1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Reader - Online Commentary - E

 
 Capitalist benefits and the affects on poverty, choice and convenience. Logistics of small business. Downside to altruism and envy. What is greed? Wealth in the court system. More healthcare. Is that socialism you're touting?      
 
 
 
 

READER - VIEWER - COMMENTARY - E

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

Bobby Sternlicht

@Aaron Alfeche glad it went well for you. It hasn't for millions. If I invent and produce an air-conditioner but then I only let it be used by people rich enough to pay me for it then I'm not ethical. I'm greedy.

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

(LCW)   And stupid, don’t forget stupid. You can buy the air conditioner and give it to whomever you please, or ask for donations from socialists to do so. You know you don’t have to wait for the revolution to start taking care of people, you can start today? Why this hatred for people of ability? Not one, I guess.

You have a demonstrably warped sense of ethics, as well as greed. From what I gather, you believe that my only purpose is to gratify whatever interests you hold as relevant. Talk about selfish. Do you even realize how immoral you are to expect and demand another human being to exist for your own selfish wants and needs? Replacing ‘your’ with anyone else makes no intrinsic difference to the accusation. You are a sad individual.

Does someone else ‘deserve’ an air conditioner at my expense? Do we ‘owe’ every inhabitant of India or Africa or Indonesia an air conditioner? Is it a necessity? Do we owe them the electricity if they don’t have that either? Do you have any idea how ludicrous you sound? I somehow doubt it.

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

Bobby Sternlicht

@Aaron Alfeche 1. Capitalism isn't win-win. 2. Even if it was the individual actors in it if they are only motivated by self-interest aren't acting ethically. If you share and help others you are behaving ethically. If you don't then you aren't. That simple.

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

(LCW)   I want to be fair to you, but you really don’t want to discuss anything. You are indeed ignorant and amoral, in every sense of the word. You have no conceptual knowledge of capitalism, no fundamental understanding of rational self-interest, and are devoid of putting ethics into the context of an issue. It ‘is’ simple, you are absolutely right about that. You are very simple.

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

Bobby Sternlicht

@Aaron Alfeche of course people are coerced in Capitalism. People with no Capital are coerced into being exploited by those with Capital.

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

(LCW)   I am always concerned when I hear people make these vague, mindless, irrational statements. If we remove this bogeyman ‘capitalism’ from the equation, these people without capital will not be exploited. They will have no capital, no job, nothing. There is no alternative but to die. If they do not die, this means that they were able to exist on their own abilities, albeit possibly not at a high standard of existence. If so, then when this great evil, ‘capitalism’, enters the picture, they have the ability, the opportunity, and dare I say, the obligation, if they are of like mind with you, to reject the offer of this ‘exploitation’, and continue on with their miserable lives as it was.

There is no ‘coercion’ to work within the capitalistic paradigm. I fail to see where the problem lies. If they accept working for the concern, whatever that may be, and their lives are benefited, is that not a good thing? If not, why in the world would they make that decision if they were able to exist without the opportunity? I am not saying that there are not bad players in capitalism, because there are, with this persons’ government and the business they allow into their countries to actually exploit their own peoples. But that is beside the point, and really has nothing to do with the abuse of the concept of capitalism. Bad people exist, and will not be going away without a more fundamental change to the educational paradigm of the society we live in. Nothing else will bring the change you are looking for.

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

Aaron Alfeche

@Bobby Sternlicht It hasn't for millions? Before capitalism, everybody was poor apart from a very small number of aristocrats, aristocrats whose living standards are far lesser than yours now in the modern world. In 3 decades, almost 30 percent of humanity now has risen from adjunct poverty, and now only 7 percent of people in the world live on 2 dollars a day, because of capitalism. Capitalism is production, wealth is created, wealth that was non-existent 300 years ago. It is ethical! If I am a businessman and have bought the intellectual property of an air conditioner, and people work to produce it, they need to be paid for their work, the businessman's ingenuity and organizing that activity, and pay for the intellectual property. To give it for free is to demand that people work for you for nothing, to demand it be given for you for free is the height of immorality, how greedy of you to have people work to produce the air conditioner and just be handed to you. You are the immoral and greedy one.

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

(LCW)   Excellent response, although I fear not to some. How does someone demand something that would not have existed except through their efforts, investment, and intelligence? What about those things you presented. Are the positives from capitalism ever even acknowledged as real? Why in the world would we even listen to someone that refuses, in the face of reality, to recognize at least some of what is irrefutable and undeniable?

I often find myself shaking my head in shame. I am embarrassed to be of the same species as some of these people who have posted here. It is obvious that there is no intent to any reasonable or respectful exchange of ideas. They have only slogans and derogatories, nothing of substances, completely illegitimate in a discussion of any kind.

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

Aaron Alfeche

@Bobby Sternlicht That's beyond stupid. That's like saying because bread doesn't just rain down from the heavens, or a house doesn't just build itself, and you need those to live, then somehow reality is coercing you to act to remain alive. That's not coercing, that’s reality, products and services are not automatic. You only have a choice to live, that is to stop being a baby and crying why things just don't fall from the sky and start producing, or you can choose to die, don't produce, go starve but do not enslave people to work for you to give you food should you choose to live.

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

Aaron Alfeche

@Bobby Sternlicht It is a win-win. I have money, the guy across the streets sells cars. I value his car more than I value my money, and he values my money more than his car that's why he is more than happy to make the transaction. I get the car which is more valuable to me, he gets the money which is more valuable to him. WIN-WIN!

Sharing and helping have not improved anybody's life, because what is there to share if a product has not been produced yet? You just think, that cars, bread, and steak are just there, and metaphysically given and the only action is to redistribute it. That's so stupid and so detached from reality. Products are produced, people work for them, by not paying for it, you are just making them your slave.

Labor is just another service, go work for a company, and tell them you don’t wanna get paid, you wanna be ethical right? Help a company, share your time, by your standard, why are you so freaking GREEDY that you demand to be paid for your labor? Just as to why are the employees and manufacturers so freaking greedy by charging you for an air conditioner rather than them just giving it to you?

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

Aaron Alfeche

@Bobby Sternlicht The guy with no money, as long as he is able to work, can work. And can slowly develop skills and increase his wage. Capitalism, in its purer form, creates more jobs than there are people.

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

Aaron Alfeche

@Bobby Sternlicht You are evil, you are your ideas, your ideas sanctions force and the enslavement of everyone around you, and your ideas inform your actions. People look in history and see this carnage, millions of people dead, and we see it is evil but we never comprehend how it got to be that bad.

The truth is, those atrocities, were committed exactly because of altruism, treating everyone as your brother. When you tell me I am your brother, that sends a chill to my spine, because now, you have given yourself the right to meddle in my business, to reign me in, to discipline me and continuously watch everything I do, because that is what brothers, families do right?

You have invited yourself, in a position where you did not earn, and especially I didn't award to you. You now, no matter how bad you act, and whatever harm you do to me, will be under the tent of "You are only doing it for love and concern for me as your brother". You are not doing it for yourself, you are not greedy, and all your actions are for me, for my sake. I am sorry, I can take care of myself, I choose my brothers on specific standards, and I didn't choose you.

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

Aaron Alfeche

@Bobby Sternlicht What a sad and pathetic way to view life. I was homeless, reached a point I did not eat food for 2 weeks. But never, did I think of anyone as greedy, they have their lives, how greedy of me to demand they stop whatever they are doing and instead work for me. I work loading boxes on trucks and worked my way up there. And slowly I had the self-esteem, knowing I can take care of myself. No matter how things got bad for me, I never once victimized and looked at people with resentment. Because I know, that because I have the right to live, I must accept their right to live for their own lives too. I am not guaranteed survival, no one should be forced to help me.

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

Bobby Sternlicht

@Aaron Alfeche So you're above thinking of others as greedy but you don't mind calling people sad and pathetic. OK. Be well.

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

(LCW)   Well, to be fair, he did not call you sad and pathetic, he said your view of life was sad and pathetic. There is a difference if you think about it.

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

Bobby Sternlicht

@Aaron Alfeche No one chooses brothers. That's just basic.

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

Bobby Sternlicht

@Aaron Alfeche of course no one should be forced to help. But those who don't choose to help should not be described as ethical or decent human beings. That simple.

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

(LCW)   I find it difficult to understand how you can make such a huge judgment on another person without knowing their life experience, their motivations, their life circumstances, the pressures and obligations that they carry and the responsibilities that they have for family and loved ones. To say who is to be characterized as ethical or decent human beings is the epitome of hubris, bigotry, and ignorance. And yet you agree that no one should be forced to help others, but if they don't, they cannot be ethical or decent human beings? Incredible.

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

mark schiavone

@Bobby Sternlicht, you can't accuse a capitalist of being a greedy person. You have no idea what I do with the money that I earned. Besides, I don't think that you can apply the word “greedy" to someone who wants to keep everything that he earned. It might be considered to be greedy if I don't share my wealth with someone who doesn't want to work but what if I choose to give my money to my elderly parents....to them I'm not greedy.

Based on that you can't accurately label a capitalist as greedy.

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

Sean G

The libertarians' argument presupposes that having enormous wealth or none has no bearing on the ability to achieve justice before the law.

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

(LCW)   I am not a libertarian, per se, but what problem do you have with the statement? I want the law to be enforced without prejudice on any person that comes before the court. It is the reason lady justice wears a blindfold. There is no one slipping her a bribe on the side. She should be impartial, objective, factual, and resolute. We do not, or should not, take into considerations things such as wealth or the lack thereof. The system can possibly help the individuals afterward, in the case of the unfortunates, but nothing should impede the decisions rendered based on anything but the facts of the case. I know that this is perverted often, but the original intent is what I agree with, not the current interpretations.

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

Sam Stewart

Well said. Good lawyers are expensive. Good lawyers are more likely to win favorable outcomes for their clients.

Therefore, a court fight, between a corporation that is poisoning a water supply and the user of that water supply, will favor the side with the most money. It is the paradox of libertarian philosophy that the biggest losers are the individuals.

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

(LCW)   Sorry but this has nothing to do with Libertarianism. While true that good lawyers are favorable to those with wealth that is not the way it was supposed to be. It has been corrupted and perverted almost beyond recognition. The facts of the case do not change with expensive lawyers, the outcomes are often a result of that corruption and perverting the system. I don’t support ‘technicalities’ in any form. Justice only can be the result of reality and fact or the best facsimile we can produce.

Technicalities should be dealt with, and the justice meted out to the guilty. If a police officer or lawyer makes a mistake, they should be held accountable, reprimanded, banned, or face the court system themselves based on what was done, and the original case should proceed. It is too easy to play the system. I want justice, pure and simple. Nothing else will result in the completion of the contract between the state and the individual than an unbiased and complete finding.

I know how difficult this can be, but what we have now is certainly not acceptable to me. Is it to you? I hope not, because it is the epitome of an injustice, and will remain so.

There is no ‘paradox’ in libertarian philosophy. While it is true that money often will pervert lady justice, it is more the political representation than lady justice herself, and this is an immoral and unethical aspect of our system. It should not be allowed to exist, and yet it does. What do you suggest to circumvent this perversion and result in a completely legitimate result? The interesting question is what would socialism do to prevent such an eventuality? I see nothing of substance from the socialists on any of these issues.

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

Paul Blair

@Sam Stewart And the only way for individuals to have a chance to counteract the power of corporations is the band together and collectively fight, yet I see routinely see self-proclaimed "Libertarians" rail against unions.

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

(LCW)   This is not about unions, but I must admit, I am at something of a loss as to what actions to take. Unions end up simply as mob rule, as does direct democracy, but I certainly abhor the tyranny of money as well. The only way to confront that is with men and women of integrity and ethical and moral standards. There really are no other options. Not particularly good for the little guy, but when has it ever been otherwise? Let me make it plain, I do not agree, only recognize my own impotence in relation to the issue. I would welcome a legitimate and credible alternative.

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

Thomas from Denmark

One of many examples of how these people are completely detached from the real world. Of course in the example with the poisoned water, there may not be any need for lawyers as the libertarians have also made sure to remove all regulations so that corporations can pollute as they please.

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

(LCW)   Once again, an irrefutably ignorant comment. I guess you are not from around here, are you? You seem to know less than nothing about America. Maybe you can pollute at will in good ol’ Denmark, but for the most part, it is not really supported here at all, and when it is, it is through corrupt government officials and business concerns. While not impossible to pollute, the incidences of things like this are almost non-existent anymore.

The only times it is an issue is when the corruption and perversion of crony capitalism between corporations and the state exist. Otherwise, it is more or less not an issue. Do you really believe there are no regulations in America? You should have been here during our ‘love canal’ phase when rivers caught on fire. That began the renaissance, and today, only those with no capacity to think at all believe that regulations do not exist here. Incomprehensible. Your lack of knowledge is surprising.

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

Thomas from Denmark

@thomas oconnor So after some years of deteriorating health, which has cost me my job and bankrupted me with medical bills, I can try to run a Go Fund Me campaign to hire a lawyer who can help me sue the massive corporation employing an army of top-notch lawyers. In the unlikely event that I am both able to do that and actually win, my health has been destroyed and the corporation will have lost less than it gained on its actions. It’s a simple concrete example, but it does illustrate that libertarians have a naive idea of power structures and freedom. In reality, it’s likely less concrete because you’ll have many companies polluting and some may be far away from you, etc. And that’s of course not even talking about ways you can encroach on someone’s life or freedom in ways that are harder to measure.

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

(LCW)   I am sorry to hear about your difficulties, and yet, the problem, I believe, is not really with capitalism or Libertarians, no matter how much you would like to place the blame with them. Sorry to say. And I am sure the libertarians agree, but they have never held and real power in this country, so it is difficult to saddle them with the culpability in your plight.

Even capitalism has little responsibility for the lack of character and integrity of the players involved. It is a direct obligation and culpability of the state, which is not directly connected in any way to the economic driver that exists here, but there is a connection, if only their inaction or inability. Any reputable individuals would not have allowed either the pollution or the evasion of responsibility.

As a citizen, I never voted to let whatever company have the ability for those actions taken or to be held unaccountable. I understand your anger and frustration, but if we are to have an actual debate or rational discussion, it must be with reason and an actual grasp of reality. We need to replace those bad players and not condemn a viable system. That is the only way to address and confront this. The paradigm is changing, albeit slower than any should desire. Maybe too late for you, and perhaps it will never happen, but blaming entities, arbitrarily and indiscriminately, is certainly not the answer, and will not be a part of any solution.

I would like to see the insurance company, if the reality is as you portray it, to be put out of business by everyone resisting to use them. How to do this can be quite complicated, and I would have liked the government to have taken an interest and made an effort to be involved, but the issue of coercion has to be taken into account at some point, regardless.

Let’s say that we do in fact put the insurance company out of business. I am not sure how that helps you directly. I think that someone in your position simply wants something they think of as justice, they want their bills paid, but if the company ceases to exist, there will be no one that does so. You can go to another company, but could you have not done so before the incident? If so, did you do your due diligence before making the decision on who to give your hard-earned dollars for your security? Are you saying that every insurance company is corrupt? Do other countries have this problem, or is it only the U.S., from your perspective? I have many questions that will not be answered in this forum.

I am confident that it is not capitalism or libertarians that are at the root of the issue. The company, without argument, has responsibility, but moreso, the government, since ‘force’ and ‘harm’ are both active in the scenario. The legal system is not fulfilling its obligation in the sense that justice is not being served. The company is not capitalist, per se, but an independent player, and an inappropriate one. But an excellent example of what we ‘don’t’ want capitalism to be.

I speak of this all the time, about inappropriate players. The vast majority of capitalistic players are completely legitimate and ethical and moral. It is those that are not, that deserve our attention. I can give hundreds of suggestions on how to fix this, but my power is virtually non-existent. I don’t have all the answers, but I know one thing with confidence, and that is that socialism will not be able to address and resolve this kind of issue either.

They have no true ideology or philosophy, or they would have articulated it by this time. They have no ‘system’ such as exists in capitalism in America to confront these issues, and as inadequate as their record is, socialism has nothing at all to compare to it except some fantasy about everyone loving each other and working in blissful cooperation with each other even without any structured documents or constitution of any kind.

If you are disappointed with the existing system, I fear that you would be little more than an afterthought in the new paradigm. The possibility certainly exists that I may be wrong, but I see no evidence in the history of the planet where any vaguely socialistic environment was able to take care of their communities.

I am somewhat confused. I was under the impression that you were not an American. Is this happening here or in your own country? I believe that would be a reasonable question to ask.

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

thomas oconnor

@Thomas from Denmark first FYI I'm anti-libertarian often refer to them as wet-dreamers. What you just mentioned though is bureaucratic difficulties and injustices of any legal system. Separate issue. That is, no telling if that would be better or worse or just the same under any system. Only can agree it’s terrible now.

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

(LCW)   The problem is that this forum is specifically about the morality of the two ideologies, and not some arbitrary circumstances. There is no connection to the systems in question, and the culpability is questionable on many levels. I don’t think that anyone, except perhaps the insurance company, promote or condone what was done here. We need the representatives of these philosophies to talk about what they promote and how they would deal with these things. Both will tell you things that will have no impact on the existing situation with this particular insurance company, but it could provide some clarity to the debate. It is undeniable that this specifically calls into question the morality of the ideologies. It would be interesting at least to find out their positions.

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

thomas oconnor

Just only to add that they would claim the system be potentially clearer if Gov't is taken out of the equation.

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

(LCW)   Not so at all. No one wants the government to be completely taken out of the scenario, they simply want them to do the job they were hired for. Protect the individual from harm and coercion from another, especially a well-heeled entity that is difficult to confront. Taking out government completely leaves no recourse for the disadvantaged on any level, and they will invariably lose. ‘That’ is the problem with a completely unregulated government. If they are not going to take responsibility for their role, why are they there?

Capitalism demands an ethical and moral authoritative body, as does Objectivism. Socialism, on the other hand, depends completely on government, to the extreme, and I have seen nothing to describe how that government will be kept in check in any way superior to what we have now.

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

Bleep Bloop

I actually shouted "WHAT!?" out loud when Binswanger made the claim that the law is on the side of the poor and always out to get the downtrodden CEOs. Holy s***, what universe does this guy live in?

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

(LCW)   One that you obviously do not comprehend. The issue is up for debate, and ironically, that is what this was supposed to be. But his vision is as rational as any other if you would only listen occasionally.

To attempt clarity, I would say the street perception and media support is overwhelmingly on the side of the poor, if not the actual results. The level of corruption makes that another issue entirely.

As for the universe that he lives in, I see someone that is attempting to confront and question the reality of what is, and not live in a make-believe existence.

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

Thomas from Denmark

@thomas oconnor No, it is an objectivist fantasy world (a very unattractive one in my opinion) hitting the wall of the real world. Anyone living in the real world can tell them that people do not live and operate independently from each other and that they do not amass power and don’t exercise any.

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

(LCW)   Au contraire, mon ami. Is there anyone with wealth and power that you do not despise? Are you an equal opportunity hater? Remember, without wealth, there will be nothing to confiscate when you take over the world. I guess that we've been warned to keep any power away from you.

People actually do not live and operate independently from one another, at least not completely, so we can agree on that, but that does not mean they have to act according to 'your' own personal, selfish, and arbitrary dictates. I find that there are many that amass wealth and power, which are not the same thing, influence might be a better word and do ‘not’ abuse the ability and opportunity. It is a sad world that you live in if you believe so.

That would suggest, immediately, that this is not just a condition of the obscenely wealthy, but those with much less, even ‘thousandaires’, who have power and control over others, in a much-reduced paradigm. Do you believe that to be true? It is inevitable if your perception is assumed true, or is it possible that you can be mistaken? You cannot just pick and choose reality based on whatever concept you are unhappy with at the moment. Consistency defies your assertion. I am surprised you are still with us.

I do not harm or coerce anyone in my Objectivist fantasy world, while in the socialist fantasy, you can do nothing at all without those attributes.

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

In fact not doing so would be counter to their ideology. It would be quite naive to think the justice system is somehow separated from the rest of society and influencing it to one’s own advantage is on the other hand entirely in line with their ideology.

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

(LCW)   Not at all, on all counts, and it once again shows you totally lack comprehension of Objectivism on any level. You come across as sad and angry and ignorant in your thinking. There is nothing in the philosophy or ideology that speaks to taking any advantage in any situation. If you have evidence to the contrary, please produce it. If not, which is the reality, one should really re-evaluate their positions until they are a bit more credible. What you interpret, while important to you, may well be irrelevant to many of the rest of us.

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

If you remove government or let it be run by big corporations you remove or undermine the (I’m inclined to adding only, but that may be a larger discussion) entity in a capitalist society, which can be democratic and strong enough to counter these corporations.

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

(LCW)   Surprise, surprise. As long as you don’t editorialize and personalize your comments, I have no option but to agree with you. But the problem is not with the society, at least as a primary, but with the state, which is the problem in every instance that you attempt to offer. Your obsession with capitalism and Objectivism is destroying your credibility.

If anyone is reading this, it should be obvious that I have said, ad nauseum, and will continue to do so, that no one wishes to remove the state entirely, only to restrict the power it has unconstitutionally given itself over centuries to become involved in issues that are not their purview.

No one, at least those that you incessantly demean and condemn, has ever promoted the control of anything by ‘big corporations’, or small ones for that matter. This is all a figment of your imagination. You can, of course, supply citations if I am wrong, but I think we all know the eventuality of that request.

So we actually agree, but you're conflating those things with capitalism or Objectivism is simply illegitimate and of no value. I agree that the state itself is the only thing that has the power or authority to stand up to these transgressions, but I want it to be a controlled environment.

I find that opposition consistently tries to make the issues either black or white, when reality says there are a million shades of grey. Do you support and endorse the activities of government as presented today, or would you like them to act somewhat differently with these conflicts with business and the immoral actions taken against the individual? Or would you like to see something different, something with impeccable character and unquestioned integrity? I would, for myself, like to see the latter, but I have no real idea what it is that you would envision since the only thing I see is the condemnation of an ideal and a system that you do not fully comprehend.

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

Thomas from Denmark

@Bleep Bloop Yes, I had a similar reaction. It is hard to believe he really thinks (or thought) that’s the case. It is something like a religion really, something they can believe in without any consideration of reality. They want that to be true, so they believe it is so. The opposite would force them to reconsider their faith or, as is also often the case, reverse engineer a reason that supports their ideology.

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

(LCW)   And you believe what ‘you’ will be able to do that, with no consideration to any reality I have ever experienced? What is the difference? There is none. Don’t try to score any points with references to religion. It is so gauche. Vapid remarks, with no advantage gained, due to the absence of reason or even interest.

There is nothing that exists today that does not incorporate some degree of faith in the acceptance and expectations of what that system may do, but to make the comparison of Objectivism with religion is simply mindless, and somewhat amusing.

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

djdrogs

Exactly. And it goes further than what Sam Stewart says, because when fines are used as a penalty for committing a crime then those with expendable money can flout the law and just pay the fine.

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

(LCW)   Why even debate this? The answer would be a fine based on a percentage of worth, and all of a sudden the paradigm changes immensely, and your tax base does as well. Now, I don’t even like my own suggestion, but it is obvious that fining someone making 20k a year a thousand dollars is a hardship, and not for someone who has millions. But make their fine a million, and their attitude will change immediately. I like the result but can’t support it except in the theoretical.

Why does no one ever come up with something outside the box? Many are hopelessly caught in an either/or dichotomy on all of these issues when we need to change the paradigm, and I have said it at least a hundred times in my comments. Stop arguing two perspectives where neither one works. Think.

Otherwise, as you say, the wealthy can ignore virtually any culpability for their actions. Like I explain to people at times, having problems with training their pets. If you are not smarter than your pet, then your attempt at discipline will be a complete waste of time.

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

Obi Juan

The irony of the Reagan administration is that the economy was basically fake. The Reagan Economy was floating on the largest debt increase since WWII, to fund the largest peacetime military buildup in American history. Also, the Reagan Administration has more indictments and convictions than any other Administration, the second being the Trump administration. Hitchens calls out, right in the beginning that the capitalist system is on life support in 1986.

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

(LCW)   Yeah, Hitchens was a visionary. Delusional but where better to get visions. Thirty-five years later and he is gone, and capitalism remains. We can’t fix Hitchens, but we can fix capitalism. Actually, it’s never been broken. It is he who wields the tool that determines its use. We have the best system ever conceived to live in peace and harmony, and yet have the greatest number of damaged players the world has ever seen. Socialism has no answers to any of these issues.

In the context of this debate, Reaganism, and especially your narrow interpretation of what happened, is completely irrelevant. FYI, the Reagan 'administration' had both houses of Congress under Democratic control. How does one not place the blame where it belongs. Congress is where the legislation happens.

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

palladin331

@tim johnson Ever collected on an insurance claim? That's socialism. Ever collected unemployment or pandemic relief or Social Security? That's socialism. Ever driven down the street? That's socialism! Yes, there are animals out there. But that pales in comparison to the population as a whole. The vast majority of those 'handout' recipients are folks just like you and me.

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

(LCW)   While there is some truth in what you say, you are wrong as often as you are right. Insurance is not socialism. You pay for it, voluntarily, and you receive a benefit under very specific conditions. If you are forced to purchase the insurance, then it is not voluntary and is an aspect of statism or collectivism. The issue of force creates an illegitimate environment, known as socialism. Unemployment is similar, in that it is forced, but the payment into the program makes it a true entitlement, to differentiate it from pandemic relief. Social Security is a completely legitimate entitlement as well. The roads are not socialism, only in the sense that there is a benefit realized, but since infrastructure is normally acknowledged as a legitimate obligation of government, it can be argued that it is an integral aspect of capitalism. Many would argue otherwise, and that’s fine, I am not an absolutist, and welcome contrary perspectives, but you must recognize the differences.

There is an obvious and fundamental difference between the socialist handout and the true entitlement, but it is true that it can be a challenge to make distinctions.

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

tim johnson

@palladin331 You're high. And ignorant as well. Those things aren't "socialism" I pay for all of those things personally. Although, the roads part, is kinda socialism. Gotta say, like socialism, the roads here in the Peoples Republic of Illinois are pretty s***ty.

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

palladin331

LOL. But you're factually wrong. You do not pay yourself for catastrophic losses; you do not pay yourself for unemployment, federal relief payments, or Social Security (all of that goes into shared general funds.

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

(LCW)   Indeed it does, but it was not supposed to. That is the corruption component that has created a paradigm that makes socialism an acceptable fantasy. The general fund is simply a scam to allow the use of funds for whatever ‘cause du jour’, to be implemented without too much argument over legitimacy. Social Security was initially a trust fund, but that would have made extra-curricular ‘withdrawals’ impossible. If it was kept as a trust fund, it would have been solvent virtually forever.

And I ‘do’ pay myself for catastrophic losses, that is what insurance is. It is a social contract of sorts, I will admit, but I have the option of buying or not. Socialism does not allow any choice on my part.

I do pay myself for unemployment, especially since most people never even file for benefits, so they ‘pay in’ more than they ever receive. It is socialism in the fact that others get benefits that they haven’t ‘covered’ with their deductions, but it is also coercive, which is another socialistic attribute.

As for relief payments, depending on circumstances, it could go either way. Trying to give credit to socialism for these things is somewhat disingenuous. It is simply capitalism trying to be an asset to the individual, which is a real thing. Since socialism has never existed, how can it be any real part of any system that actually does exist?

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

- and for sure you don't pay much of the federal debt yourself). And I'm dead certain you don't pay for every inch of road you drive on. Taxes actually pay for stuff. And tax collections are on a sliding scale, as they should be. Enjoy those potholes out there in Illinois. You just need a little more socialism. (I'm not high, but there's always hope).

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

(LCW)   You’re actually kind of amusing. I don’t know where you reside, but if you don’t know that Illinois is already one of the top three liberal/socialist states in the country, then you haven’t been paying attention. Any more socialist, and it will cease being a part of the U.S. They are on the verge of bankruptcy, and that says volumes for the ‘state’ and its ability to govern.

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

seriously short of normal

@palladin331 lol... none of the examples you provided are examples of socialism. Well... unless you're going to argue that fascism is a form of socialism. Words have definitions.

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

alladin331

@seriously short of normal Wrong. Each of my examples was an example of socialism, as explained. In fascism, the dictator and his co-conspirators assume all power, the people be damned.

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

(LCW)   I fail to see any explanation attached to your opinions, plain and simple. You throw terms around like dictator and fascism with no substantive connections to anything relevant. To actually present something as socialistic, you need to make that reasoned argument for your position on some level. What you present is difficult to even accept as an opinion.

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

seriously short of normal

@palladin331 again: words have definitions and none of the things you point to fit the definition of socialism. You're giving socialism credit for capitalism. In none of the examples you cite do the beneficiaries of your examples own the means of production or democratically decide how those means function: they are privately owned and dictated by contract and not votes. Roads aren't even socialist by definition as they are owned and controlled by the state and not the people, hence my calling them an example of fascism.

The more you try to explain what you think socialism is the more I'm convinced that you don't understand the concepts involved.

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

(LCW)   Good points, especially in relation to the means of production. And, I might note, you are actually presenting a reasoned argument against his statements. It’s interesting how that facet loses significance depending on the argument. And remember, socialism has never been attempted yet, but there are those always willing to accept credit for the undeserved, which if you think about it, is one of the fundamentals of socialism.

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

palladin331

@seriously short of normal You are delusional. There is no such thing as capitalism without socialism; and no such thing as socialism without capitalism. If you think otherwise, prove it.

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

(LCW)   Not to be argumentative, but he has been doing so with each of his own comments, while yours remain unfocused and overly generalized. And why the continual invective? You cannot simplistically proclaim something to ‘be’ without giving some hint as to the ‘why’ of your observations. You don’t even give us the opportunity to refute your claims, only to say we disagree since you give us nothing to specifically address.

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

seriously short of normal

@palladin331 the attempt to shift the goalposts is noted but forgive me if I don't engage the bait and switch you've decided to engage in. I also don't appreciate the naked attempt at continuously redefining terms to suit your argument as it smacks of arguing in bad faith. Given the radical rhetorical flailing you're doing I'd also argue that calling me delusional is the "pot calling the kettle black".

Would you like to continue to intellectually discredit yourself further?

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

palladin331

@seriously short of normal Study my definitions and learn

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

(LCW)   If only that were possible. You’re funny.

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

palladin331

@seriously short of normal I refuted you before you entered the discussion. I'll say it again: neither socialism nor capitalism can survive without the other. Neither Objectivism (radical capitalism) nor Communism (radical socialism), alone, can succeed. Both result in tyranny (fascism). The problem is, everything in between is in danger of succumbing to tyranny as well, human nature being what it is. But therein lies the only possibility of a successful, thriving, complex society (the latter term being a form of collectivism that Ayn Rand refused to admit even exists, although she created a micro one for herself and her followers, whom she excommunicated at the first sign of insubordination or betrayal, just like the petty, or petit, fascist she was).

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

(LCW)   Sorry, but you’re talking to yourself again. One cannot ‘refute’ someone else without first engaging with them. You give no evidence that one cannot survive without the other, or independently. Both ‘can’ result in fascism, and have, but it is not an absolute by any means, and history shows a wide variety of examples.

You may be correct in your characterization of human nature, but it seems extremely vague and unsubstantiated. Your grossly incorrect interpretation of Rand and a complex society, as well your bias and ignorance of anything she may have thought or done is obvious and unfortunately, irrelevant to the issues under discussion. And of course, the personal attacks are just another example of an impotent position and do nothing to give oneself credibility.

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

Christophe Lalonde Lavergne

@Ben Berzai why wouldn’t you care how the profits are shared? I’d rather have the profits shared amongst the workers who generate the profits by their work.

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

(LCW)   While your comment may be semi-valid on some superficial level, what evidence do you offer to legitimize the concept that the workers ‘generate’ the profits by their work? If so, why can they not do so on their own? Do they not receive remuneration for the effort already produced? How does that dovetail with the ‘profits’ realized by the item and not the labour involved?

How does one justify any specific ‘extra’ compensation without evidence? What about the overhead? Does that justify any of the profits? Workers generate no profits at all. They help to produce a product that they have no investment in, as well as no real interest in, and they are already compensated for whatever they do, through prior agreement.

Do they accept liability if there is something wrong with the product or the product does not sell? Will they return a portion of their salaries (including profits, of course) if the product or the company does ‘not’ turn a profit? I think we both know the answer to that.

The conversation is so disingenuous. They want something for nothing. They have no conception of what profit even is, just that they want an additional piece of the capitalist pie. They also have difficulties understanding what the pie represents.

What about all the aspects of production that are outside the responsibility of the worker, and therefore not compensable to them? What about the creation of the initial concepts of the item itself? What about the planning that went into the creation of the means (factory) to produce said item? Did the workers, long before they were even hired, have some obligation to the innovation and creativity that went into the processes that needed to be created in many cases from scratch? Can we ‘back-charge’ them the costs involved? Would they be open to that option? I don’t think so.

They had no involvement in any aspect of the product except in the eventual production, through their labour, and they were justly compensated for that, so where does this ‘entitlement’ come from? If not acceptable, do they not have the freedom and opportunity to search for work from some other company that is more in line with their own thinking?

When one talks of ‘sharing’, it normally presupposes a voluntary action. If force is used, it is no longer sharing, but ‘stealing’ or ‘confiscation’. Also, sharing normally infers that the participants have a moral and legal claim to ownership of whatever is to be shared, and since socialism has no personal ownership in anything, exactly how do you justify the sharing of what is not theirs?

That is unfortunately what you envision, and without credible evidence, there can be no expectation of anything more than what was originally agreed upon at the commencement between the parties when they accepted their position. I find it incomprehensible and reprehensible how anyone can even suggest anything else.

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

Ben Berzai

@Christophe Lalonde Lavergne How do Proctor and Gamble share their profits? How about Sylvania, the lightbulb maker? What about US Steel — do you know how they split their profits? You don't? You use their products in some way.

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

(LCW)   Products, I might add, that most individuals, in their wildest dreams, could not conceive or produce. The benefit we get from these companies is exponential. Build me a refrigerator, not a box with some ice in it. Build me a Honda, or better yet, a Bentley. Can’t do it? Why not? How about a laptop or a smartphone? I don’t like a lot of these companies, but I do appreciate the final product that brings luxury and convenience to my life.

I buy those things that give me some benefit and reject those that don’t or are too expensive or I do not accept the value placed upon them. My decision, and mine alone. Certainly, there are outside influences, but if anyone thinks that socialism has an answer to that, they are truly delusional.

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

That's why I don't care, either. Where socialists are exceptionally obtuse is in their understanding of a third dynamic in economics, the consumer. They do all that master-slave s*** and sink the company they took over because they didn't care about the consumer. If you don't care about me, then I don't care about you.
I WANT more Marxists to start co-ops.

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

(LCW)   As I do. I want to see them put into practice what they demand from the capitalist. Then they can do what they wish with the profits, give to the workers or someone in need a thousand miles away, or their off-shore accounts. We all must realize that happens within the socialist paradigm, without question. They hate the individual, but always take care of number 1 first and foremost. Almost always.

I want them to show us that it can be done, and then show us how they did it. Make the argument a matter of fact, and not a matter of desire or theory. Show us the reality, and spare us the fantasy. Why are they not excited about doing exactly that? Their credibility would skyrocket, their followers would multiply beyond their wildest dreams, and they would ultimately live to see the future they envision.

But they do not do so, and that causes me to consider why. Is it that they know the futility of their own philosophy? Is it simply that they have doubts? Is it because parasites understand quite well the symbiosis between host and parasite, and they are not actually interested in being a host? I think that may be closer to the truth than they would like to admit.

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

Citing history and economics doesn't work to convince them how markets ACTUALLY work. By taking/sharing ownership, they'll learn the harshest lesson from an experience that their stupid ideas don't work. It doesn't take long for two people to make the same wage and one of them doing all the work before things change.

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

(LCW)   Which I have always found to be the epitome, the essence of socialism, a.k.a., collectivism. When a benefit is offered, without responsibility or obligation, it is human nature to take the benefit and give as little in return as possible.

I am not happy with the reality, and yet I see no way to ignore or refute it. Not everyone, by any means, but those that would be content doing nothing for something will ‘flock’ to your feet to engage in the feast, knowing full well that it will end at some point.

Those gorging on the host may, in fact, comprehend the paradigm better than the pseudo-intellectuals that propose the philosophy. In any case, it always ends and does not end well. But they should feel free to illustrate how it can work, how they envision it to work, and then make it work. I’m listening, I’m watching.

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

Justin Thillens

@Ben Berzai socialism is only fascism if the government is authoritarian. Laissez-faire capitalism incentivizes crony capitalism which itself becomes authoritarian in nature as the capitalist 1% becomes the oligarchy in control of the legislature. Both capitalism and socialism are in danger of totalitarianism and any claim otherwise is a crude misconstruction of history

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

(LCW)   Many of you go back to this tired narrative of something that you like to call capitalism. It makes it easy to destroy your own creation because of its faults, and indeed, they exist, and they are intolerable, but they are not capitalism. You should, at least, have the courage and the integrity to call it what it really is. Perhaps we can call it illicit capitalism, or maybe faux-capitalism. But the fact remains that it is not a viable or legitimate form of capitalism.

If we talk ‘only’ of the capitalism that our speakers represent, even if only theoretical and even if you still don’t believe it to be legitimate, at least it will be a reasoned and balanced debate, and would also suggest that your opposition would have to do the same for your own perspectives on socialism, which your representatives declare has never existed as well.

If we stop telling the other side what they mean, and simply ask direct and specific questions, in either direction and actually receive complete answers in return, it just might mean that we could learn and teach, understand and discuss the intricacies of living together on a very complex planet. I fail to comprehend the reluctance to do so.

It is in everyone’s best interest to be as clear as possible and to present their positions, and let the field of ideas determine that which needs to be at least attempted to realize some hope for the future. I fail to see the alternative as a beneficial one.

While capitalism in some ways does ‘incentivize’ crony capitalism, I believe that the majority of laissez-faire capitalists and Objectivists are in complete opposition to the concept, and recognize it for what it is, a perversion and abomination if we are looking for real cooperation and harmony. It is ‘not’ a true component of capitalism, I would think, in the same way that genocide is probably not a fundamental truth of collectivism, no matter that history says it might be.

I neither condone nor support authoritarianism unless it is able to be contained and restrained by the population, and I reject the concept of oligarchs in relation to the running of the economy or the politics of nations. I can only support a legislature that is bound by their sworn oaths to the people and one that is held accountable to the intent articulated by our Founders through their words and documents produced.

I find it irresistible not to promote any corruption by this representation to be identified as, and treated as the treasonous behaviour it obviously is. We need to ensure that those that wish to represent us will pay a dear price if they callously ignore the demands of their masters, which would be ‘we, the people’. They must learn that they will not be allowed to avoid responsibility for their actions, as all who call themselves Americans must also acknowledge and accept.

Totalitarianism plays no favourites, only the worst kind of self-interest, ruthless and merciless. It is indeed a threat to any system we may envision, now, or in the future. There can be no equivocation. It is evil, and must not be allowed a seat at the table.

You quip that socialism is only fascism when in cooperation with an authoritarian government, but I ask, with all due respect, when has any version of socialism ever existed ‘without’ such an authoritarian government? It would seem that one of the absolutist fundamentals of socialism is the magnanimous and beneficent direction by the state, in every instance. Can you provide one example where socialism does not champion the state as the ultimate decision-maker in the paradigm? If not, it seems that it was somewhat disingenuous not to acknowledge this inarguable fact.

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

Patrick Grengs

@Christophe Lalonde Lavergne And what about sharing the losses as well? The losses are just as important as the profits.

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

(LCW)   Excellent, excellent point, as I just made some similar comments only moments ago. This is the irrationality and immaturity of the collectivist, to demand something for nothing, as a child, and refuse to not only accept no responsibility for their own part in any ‘sharing’ paradigm, but not even acknowledge that there are other aspects that they do not understand. I have yet to see a collectivist offer to defray losses or unanticipated costs by a reduction in their remuneration. You must be joking if you think that this is in any way a reality that they would embrace or accept.

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

The losses are a signal that whatever the company leaders are doing, it is not working, certainly not in the short term. Many entrepreneurs (folks using their own capital to start and run their business enterprises) have to sustain losses during their growth period or when introducing new products/services.

The "workers on the line" or those "in the front office" are all too happy to collect their paycheck in the security of not risking their own capital on the success of the enterprise. As one of the owners and managing principals of such an enterprise, I can relate my first-hand experiences -- it was 20 years ago. We had saturated the sales in our geographic market. Profits were down. The principals decided to get No Paychecks until we had turned the ship around.

The staff in the front office continued to collect their checks. We succeeded in turning the ship around through a merger/buy-out. The principals were awarded healthy employment contracts, cash, and stock. The folks in the front office were a bit miffed about not sharing the profits... but when they learned of the costs, the losses, they returned to their normal work shifts and were content in receiving a bit of business education. The Profits (and Losses) are to be shared among those whose Capital was put on the table for the creation and growth of the particular enterprise.

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

(LCW)   Reality, not theory. These points are difficult to refute, and for socialists, difficult to acknowledge. This is something that does not get to be a part of our children’s education, with rare exceptions. Not slogans, taken out of context and parsed until reality ceases to exist, but full and complete explanations on how things work.

We do not teach civics, we do not teach philosophy, none of the things that might bring a certain level of comprehension as to the tangibles that constitute business and thought. By design, some might say, and I would be one of them. We inexplicably do not teach the intricacies of ethical thought and action, moral codes of conduct and the reasons why, the essence of individuals of character, and the need for deep and passionate integrity to express our perspectives and share with others to a commonality of purpose and benefit.

We don’t even teach them the meaning between right and wrong anymore. In fact, we provide them with the directive that there is no such thing, and therefore, we cannot judge another for whatever reason they profess, whether a double standard, reverse racism, vile and palatable hatred, violence in conjunction with politically correct objectives, even the total ‘cancellation’ of people, not for inappropriate actions, but simply for personal words and thoughts. The destruction of careers, families, and even lives, all in the name of equality.

I have never heard a more despicable paradigm in my entire life. Marx and Hitchens and Stalin and Hitler have taught our children well. They are taught more about self-destructive concepts in their own schools than in their own countries. How sad.

This, for me, evokes a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln. While it may not be particularly true he said it, it was, in essence, his intent. The saying is as follows:

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we lose our freedoms
it will be because we have destroyed ourselves from within."

What he actually said was that:

"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."

While I think the former is more easily understood and more focused, we can see that he, for all intents and purpose, was thinking pretty much along the same lines. We can only destroy ourselves, and we may in fact be doing that as we speak. Freedom is so much more messy than we ever realized. When you grant all of these freedoms to all, the ability and opportunity to do harm, and act in a way against the giver of freedom is possible, and that was not the intention at all.

I think that we have reached this point. The question is what we are going to do about it, and will we, or even can we, return to original intent, or will we go down that ‘rabbit-hole’ mentioned, to destruction, devastation, and irrelevancy. Socialism will certainly deliver that irrelevancy.

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

NorthAtlantic

As much as I am a fan of Hitchens', this was the weakest debate I have seen him in. Eloquent as ever, and a pleasure to listen to, but arguing beside the point and avoiding the main issue of morality. I'm not a Randian either, but the capitalist side of this debate at least stuck to the morality issue of free-market capitalism vs socialism that was defined as the main topic of debate, whereas both speakers on the socialist side attack crony capitalism (which is just another form of statism) instead of defending the morality of socialism. Maybe defending the morality of socialism is too tall an order, even for a rhetorical genius such as Christopher Hitchens.

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

(LCW)   Very much my own perspective, with somewhat less homage to Hitchens, although I was attracted to this particular debate for the express reason to hear him speak. I think the characterization of his genius is quite an overstatement but to each his own. I was thoroughly disappointed. I was so looking for someone of substance that could make a legitimate argument for the socialist ideology.

By no means did he accomplish that. I have heard pieces of his commentary, especially in relation to the concept of atheism, so I was intrigued if he could give a rational defense of socialism, but I always thought that he was a bit over the top and dogmatic and oppressive in his religious stances as well, and being an ignostic, I had hoped he would have been more reasonable then, as now. Disappointed in that scenario as well. He was not the individual that I had hoped for or expected. A shame really.

I found his reluctance to delve into the morality of socialism quite disturbing and a matter of real concern. It is difficult for me to respect an individual that basically refuses to discuss the issues that he was invited to discuss, and I assume he agreed, instead of this obsession with Marx and historical context that has little relevance to today’s paradigm except in an indirect and superficial fashion. Not to him, or many others, possibly, but it gave no insight into the threat I see from socialism today. I did see that socialism has never existed yet, which I did not know (and find it incredible to hear), so that was interesting in a perverse kind of way.

I am not particularly looking for rhetorical genius. I tend to be attracted to a practical and relevant as well as rational intellect. Genius is normally a highly subjective and arguable concept.

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

Pernauld TheVisch

Yeah sure... calling colonies "backward" and proclaiming yourself as a hero by ignoring mass genocide, slave labor, and exploitation is definitely "moral." Thank the God of Abraham for ethics! What would we do without him?

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

(LCW)   I am not sure I follow your somewhat singular perspective. Who exactly promoted or supported mass genocide? I did not hear that brought up, except by yourself. While there was an acknowledgment of slavery at different levels, again, who promoted or supported, or even recognized it as a necessary or beneficial aspect of colonization, much less capitalism or Objectivism? It is anathema to the philosophies. Do you really feel qualified to speak for them, or can you produce something credible? The same can be asked about exploitation, and are you trying to insinuate that someone articulated some claim as to its ‘morality’? I think it is more than a little dishonest without validating your own comments.

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

bcshu2

@Claudio Vilas socialism at its core is founded on the use of force. In order to do good with other people’s money, you first must take it from them. Capitalism at its core is based upon mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges.

Capitalism is consensual sex. Socialism is rape.

Hard to build morality upon a concept which at its core is predicated upon immorality...

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

(LCW)   I’ve never thought about it in those terms before but it seems perfectly valid. The difference between the two examples is almost always the action or use of force. And control. They say that rape is not even about sex, but about control. I find that to be the case with the collectivist hive mentality as well. Good point.

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

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 How exactly is socialism intrinsically immoral. Private property does not need to be taken away if it is not owned in the first place.

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

(LCW)   In some respects that is true, but there is no rational way to make our way from where we are today, as a benchmark, simply because that is the reality on the ground, and transition to your vision, which will certainly necessitate an oppressive use of force. That would by definition be immoral, even if your arbitrary and unsubstantiated opinion that there can be no private property could somehow rationally be justified.

This is not to say that in many cases I could not even agree with you, since there is much that I think was not earned and termed ill-gotten gains, confiscatory practices, or simply theft. This existence of wealth could certainly be worthy of being forfeit, but if we do not go through some process of legitimacy, then it too would be immoral and unacceptable. There can be no legitimate ‘ends’ through the use of illegitimate ‘means’, which would suggest yet another immoral action.

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

Personal property is something entirely different and everyone is entitled to it. The goal of socialism, communism, is a society that maximizes positive freedom.

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

(LCW)   I have yet to experience any acceptable reasoned or legitimate evidence of such a reality. You can re-write and re-define words all you want, but it is simply never been shown to be true, and I have never seen any citation to the end that they have any intention of maximizing freedom. I see no interest in freedom from the socialist if coercion is to be used to implement the system itself and continue to use force to secure and enforce the ideology from infringement.

I am sorry, I see nothing that would support your claim. Who ever said that? Where and when? It may well be your interpretation, but it has never been stated as a valid objective of the movement to the best of my knowledge. Instruct me, teach me, and persuade me otherwise.

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

What libertarians promise is merely negative freedom, granting no actually realizable choices. In capitalism, around half your life is immediately expropriated from you at birth. It is the time you will spend working for a soulless goal just to sustain your own existence.

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

(LCW)   You are truly an absurdist. The libertarians propose ‘negative’ freedoms while trying to minimize government and give the individual an overabundance of choice, more even than I might suggest, but socialism, with all the evidence to the contrary, is the champion of the individual and ‘maximize’ positive freedom? That is more than irrational, it is verifiably insane.

How is this half-life of a capitalist ‘immediately’ expropriated at birth? I need examples and illustrations and citations and evidence. Otherwise, your statement is a worthless waste of words. What is this soulless goal of which you speak? Survival? Historically, until recently, survival itself took up much more than a half of everyone’s life, approximating almost a totality of human effort to simply have the ability to live another day. What exactly are you even talking about? What exactly are the goals that the soulless socialist seeks? I am fascinated by the ability to speak of these things without a smile on your face. I can’t believe anyone would believe such unsubstantiated psychotic ramblings.

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

bcshu2

@astreiner boi in order to first do good with other people’s money you first must take it away. Socialism requires force. It’s non-consensual by nature, the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is simply mutually beneficial voluntary exchanges.
Take socialized medicine. A worthy goal, the well-being, and care of those in need. To establish such a system the government reaches its hand into pockets of others predicated upon force.

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

bcshu2

@astreiner boi what exactly do you mean everyone is entitled to personal property? That if you owned something, it’s personal to you, say your privacy, and are you suggesting everyone is entitled to it without necessary need for consent? Or are you suggesting individuals all are equal in regards to the ability to be in possession of personal property? The way you’ve worded it is not very clear.

And what about the statement private property doesn’t have to be taken if it’s not owned in the first place? The very concept of private property requires that there is an apparent and real claim upon said property to begin with. Are you suggesting there is never any basis for the concept of individuals or groups holding any claim to private property? Another ambiguous statement that may benefit from enunciation.

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

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 There is an important distinction between private property and personal property in socialism/communism.

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

(LCW)   And only in the fantasy world of the collectivist. But once again, the socialist refuses to enunciate what that distinction is. I have heard dozens of people mimic these words today, but none have brought any legitimacy to the concept. If you cannot conceptualize and more importantly, articulate what you claim, it is pretty much like the concept does not even exist. I have never heard a reasonable argument to that end, but await with bated breath. Please educate us. By all means, persuade us.

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

Personal property are things you own, meant for your personal consumption. Things like your food, clothes, car and so on.

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

(LCW)   Excuse me, but I don’t ‘consume’ my car, or my clothes, or almost any of my personal property. If I have land, I grow things that I can consume, but you don’t allow me to own ‘that kind’ of property. Are you the final and only arbiter as to what constitutes property? You create a false premise to force a false dichotomy that only goes to justify your own arbitrary reality where all of your illegitimate concepts can be given a false credibility. It doesn’t exist, except for you.

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

This form of property is guaranteed under socialism/communism. You can own all these things and no one can take them away from you.

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

(LCW)   Why not? You don’t explain why I cannot own ‘private’ property, and then you don’t explain why I ‘can’ own personal property. Where is the moral premise for either position? That was what this debate was supposed to be about. Moral principles. I have yet to hear any tonight. When does it start? When do you and yours begin to lay out the moral foundation for all of this coercion, and all of this arbitrary totalitarianism?

It is not only contrary to a reasoned argument and comprehension, but it is so unfair to all the participants involved to be so dishonest that you refuse to clarify all or even any of these comments that are made without restriction and without an evidentiary base. It has to stop. It is not getting us anywhere at all. It is contra-indicated as a means of communication and understanding.

I think it fascinating that collectivism cannot ensure or guarantee anything it has promised in the past, but can guarantee this personal form of property in the future. I have never lived under communism, but have had substantial relationships with three different people who have, and one thing they were never allowed to have, was personal property. The only things they could keep were things that no one else would want, and when they left Russia, even half of that was confiscated. Your ridiculous positions fall on deaf ears. I thirst for truth, you offer me nothing but innuendo and fantasy. I remain parched.

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

by socialism is private property. It is the form of property that puts the owner in a position of power over others. It is ownership of the means of production that makes a society dependent on capitalists. It creates unjust hierarchies within a society.

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

(LCW)   Are you seriously going to try and tell me there are no ‘hierarchies’ in socialistic systems? Have you seen the way the ‘classless’ rulers live in relation to the ‘workers’ who then own everything? It is so lame to even comment. Are those hierarchies legitimate? Are they just?

I have possessed and exercised a certain amount of ‘power’ through capitalism, but I cannot envision any such allowance within socialism if I am not allowed to decide anything whatsoever on my own for myself or those I care about and will be under constant constraint and restriction within socialism by the stated goals of the ideology.

I will be forced to ‘donate’ the best of my ability to the ‘needs’ of nameless others, determined by still more nameless entities, and my own needs will also not be decided by myself, but by yet another group of nameless bureaucrats who will decide if they deign to allow me what they think are my needs. My desires will not be a component of those determinations. For all intents and purpose, I will remain a slave until such a time that an ultimate sacrifice may be required. Talk about mutual benefit through mutual agreement. Not my cuppa’.

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

This is why socialists believe there should be no claim on the means of production whatsoever. This is what I meant. This means, that within a socialist system, no expropriations have to be conducted, as all private property is already collectively owned.

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

(LCW)   Translation: no expropriations need to be conducted because everything from day one is already expropriated, never to be seen again. Socialism translates into the expropriation of the soul of man. That is the reality, and you cannot show any evidence to the contrary. None.

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

Of course when transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist society, the means of production need to be seized. Does that make socialism immoral? I don't think so. We don't call constitutional republics immoral because of the French revolution, do we?

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

(LCW)   Of course you don’t, since you are the one without any property, and expect to be the beneficiary from such a ‘seizure’. Nice to see you recognize it for what it is, but somehow, you are not interested in morality in any real sense. Is it only recognizable and appropriated when you need it, or perhaps just on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays? Just throw in a reference to the French Revolution for mindless effect.

the socialist recognizes no shame whatsoever. It is immoral, period. You cannot pick and choose which immoral actions are ok today when you do them, but not tomorrow when I do. Your whole narrative is truly irrational. I was wrong, your issues are not psychotic, but psychopathic. At some point, you have to explain yourself, in detail and use reason, or no one will listen to you. I believe that reality has already started.

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

bcshu2

@astreiner boi what makes socialism and communism immoral is at its core it is coercion and force. What if I disagree with the absurd notion that I can’t own my own productivity, my own goods? In order to collectively own all private property you first have to take it away from others. Force.

Here’s where capitalism is superior. If a group of individuals wishes to organize a collectively owned business where all those engaged in that enterprise share in the profits, so long as it’s voluntary and consensual, by all means, proceed.
What is not moral is for folks like you to force me to abide by your skewed version of justice or fairness and achieve this by the use of force.

On the topic of hierarchies, you can’t by fiat just declare that some hierarchy is unjust without demonstrating where it’s gone awry. There is the potential for hierarchies to generate corruption and unfairness, and it is proper and right to safeguard against that. But just because a disparity exists does not mean there is a serious matter to be of concern yet.

Tell ya what, I believe any hierarchy which is not predicated upon the absence of force, absent of coercion is far more superior than those which and only can exist by the use of force of some against others. I surely hope we’d agree that less force and greater consensual interactions between people is ideal. Socialism and communism cannot be moral as they can only achieve their goals, honorable and noble as they may be ( welfare of fellow men ) by using coercion and force in lieu of seeking consensual interactions.

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

(LCW)   You’ll notice that he/they will disagree with you until the cows come home, but they will never give a reasoned refutation. They never agree that they condone force although astreiner did just a few moments ago when he acknowledged that there needs to be an initial ‘seizure’ to start the socialistic ball rolling.

There is no imaginable way to guarantee that the coercion will stop there. In fact, as someone else alluded to earlier, human nature suggests otherwise. Once they have ‘legitimately’ used that power of coercion, it will be like the opening of Pandora’s Box, with no way to return to once was. But when they are finished with their first host, there will be no alternative but to find another, and nothing is off the table, since they cannot live outside of a parasitic reality.

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

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 "I surely hope we’d agree that less force and greater consensual interactions between people is ideal." Yes. We do agree here. The problem is, that most interactions in capitalism are not free of coercion. One word: wage slavery. You say it is ludicrous that you cannot own your own production, yet you advocate for capitalism. A system that is built upon the expropriation of the workers' productivity.

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

(LCW)   Maybe after you repeat that a few hundred more times it will begin to make sense, or maybe not. When do you defend your own words? I don’t believe you. I don’t agree with you. I worked my whole life, and while I might have done better, I did ok, and have lived a life that was comfortable, with totally ethical actions used by myself and those I worked for, otherwise, as happened a few times, I would have looked elsewhere. Who are you to say I was exploited if I don’t agree? What do you know about anything?

From what I have seen within socialist environments, if you are poor at the start, you pretty well end up that way, while in capitalism, millions upon millions have been able to drastically change their position within the society. This is no small accomplishment since most economic models over the centuries did not allow this kind of drastic change within the paradigm. It’s called upward mobility, and it is a concept that has no place in the collective paradigm. No one is denying that many unfortunately end up with the short end of the stick. I guess I agree that socialism would change that. ‘Everyone’ would end up with the short end of the stick. As long as that stick was not private property, in which case it would be owned by everyone. Maybe my analogy says that is the end result. It’s a really weird way to look at life.

Socialists seem to hate feudalism so much, but from what I see, socialism is simply a modern version of feudalism with possibly less freedom than the serfs had centuries ago. Ask Hitchens, he knows. He seems to know everything.
To be fair I have to agree with you on one thing, wage slavery. But I do have to make the point that it is two words, and not one.

I believe that it is a real thing, especially with all the taxes and regulations our current system burdens our citizens with. It is difficult to live without the pressure of never missing a payment for a hundred different responsibilities. It is indeed a version of modern slavery, but it still does not negate the benefits that are afforded an individual in a capitalist environment, which continues to be far superior to any existence under a totalitarian collective reality.

It is also obviously not an aspect of capitalism itself, but more simply another component of an overreaching and over-authoritarian government, which both capitalism, and especially Objectivism, wish to reduce dramatically. When you can achieve this without oppressive coercion and force, give me a heads up and we can talk. I won’t hold my breath.

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

"In order to collectively own all private property, you first have to take it away from others. Force." In order for the people to build democracy, it was also necessary to seize the power of monarchs by force. Does that make democracy immoral?

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

(LCW)   I’m impressed. That’s the first, and possibly the only reasonable thing that you’ve said to this point. You would have to be a bit more specific to really discuss that, but it is a legitimate question. If only you had a few more, we could possibly have a debate. There are many comparisons to be made there, and it is difficult to justify the actions. The obvious takeaway would be that socialism is advocating this force, as a movement and a system, ‘before’ actions are taken, which gives the ideology and the philosophy culpability for the actions, while capitalism, per se, is not the driving force behind what happened in America, and the capitalistic impetus and the American philosophical base did not come until ‘after’ the events of the American Revolution had taken place. It is a distinction that needs to be acknowledged and investigated further. I wish all your statements were so insightful.

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

"where all those engaged in that enterprise share in the profits" This is almost never the case in capitalism. Shareholders and workers have little overlap in most businesses. Indeed I think the model you describe is the ideal of syndicalism, an anti-capitalist ideology.

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

(LCW)   And we’re back to mindless. It is ‘not’ the case in capitalism because it is not an expectation of the system. Capitalism promotes each individual, ironically, according to their own abilities, taking responsibility for their own needs, and not adding a burden to everyone else to do so.

A lot of people got rich investing in Apple, and Amazon and so many others. That is ‘sharing’ in the profits. That is what stocks, as manipulated as they are, should reflect. They don’t, but it was the intent, I believe. Working in the same company for decades is ‘sharing’ in the profits as well, and losing your job would be as well when the profits were in a negative direction.

And we diverge into syndicalism, which does nothing to bring any clarity to the socialistic paradigm and the morality underpinning it. Why is it so difficult to talk of your own ideology, and resist the urge to only demean and vilify? You give example after example of the shortcomings of capitalism but refrain from extolling the positives of socialism. Why is that? Is there nothing of value to offer? It certainly seems that way.

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

"Tell ya what, I believe any hierarchy which is not predicated upon the absence of force, absent of coercion are far more superior than those which and only can exist by the use of force of some against others" Again you speak of this as if it isn't present in capitalism.

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

(LCW)   It is acknowledged that these things exist in capitalism, only that they are not a requirement, as they seem to be in socialism. There is an articulated resistance to the use of force, as opposed to socialism that, as you stated, is required to ‘seize’ the means of production and property to even begin to establish a socialistic system. That is a huge difference between morality and intent. Again, you continue to speak of the aspects of capitalism, almost without exception, and leave the defense of socialism to ….. whom? If not you then who?

Your speakers are in fear of putting up a defense. Others like you simply want to criticize and deconstruct capitalism, and none wish to build and extol socialism, and I continually ask myself why. In lieu of any other evidence, I find myself unable to do anything but believe that you also know the vapid makeup of your own philosophy, and are unable to offer anything of value or substance to the question.

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

Pure capitalism is coercive because if you don't participate you die. Social programs alleviate this pressure. Socialism abolishes it. If I understand your philosophy correctly, this should be appealing to you.

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

(LCW)   Are you even suggesting that if in socialism, you do not participate, you also do not die? The obvious illegitimacy of your comments is immediate and overwhelming. If you cannot articulate what you are trying to say, then how could I, in good conscience, judge your comments without an understanding of your position?

What exactly does socialism abolish, and how do they do this? Appealing, why? I simply cannot adopt a single aspect of a conflicting, and an already determined inferior alternative, to fix an issue that only exists in your interpretation of another system that works quite well, except in cases where the primary players use force and intimidation, which does not constitute a fundamental of capitalism in any way, as it does within socialism.

Why do you think this option would be appealing to me? You are indeed correct, you may not understand my philosophy correctly, and even if you did, that would not mean you were on the same page with any other capitalist. You must remember, we are individuals and determine our own direction and action. We are not of a hive mentality that accepts whatever the central party council determines is good for us, we decide for ourselves.

So, while recognizing that it can be complicated and messy at times, capitalism is something that is dynamic and evolving, while socialism is stagnant and restrictive, in every case. Since the individual cannot decide for themselves, I would think it an imperative to contact those ‘above’ you for information and direction.

That is a sad state of affairs. I am surprised that does not bring you some manner of regret. What do you do when you have a good idea within socialism? Are you free to pursue that idea, as we are in capitalism, or not? What happens when you are so sure that you are right, but those above are so sure that you are not? What are your options? I have many questions, grasshopper, but I hear no answers.

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

Judging from your last paragraph, we also agree that helping those in need is somewhat desirable. Capitalism actively punishes people for that. In a system where money is the absolute metric of success, most acts of charity are simply irrational. Capitalism does not give the optimal incentives.

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

(LCW)   Where in the world do you get your information, in a box of Cracker Jacks? It ‘is’ desirable to help others in capitalism as well as Objectivism, but not to our own detriment, but ‘no’, it is never punishable, and an individual cares much less what someone else thinks, as opposed to the collectivist that shivers in fear if they are labeled anti-social, or worse yet, anti-altruistic.

Money is a metric of success only for those that do not appreciate the concepts of ethics, and morality, character, and integrity. Success, as a tangible commodity, is more about satisfaction than actual monetary gain, and is normally of more importance to a true capitalist, no matter what your opinion may be. What defines success to the socialist? I find it hard to believe that your own goals are not involved with your criticisms, or else you would be telling me your own objectives, ignoring my own, and telling me why they are superior, and how you achieve them, and the benefits that others derive from your actions. You say none of that, you only continue to demean and degrade. I never see a collectivist doing anything else. Disturbing, and sad. Your reality, not mine.

Acts of charity may be irrational to you, but not to me. You know nothing about me, and I resent you speaking for my actions. You give no context, nothing new there, but you can’t even articulate why you think that might be a possibility. Nothing but ad-hominems, all day long. You may not use directly derogatory terms, but you certainly disrespect everything about the capitalist, and because of that, you push me in the same direction. There is cause and effect in everything we do, and everything you do, and you have to accept the ramifications of your words and your actions.

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

In our values we are not very different I believe. We just draw completely different conclusions. I think this is mostly because I value positive freedom more than negative freedom. Learning this distinction has greatly shifted my political views away from liberal economics to socialist/communist views.

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

(LCW)   The anxiety and frustration of listening to your incomprehensible philosophy are overwhelming at times. You have to explain what a positive freedom in socialism is. It is a completely irrational concept from what I know about socialism. You have redefined a hundred words in your comments today and have explained none of them.

You just say anything you want, and think it has some intrinsic validity only because you said it. If you have any information at all, it needs to be offered in some form. I know that this is not a forum with the capabilities to respond to one another, but there must be others that have some comprehension of what you are speaking of. I am trying to give a benefit of the doubt that you believe this, but I don’t even know what it can possibly mean.

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

bcshu2

@astreiner boi socialism is rape whereas capitalism is consensual sex.

Capitalism is enforced altruism. I can only get that bread you have if I am to return something of equal or greater value to you. Otherwise, you would not engage in the transaction. Socialism dispenses with that and uses force to take your bread and to give it to others and having a few in the middle take some for themselves along the way.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that I can accept this concept of enforced altruism. I think I understand your meaning but it simply doesn’t sound right. What you present is a voluntary exchange of money for bread. That is not altruism by any definition I know. Altruism is the ‘giving’ of something to someone else, and it can only be altruism if it is freely given, for whatever reason. As soon as force becomes a component, it ceases to be altruism, it is theft and coercion, possibly some version of slavery, but not altruism.

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

Look it, there are two sets of moral interactions at play here. The first set is the personal moral interactions individuals have within themselves. How to live a good life, how to secure happiness, productivity, meaning, and purpose in their life. That is a private and personal set of moral pursuits. The second is moral interactions between and amongst individuals.

Where you and I most likely disagree is when individuals thrust their own set of personal values unto others by the use of force.

If I see a starving man on the street my personal moral calling may ask of me to share in my bounty and assist this person in their time of need. However, if you and I are walking and we encounter said individual in time of need my personal moral code would not allow me to take a knife out of my pocket and force you against your will to help this person out. I am free to try to convince you to help, I am free to make the moral case for you to freely help him out, but I should never justify using force upon you cause my cause is just and good. Now if I canvassed the entire neighborhood to ask if together, as a collective, we all agree that you should help this person out whether or not you desire to, even if it’s against your will, would not make it moral.

We do not begin with a sin, so to speak, and add more sins, so to speak, and magically that turns sins into something moral. It may make it legal, democracy in action, but it would not make it moral.

Perhaps this person you decide is unworthy of help, perhaps they wronged you greatly in the past, who knows.

Another example. Those of faith. They have a personal moral compass upon which they immensely believe if others followed they would be better served as well as the community at large. I advocate for their right to share this moral belief system, to attempt to persuade others to their side, to try to avail to my reason and rationalism in seeing the values they profess are there, to use their own reason and logic to convince me of the merits of their belief system.
Which strenuously object to would be for those same individuals of faith to use force to get in to abide by their personal system of morality.

This is socialism in action. It would like consensus but if people don’t wish to abide it matters not because force is used to ensure compliance.

You suggest capitalism does this very thing. It does not. Capitalism demands voluntary interaction and the value therein is that each individual gets to express their own personal set of morals as they see fit.

So if you think Walmart's business practices are not aligned with your moral beliefs, you get to exercise that in deciding where you shop. You do not get to use force to stop someone else who does not align with your personal moral underpinnings from exercising their own choices. Feel free to share your reasons, to try to convince others in an open marketplace of ideas but refrain from thrusting upon others your own moral beliefs using force.

I think smoking is unhealthy and will harm your ability to live a long life. Crazy, I know, it’s just a set of beliefs I have. A friend of mine smokes. In the interaction between what I think is best versus his own set of beliefs, how do we sort this out? Should I justify using force to prevent him from smoking because my cause is just and right? Should I be able to confiscate his economic resources so to prevent him from buying a product that only harms him? I say not. I am free to attempt to convince him, to seek his voluntary adoption of my belief, I should never be justified in using force to get him to abide by my morality.

A lot of the coercion you subscribe to capitalism is just a red herring. Capitalism is the absence of coercion. You say if you don’t abide by capitalism you die. Okay, wow. So yes, you need food to live. And yes in order to acquire food you must trade something of value that others want in return in order to secure food. So in essence you are being asked that if you want something you don’t have you can’t just take it by force but will have to, through voluntary cooperation, exchange something in return. Whereas is the coercion here?

You talk about wage slavery. What you’re really referring to is decision consequences. So a person who spent years making self-limited decisions and In the end became a doctor absolutely has more options than someone who did not make the same self-limited decisions and finds themselves waiting tables at the age of fifty. This is not the fault of the small business owner that owns and operates the cafe at which that waiter works at.

This is not to recognize that for all of us due to circumstances of life of which no one is often responsible for we are not all equally provided the ability to participate in the same decisions. Life isn’t fair, that’s a given. But in acknowledging that life isn’t fair is not a sufficient enough reason to warrant the rationale to thrust one's belief system onto others against their consent by the use of force.

Capitalism is the most humane system out there precisely because it only operates on voluntary cooperation. If you have a bike I would like to buy from you but you don’t agree with the merger price I’m willing to pay then there is no cooperation. I don’t get to turn around, pull out a gun and force you to take the trade and justify my action because without the bike I won’t be able to participate in my newspaper delivery job. That’s not your fault.

Similarly, if an employee is not satisfied with the level of compensation they are obtaining from an employer, they don’t get to use a gun to force more wages. They are free to leave, free to develop more skills which may ensure they get bigger wages. The employer is not forcing you to take the job.

If a group of ten waiters wishes to pool their resources, start a pizza shop business, and all share in the success, capitalism allows that. So long as it’s voluntary. All that was done there is make them all owners, responsible for the liabilities etc. But what is not moral is for those same group of people to now come to my pizza shop and by using force rearrange my business shop to be modeled after them. That’s no longer voluntary, it’s immoral, and it’s force. That’s socialism.

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

(LCW)   A lot of ideas. Simply presented and rational. The ring of truth is rather loud. I can’t find any fault with any of the examples or your interpretations offered. A solid response to many of the comments you have been having with astreiner. They are not willing to discuss their support for coercion but have made it perfectly clear that they do. Their ideology is toothless and illegitimate without the use of force and is impotent without it. It shows a lack of substantive options within the philosophy and why I cannot accept or support the paradigm. Some of the aspects are just so irrational and I think obviously immoral and impractical.

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

bcshu2

@astreiner boi as for our values being similar, many are no doubt. But many are not. Johnathan Haidt highlights this in his work, The Righteous Mind, How Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Conservatives, libertarians, and liberals all have different moral underpinnings at play that advance their proscriptive assessments in the face of political and other concerns.

Liberals, for example, place a high value on the value of fairness. This is great! Conservatives place a high value on authority. Again, not necessarily a bad thing.

Hierarchies in and of themselves are not a bad thing. They can be corrupted if they become unfair. The left and the right both need each other, they benefit from recognizing merit and insight the others bring to the table. The danger is when we resort to tribalism and think our own personal moral beliefs require everyone else to adopt ours, full stop.

A prime example, policing. Police are necessary least we resort to mob rule, might makes right. They hold a very impactful position as they have been solely granted with the use of force. We need to carefully and consistently ensure that that authority is not being used in unjust, misappropriate, and reckless manners. Recently many see police as the tyrannical father figure go amok. There is merit to this. Any response that ignores the reality that police equally and reasonable are also capable and often are the opposite, the ones who are the protectors and defenders of the downtrodden would not be helpful in sorting out the mess.

So yes, we are more likely similar than different in values, but to think there aren’t significant differences would be misguided. I object to the use of force to obtain compliance. There are situations where that is necessary. Those should be as limited and as few as possible.

I hear you on the other hand suggesting that the ends justify the means because your cause is just and worthy when it comes to using force. I believe you arrive at this as your moral framework highly values equality and fairness. I respect the equality and fairness value, but it cannot nor should not be used to justify immoral actions. This is the reason socialism is advanced. Capitalism is the opposite. I cannot use force but must seek and secure cooperation voluntarily otherwise we won’t interact.

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

(LCW)   This is a real grab-bag of concepts and moral imperatives. I appreciate your attempt at being more than reasonable and open-minded. If anything, I think you were overly so.

I have to question your assessment that liberals place a high value on fairness. This may be true when it is in relation to those that subscribe to their own values, and to those they think are being singled out for inappropriate attention, by their own limited standards, but have no qualms whatsoever about unfairness for those groups they consider a threat to their objectives. That suggests, to me, a hypocritical perspective, not based on ‘fairness’, but political self-interest. Let’s be realistic, they are not called special interests for any other reason. They are not special, and their interests are specifically focused on anything but fairness for ‘all’. I subscribe to the view that every single individual, irrespective of any physical or political affiliation, should be treated equally, without exception. You can accept that position or not, but I will accept nothing less.

I agree that hierarchies of any kind can be corrupted and unfair. I will consider any and all alternatives that destroy the capabilities of hierarchies to do so. I have no interest in power but have an obsessive focus on creating an environment where the individual has the freedom, the rights, and the power to control those same hierarchies, and determine their own futures, their own destinies.

They work for the ‘greater good’, irrespective of the ideology in power. Power cannot be unbridled, but directed and answerable to the people. If not, the whole exercise is moot.

The issue of police has been perverted, as has the power of the state. I cannot believe that more than a very small percentage of police have any intentions for contra-American ideals or expectations. I see no evidence of that, notwithstanding the highly personal, ideological, and self-interested reactions to events that have occurred over the last years. The actual number of instances is horrendously small, and the reaction has been over-reactive and completely out of proportion to the reality on the street. If we cannot come to some kind of consensus that legitimizes such a perspective, nothing short of revolution will be possible.

Police is an absolutely essential service that is required for any system to remain viable. Clearly, there has been behaviour that has exceeded what might be considered appropriate, but this must be identified and codified into what behaviour is expected and acceptable. If the bar is set so high as to call into question every action that an officer takes, then there will be only inferior individuals that we will be able to obtain to fill those positions that are indispensable to our security and our confidence in the job that is expected of them. That will create an environment that will not end well. We have to do whatever is necessary to prevent an environment that is doomed to failure.

It is certainly an oversimplification to say that we have ‘similarities’ between ideologies, but the ‘values’ that you point to are the real significance. It is, without question, a matter of what constitutes those values. We both talk about equality and fairness, justice and civil rights, liberty and freedom. We can’t even agree on concepts like socialism and capitalism, and certainly not issues like selfishness and altruism, exploitation, and the initiation and use of force.

Our moral compasses are not similar at all. Our ethical morays are at times as different as night and day. What we see as personal character and acting with integrity are based on contradictory philosophical fundamentals, and it cannot be more evident than simply listening to the comments in relation to our debate today. The words may be similar in nature, but in practice, they conflict on some extremely basic concepts.

I too, abhor and object vehemently on the use of force, almost without exception. They deem it not only acceptable but instrumental in the initiation and implementation of their view for all people in the future. If not, they need to say so without ambiguity and tell us how they then intend to accomplish their goals. They have basically refused to do so to this point. That needs to change.

I try not to deal in absolutes, but this concept of the ends somehow justifying the means is simply irrational. You might as well proclaim that two wrongs will always result in a right, or two sins a virtue. Irrational and contradictory, immoral and unethical actions can only result in an illegitimate conclusion. I have never found the opposite to be true. I can save a life by sacrificing the innocence of another, possibly, and disturbingly, that seems to be a primary concept in the socialist mindset, but it holds no credibility, no value, no substance if and when I am that innocent being sacrificed. How any rational person could even suggest such an event is beyond my comprehension. All actions must be reasonable and rational, ethical and moral, to have any chance of creating an appropriate result.

An ethos and a morality may exist, but all of the worst players in history inarguably had a philosophy that directed their actions, but a philosophy can also be evil and completely worthless, as those individuals illustrated. For myself, alone, I will be the arbiter as to that legitimacy. The issue today was that underlying morality, and the socialist speakers, as well as many of the comments we see, obviously have no intention of addressing that concept, and that means the debate becomes vacuous, and simply a vehicle to promote and distribute nothing but the ideological rhetoric, sans reason, for anything they wish.

This is not what the debate was supposed to be about. Where are the deep insights on the irrefutable legitimacy of the philosophy of the socialists? I have been listening, and I hear nothing to even begin to convince me to take a closer look at the ideology. In fact, for many reasons I have already presented, it makes me more skeptical than ever as to the efficacy of the belief system.

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

astreiner boi

@bcshu2 Believe me I understand the principles of capitalism. I do not need the same example in ten different wordings. I get it, you believe that socialism is the state robbing and threatening people. Every single one of your examples just showcased your misunderstanding of what socialism is.

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

(LCW)   So please be the first socialist today to actually explain it for us in simple and concise language, you know how difficult it is for us to understand such complex concepts.

I am sure that you actually think that you do understand these concepts of capitalism, so that would make you the perfect person to put all of this into perspective, but my own perspective forces me to strongly question your statement. I guess it should be no surprise, but it amazes me, after a thousand examples to the contrary, that you have such a hubristic certainty as to your own superiority and knowledge of others but without exception judge others that have legitimate comments, but are not in line with your own, and are condemned without any credible evidence or rational argument.

If one can hold a ‘misunderstanding’ of socialism, why is it not possible for you to do the same in relation to capitalism? You may certainly disagree if you feel the need, but to be so unrelenting in your own lack of comprehension of capitalism just makes you look silly. If I truly ‘misunderstand’ socialism, please explain your inability to not convince me otherwise, or to even present an objective and reasonable definition and explanation of the fundamental morality of the philosophy?

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

This image of socialism has two origins: Authoritarian attempts to achieve socialism (which I do not subscribe to) and the "red scare". If you can only repeat this skewed image of socialism over and over instead of correcting this factually incorrect image, I see no value in engaging with this debate. You clearly do not understand what wage slavery or positive freedom means. (or altruism for that matter)

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

(LCW)   And you have yet to define or explain either of those concepts to any degree, and that is on you. When one proclaims something to be true, it is their responsibility to bring clarity to the discussion, or forfeit legitimacy.

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

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