that follow us to improve on what was done before, we have to give them the tools to do so, and restricting them to our existing inadequacies and insights is not the proper action.

We have to allow them to flourish on their own terms, after giving them all of the basics that we can provide. I am not saying this will be easy, by any means, but only that it is necessary if our children are to overcome the ignorance, the ability to hate, the fear that consumes so many of us, the racisms that exist in the victims as well as the oppressors, the need to control and coerce.

We need to step back at some point and let them find the answers. We have not, and they may not, but we have to let them try. I see no other path forward, or we will experience the millennia with the same progress we have seen over time, and that is no real progress at all.

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

Todd MARTIN

@ChannelMath I don't know. All we can do is try to find ways. I think with measures that push more direct democracy in the lives of people, we could approach closer and closer.

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

(LCW)   No, no, no. you are not paying attention. Direct democracy is not the answer. Every atrocity ever experienced can be revisited through direct democracy. A different perspective is required. Not just outside the box, but outside even our expectations.

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

Maybe if we don't realize a society free of class, but a society where the class structure made more sense and could be changed. I am thinking of more COOPs. Where workers can make decisions through direct democracy. They can set their CEO/management's salary by their performance. If there isn't a raise for workers, it’s because they decide to take the year's profits and reinvest it into the company, etc.

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

(LCW)   Some Utopian dream is not realistic. It is not the existence of class, but the existence of ego and selfishness and greed, but as we incessantly argue, we fail to accept that there are two sides to each of these coins. All of them are destructive and have proven so over and over, but they have all had instances of positive results as well, and we need to create more positives than negatives, and comprehending that it is even possible is the first step, and these comments today show just how difficult this will be.

Co-ops are fine. No one is stopping anyone from creating and implementing and managing a co-op. but a true co-op cannot be someone dictating to another. You suggest workers with the ability to oppress management, to replace management oppressing workers. This is not going to work. You need workers managing workers, and perhaps you will find out just how hard the concept is to flourish in reality. But I wish you luck, more than you know.

You talk of pure socialism, and it can work, but not through coercion. You need to find those people of ability, far beyond your own, hopefully, that are willing to put in the time and effort to make those decisions, those hard decisions, to make the concern a success. Willing to accept the same or only slightly more than the ‘regular’ workers, but my experience is that those workers feel equal to any management, and refuse to give them their due, then lose those that can do what they cannot, and the whole enterprise is down the chute.

It is one of the fundamental faults of collectivism as a whole. They do not recognize that individuals have never been equal, and never will be. If anyone or everyone could do it, then they would already be doing it, and it hasn’t happened, because it is not possible.

Even if the Co-op is successful, do you ever really think they will not vote themselves a raise, first, before reinvesting in the company or actually giving a raise to management? I would have to see that to believe it. I am not saying that it is not possible, because there are communes and co-ops that have existed from the ’60s that still work, but they are few and far between, not because the idea and the internal structure is viable on its own, but because of the individuals that comprise the enterprise.

I have been repeating this over and over. The successes and failures of all of these ‘systems' and ideologies sink and swim based on the integrity and character of the players, and not the actual systems themselves. You can pervert any game, but if all the players play by the same rules, and you can negate cheating and manipulation, the superior player, or ideas, or systems, will win in the end. We have too many games, too many unscrupulous players, and not enough men and women of integrity. Nothing ever changes, nothing ever will, unless we make it so.

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

Contra Deception

If you have to take away rights then you are working counter to a moral outcome. Slavery haunts America today because the men who employed it denied recognizing human rights contradictory to the constitution. 41 of the 56 signers of the bill of rights owned slaves and the slaves didn't know they had these rights. They had denied the reality from them. If it’s true let it be known so proper discourse can follow. Denying a fact or argument on the basis that it is detrimental to your wants or needs is denying reality and is immoral in any system of governance.

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

(LCW)   The lack of historical knowledge or insight negates a very good comment. The fact of the matter is you know little of the personalities that comprised the ‘debate’ at the founding of this country. The success of simply including the words ‘all men are created equal’ seems to be lost on you, as they are on so many others.

If a concerted push was made at the onset, it never would have happened, since many of the players (not a big fan) made that clear. They allowed the words because no concerted effort was made. They believed it to be a political ploy and went along with useless words since it had no tangible threat to their interests. But the intent was to get the idea immortalized, and time would take care of the rest, which I might add, is exactly what materialized.

Those of you that are interested in immediate gratification, would do well to study and contemplate this. At times, you must hold your tongue, and wait for opportunities to present themselves, and for the reality on the ground to change and allow things that would never have been imagined only years before. As it happened, so many things changed in America because of such thinking. Personhood changed and emancipation became a reality. Voting for those former slaves, as well as for women, became another reality. I find it distressing and disturbing that many do not realize the great changes that came about through those initial efforts, our Constitution, and the deeply held beliefs on freedom and liberty that were instilled within documents that may have looked inadequate at first, but with hindsight, have resulted in some of the greatest changes any nation has ever seen on the face of this planet.

It is so easy to condemn and demean, so much more difficult to comprehend and appreciate. There is a Greek proverb (have to love those Greeks) that “A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit.” It is a man of great integrity and character that plants a tree when they know that they will never reap the benefits. America is a forest, and we have seen great things. This is in danger, grievous danger, of being lost forever, and it will be to your detriment, and mine, if that ever happens. It will be our fault as well.

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

George Campbell

The big brains have a theoretical debate. All I know is that things have never been worse for the majority of Americans than they are today.

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

(LCW)   Such an obviously ignorant statement. Whatever issue you are talking about. Just ignorant. ‘Things’? What things? Almost every citizen in this country is better off than their counterparts two hundred years ago, or a hundred, or even 50 years ago. It’s undeniable. It is true that many remain disadvantaged, but to compare the timeframes is like night and day. What was accomplished was not in spite of our documents and institutions, but because of them, as inadequate as they may seem.

We are not even talking of slavery and voting rights and personal freedoms for a whole host of special interests, but it was not long ago that there was no welfare, no food stamps, no breakfasts or lunches for poor children. There was no Medicaid, so many things that exist today were non-existent, not many years ago. Do you say that they are worse today than yesterday? Your ignorance is surpassed only by your hubris. There is much that can be done in the future. If socialism has its way, it will never come closer than it is today. And I haven’t heard a single reason from anyone here why I should question that statement.

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

The Darwinist

But it really didn't. Most places that we're colonized had improvements in medicine, technology, and all other resources. You can compare the countries in Africa that were colonized to the ones that weren't, and the ones that were colonized are now better off.

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

(LCW)   As much as I abhor colonization, it is a reality that cannot be denied, but never fear, there will be those doing so shortly. The fact that things were perhaps better at some point in the future does not absolve the inappropriate actions taken. The ends will never justify the means. Unethical and immoral acts will remain so through eternity.

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

William Navarre

Interesting. The capitalists say that wealth is not fixed like a natural resource, and indeed that's true. But I should hope, then, that they disagree with ownership of natural resources like land, which should be made common property as Henry George tells us.

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

(LCW)   The comment is an oversimplification of the issue. The fact of the matter is without ownership we may well still be farming the land and bringing buckets of water from the well and the river. Well, we might have indoor plumbing, but it would be pretty messy. If there is no reward there will be no incentive to use the creativity and innovation of those with ability and insight. There may well be some exceptions but not as many as you would like. Most of the technology would not exist, most of the luxuries would not be as varied or as available or as durable and dependable.

Common property is a great concept, and I see no reason to dismiss it out of hand, but I would suggest it be more a matter of management by the state (I cringe to say it), but the concept of ownership and property is the main impetus for advances in all aspects of society. Not an easy concept to expand upon. George is a bit of a red herring. It is not really practical, and he has no evidence to the contrary.

You need to read more about him to understand that he was just another socialist whining about those that have something he did not. He had some intriguing positions. We can talk about them if you like, but it has no relevance to the discussion we are trying to have today. The amount of coercion by the state is what we are already discussing. This would just make it even more oppressive. This ‘ownership’, primarily by the rich, came about through a repugnant relationship between the worst example of dirty capitalists and their cronies in government, corrupt beyond anything ever accomplished before, and rarely equaled even today, but perhaps we just can’t see it as clearly without hindsight.

If there is no incentive, there will be little evolution, but there will also be no progress, and little if any innovation or creativity to the benefit of the population. You do realize that almost every inhabitant of this racist (facetious) country has a long list of devices and conveniences that would not exist without capitalism and ownership of property and wealth. There would be houses, I guess, but not as luxurious or convenient. There might be cars but they would be expensive and much dirtier than what we enjoy now. There would probably be no washing machines, stoves, at least as we know them now, there might not even be electricity. There would certainly be no planes comparable to what we have, no computers, no smartphones, few roads, no fridges, and no freezers. Probably no furnaces and submersible pumps, although possibly showers, but only when you pull the string.

Who would have made these things and improved upon them if there was nothing to show for it at the end? Altruism? I don’t think so, and you have no way to prove any of this. We are barely talking a hundred years ago. The engine of this production was capitalism and property. I find it startling that you could even attempt to refute any of this. It has never been otherwise. It could have happened, possibly, with the historical structure of ‘only’ that 1% that owned everything, but we would certainly not have the environment we live in today. It would have been precluded by the oppression of either the oligarchs or the state, or both. Neither has ever been the source of progress or innovation, they exist only in a parasitical state. Nothing else.

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

Bobby Sternlicht

Next two minutes: so you should "selfishly follow your own values". OK cool. My own values are to share and co-operate and not be a selfish asshole.

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

(LCW)   That’s cool as well. No one is stopping you from sharing and co-operating, but I think we may have a problem getting rid of that asshole thing. I have spent my whole life sharing and co-operating, but never at the point of a gun, only through my own efforts and my own philosophy.

Read up on that ‘selfish’ thing, but you should google ‘rational self-interest’ and not the liberal/socialist ‘selfish’. If you want to learn, you need to look in the right place.

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

Sandra Thomsen

I second what Jack McCabe said, don’t force it on others. If you want to open a commune, I will fight for your right but I refuse to be forced to live under your system. Your mindset is precisely what leads to dictatorships. Precisely why Hitchens later realized that communism is incompatible with human nature. You should look up Jordan Peterson and Zizek discuss Marxism vs capitalism.

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

(LCW)   Succinct and to the point. And spot on, which is refreshing. It always comes down to that coercive aspect, doesn’t it? If it made so much sense, they wouldn’t have to be forcing anyone to do anything, they would be lining up to join. But it’s scary, there are a lot of people in that ‘line’. Time will tell.

The encouraging thing that they never seem to acknowledge is that Rand’s perspective, through her works, has been breaking sales records every year over the last almost forty years, and with the world we live in, I find it hard to not expect that to grow. Even if you are not a real fan of Rand, it still means that people are getting tired of this liberal and socialist paradigm that gets forced down our throats, and they are at least looking for something else.

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

Aaron Alfeche

Good! You can be a communist in capitalism. You wanna share your stuff, live in a commune with your friends, or establish a company without profit and everybody gets an equal wage. You can do it in capitalism, it is a system of freedom. Just do not force me to cooperate if I do not want to, and don't interfere with my company that makes a profit.

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

(LCW)   That’s one of the real kickers for me. You will be allowed to create your own zeitgeist in a capitalist environment, (sans force of course) but my aspirations will be crushed in a socialist one. I think that says it all. Socialists are not big on competition and the merit system. There can only be one daddy in socialism, and that is the state, in whatever form it ends up, and that will remain an unknown.

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

Aaron Alfeche

@Bobby Sternlicht I want to, I wanna build a company, where I get maximum profit. To the extent I make a profit, I provide a product that to the extent people value it, they are willing to pay money more than it costs for me to produce that product. My profit will then make me able to expand my business, hire more people, create more valuable products that my customers buy to make their life better, and keep expanding.

The more greedy I am, the more I grow my business, the more people I hire, the more value I sell to people. The more greedy I am, the more money I have personally, that I put in the bank, and just having a savings account with the lowest interest, then that bank will have money to lend to aspiring businessmen through loans. The more I put money in the bank, the more I make it possible for other people to have the capital to grow their own businesses. WIN-WIN! I love capitalism. No one was coerced, all voluntary transactions. And to the extent I build that wealth, have hired people, providing my customers a good product, to that extent I am a moral person. Very ethical and moral.

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

(LCW)   As you say, all very ethical and moral, and as long as it is, it is unreasonable to condemn and degrade the system, and yet they do, and never acknowledge that the vast majority of business is a positive and ethical and moral capitalism. I acknowledge that bad people have done bad things using capitalism but they were not capitalist, not really. They were slime-balls and the most repugnant individuals on the face of the earth. Like Soros, and Zuckerberg, and Bezos.

A lot of liberal millionaires and billionaires out there. Do any socialists want to defend them? Bezos made, what, 60 billion during the pandemic? Where is my check from his account? If no one is hurt, and in your scenario, you did not mention any pleasure or imperative in doing so, then why the antagonism? Something else is going on, and they simply don’t have the character and integrity to articulate what it is, or possibly they don’t even recognize their own ignorance.

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

Aaron Alfeche

@Bobby Sternlicht I am from a poor country, still, I get emotional when I think of how I was able to buy an air conditioner and how it improved my life. Just for 1000 USD. My life comfort has increased so much. The people who made this invention possible are the moral ones. The people who invented, the people who produced, the people who financed this product to reality, and just for 1000 USD and to make that so much difference in my life? It is so wonderful, and yes, businessmen are the most ethical people I know who have benefitted my life so much.

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

(LCW)   If property and wealth were not allowed in this country we might not even have the opportunity to buy an air conditioner, at ‘any’ price. The state didn’t do that, socialism didn’t do that, but capitalism did that.

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

You can find the continuation of this conversation in page E of audience comments