1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Opening Statements: Dr. Leonard Peikoff

 
 
 

What is morality? What is the ethical standards we use to judge a political system? the answer will not be given to us, rather we need to discover what that is. This demands that we think. Man is defined by his mind and his nature         

 
 
 
 

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

“ …. good evening ladies and gentlemen. Our topic this evening is capitalism versus socialism. Which is the moral system? To answer, we have to know what morality is, what is the ethical standard we're going to use to judge a political system. We cannot just assume that everyone knows or it's in the bible. We've got to state and validate our moral views at the outset because that's what's going to decide this debate.”

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

(LCW)   

Leonard Peikoff immediately goes to the crux of the issue. If we are to talk of the morality of our own system, or the opposing perspective, we need to know, to define, what is the ethical standard that we intend to use to have other people judge us, as well as judge our opposing ideology. It is not particularly important if our definition or perspective is legitimate, but to start the conversation, it is an imperative that we make clear what it is that we will be using as that standard.

Perhaps there will be an extensive discussion about the definition, but without it, what exactly are we debating, what are we hoping to clarify, if not what it is that is important, and why? Do we allow the Bible to be the arbiter or some other scripture or positions from philosophers or individuals as yet unknown and unrecognized? Or do we present something tangible that can be used as a benchmark to attempt clarity? The latter seems not only reasonable to me but absolutely necessary.

We need to agree on some common ground. Without it, there can be no discussion, no debate, no meeting of the minds on any level. If we are to play scrabble, there must be some final arbiter, some dictionary, that we all agree to use, to determine what is false and what is not. It does not matter if something is missing or is in error. We must agree or there can be no legitimacy to the end result.

I find this completely acceptable and reasonable. For a game to be played, there must be rules, and they must be compatible, on some level, with all the teams involved. Otherwise, there is no game, and no ultimate conclusions can be drawn. This is no different in a debate. Those that wish to play with no rules can never lose, but they can also never win. For some, this is not the ultimate goal. At times, it is only to confuse and misdirect. One never really wants to play such a game unless their intentions are somewhat dubious.

Is there really ever an end to any debate? Is there ever really a winner? I find that to be an elusive answer.

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

Leonard Peikoff:

“now our side holds that the standard of morality is man's life.”

“That which man requires in order to sustain his life
whatever man requires by his nature in order to survive we regard as the good.”

“The moral man’s crucial tool of survival is his reason, his mind,
the mind is our only means of dealing with reality, grasping facts, acquiring reliable knowledge.”

“The mind is the source of every pro-life value.”

“Take as one example the immense, unprecedented wealth that you see all around you in the west. The wealth created since the industrial revolution in capitalism. This wealth was not produced by muscles but essentially by thought. The thought of the scientists who discovered new knowledge and the inventors who used the knowledge to create new products and the businessmen who used their minds to conceive and organize large-scale productive enterprises.”

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

(LCW)   I strongly advocate that this is the crux of the issue tonight. It is not fundamentally about socialism or capitalism, both of which are difficult to define and difficult to implement in any specific and structured way. Once it starts, the movers and shakers, the power brokers, they get involved and take control of the game, and forever distort and manipulate the way it is played. They make the rules, and that is not what is needed, not intended. I think that is the difficulty with both sides of the issue.

No matter what your ideology proscribes or suggests in theory, it is the actionable events which inevitably take place that define the integrity and legitimacy of the philosophy in practice. When inscrutable and evil individuals control the process, there can be nothing but pain and suffering for those involved in the venture, at least the losers. The point to be made is that capitalism, in its true form, is not supposed to have winners and losers, but only informed players that both agree that the transaction is to their advantage, in other words, nothing but winners.

Both are content and think they received a good deal. The bad players are the reason this does not work, not the system itself. This, to me, is the inevitability. We seem to be powerless in stopping those who deal in corruption, and those of a psychopathic nature, that look only for power and total control, and have no interest in the benefit to all, or any for that matter, except themselves. It is all about them, and nothing else.

How does one confront and address such an issue? How does one combat and counter those that have no compunctions and no conscience in lying, and cheating, and manipulation, and even killing, to get whatever it is that they want? Is it even possible for someone of character and integrity to engage these individuals of evil with any possibility of success? If not, then our futures are indeed under the threat of domination. This is the singlemost reason for the popularity of John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, as well as Francisco d’Anconia, Dagny Taggart, and Ragnar Danneskjold. Not to mention Dirty Harry, The Lone Ranger, Superman, and an infinite number of superheroes. There seems to be an intrinsic need for the triumph of good over evil within the human condition.

Try, just for a moment, to think about what Peikoff has just said. What is it that you can disagree with? Labour has always existed, I believe that is not debatable. If that was the only criteria for progress and innovation, we would be awash with a progress that could not be denied. And yet, there is no evidence that brute strength does anything even suggesting progress. It is used for oppression and control, but not in progress and innovation, or at least only peripherally.

Man’s greatest attribute is indeed his ability to think. That ability needs to be directed to our objectives but in a constructive and beneficial way. We need to appreciate the ability to think, and yet appreciate that, yes, the worker is instrumental in the production of any product, but without the concept of the inspirational thought, and the ability of the intellectual capability of the realization of the process of creation and practical application of that inspiration, the eventual product is never realized. We have to give credit where it is due. Certainly to production, but only to some extent. Without the intellectual component, there is nothing to produce, and all the effort and ‘muscle’ in the world will not create the end result. There has to be vision, which is not always successful. Brute force accomplishes nothing except domination and manipulation unless given an appropriate outlet.

“The mind is the source of every pro-life value.”

In essence, this can be considered profound. To be pro-anything, decisions and possibilities must be considered and made. The only way to do so is through the process of thought, contemplation, and eventual conclusion. For anything to be pro-life, we must first decide what is beneficial to life in general, and then to decide how to create and support an environment where this can happen. This is not an osmotic process. It comes about only through rather deep thought and contemplation.

The mind is the only means that gives us the opportunity to discover and comprehend those things that are presented to us, with any chance of a resolution. It is a process of cause and effect. It is not a process of wishing on a star or hoping for the best. I hear a positive alternative here, based on reason and a possibility for something tangible. I hope to hear something similar from the opposition.

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

Leonard Peikoff:   "Physical labour by itself is not what creates wealth. Every earlier age had an abundance of physical labour. What creates wealth and all human values is thought. That’s the point. One morality means thinking, reasoning, exercising and living by one’s own mind”.

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

(LCW)   Again this drives home the point that labour, or muscle, has existed at every stage of mankind’s existence. If pure strength and an irrepressible power was all that was necessary to create progress and wealth, the components have existed, well, forever. And yet, it never happened. Was it the fault of capitalism, even when no one understood what that even consisted of? I think not. Strength and power are good for oppression at worst, but also a positive in a secure and cooperative development, but thought and reason result in innovation and progress. All the time? Unfortunately, no, otherwise we would be further along the path to substantial evolution of our potential.

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

Leonard Peikoff:   “Life requires selfishness. A living organism has to be the beneficiary of its own actions. It has to pursue specific objects for itself for its own sake and survival. Life requires the gaining of values, not their loss, achievement not renunciation, self-preservation, which is selfish not self-sacrifice. If life is the standard, then morality cannot consist of sacrifice.”

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

(LCW)   This is a fundamental aspect of Objectivism, and actually, of capitalism as well. If an organism (his concept, not mine) does not exhibit a certain degree of selfishness, then it inevitably dies. If my objective is to concern myself with your sustenance, then I eventually die if my own needs are not met. If your protection is paramount to my own, then circumstances will irrefutably put me into a scenario where I cannot survive. If it is one or the other, and my focus is on the other then the self will suffer. Reason tells me that this is undeniable and unavoidable.

If I cease to be, then I can be of no assistance or support to another. I must first and foremost ensure my own existence to be able to even consider being instrumental in the survival of another. To sacrifice myself to save another is noble, in certain circumstances, but if all the individuals of ability sacrifice themselves for a single other individual, when they had the potential to save a multitude of others, then it must be considered and decided what is in the best interests of all of those involved.

I am not talking about the greater good here, but there is certainly a relationship, but I am talking about making personal decisions about value and intent. In my own opinion, it is a profound decision to sacrifice one’s own life to save another. To do so to save someone with no intrinsic value is not the same decision as saving another that has demonstrably shown attributes and abilities that are superior to your own. The concept of altruism values sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice. Integrity demands that you sacrifice based on the concept of value and personal character and respect.

No one has to agree with my position. It is simply an example of what morality means to me, and to many others, I am sure. Sacrifice simply for the sake of sacrifice is a complete waste of one’s own life. Sacrifice for the love of value perpetuates one's values and the expectation that it will promote and perpetuate those same beliefs into the future. That is what is called ‘legacy’ by many.

Does one save their enemy and perpetuate their own destruction? Or do they come to rational conclusions as to what is in the best interests of themselves and those that mean something to them? I think the answer is obvious. To others, I am not so sure. It is a question that demands an answer.

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

Dr. Peikoff:   “Sacrifice is incompatible with the requirements of human life, and I mean here any kind of sacrifice whether of oneself to others or of others to oneself. Many people think our choice is only sacrificing yourself to others which they call Altruism or sacrifice others to yourself, which they call selfishness”.

“Cut your own throat for your neighbors’ sake or cut their throats for your own sake. Either way, however, one thing remains the same, somebody’s throat gets cut and the dispute is merely over who is to be the victim”.

“If life is the standard, however, we should not be reduced to haggling over victims, we should oppose, on principle, the idea of throat-cutting”.

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

(LCW)   There is a distinction that needs to be made when speaking of sacrifice, and Peikoff makes the point that one can sacrifice themselves to, or for, someone else. That would be an intimate and personal decision. We are not talking about an individual that does not have control of their own reason and therefore are not responsible for their thoughts nor actions. I disagree with him that ‘we should oppose on principle the idea of throat cutting’ only in the sense that it is not for him, or anyone else, to dictate in any way with the decisions and conclusions that I may come to.

It is a fundamental tenet of Objectivism that each man has to reason and conclude what is appropriate for themselves. If someone wishes to sacrifice themselves, for whatever reason, that is sacrosanct. That is not to say that we cannot have our own perspectives and act accordingly, or even that we cannot voice our own positions and attempt a reasoned argument to that effect, only that it is not for any one of us to decide for another. Their lives are for them alone to conduct and execute.

I would say it is a similar scenario even for the act of not sacrificing another to our own ends. I think we are of like mind in this instance, making every effort to never put another individual at a disadvantage due to our own decisions and actions. That does not mean to the extent that their sensibilities may be hurt because the level of our success does not favor the other or the fact that they lost in a fair and equitable competition for employment or for some transactional aspect of life.

It is something lost on the collectivists of the world when they criticize capitalism. There are two distinct forms of capitalism, in the raw so to speak. One is where actions are devoid of ethical and moral motivations, without character and integrity at pretty much any level, and this is what they point to when discussing capitalism. The ironic part is that we agree completely and unequivocally. I will never support nor condone this kind of behaviour, and believe not only should these inappropriate actions be confronted and expunged from the system, but it is our duty, both sides, in this case, to prosecute and ensure that it happens, which never seems to be the reality in the world we live in today. Much of what they condemn within the capitalistic environment is done in the name of altruism, and by people that they say they respect and support at every step they take. Hypocrisy is one of the primary reasons that capitalism does not in fact work the way we would hope it would.

The other kind of capitalism is the kind envisioned by the Objectivist, and, for the most part, is the vast segment of capitalism, today, that is enacted on a daily basis with the integrity and morality of a saint, never taking advantage, and never doing harm to another. There are people that behave with an integrity without equal, and that is something that is never acknowledged nor recognized by those that demean and vilify the concept of capitalism. They cannot, for that would undermine the intended objective of destroying even the memory of capitalism, lest it gain strength and become the example the Objectivist envisions since that would almost guarantee the dissolution of the collective mindset. If people could experience a capitalism without the corruption, nepotism, fraud and favor politics that exist today, they would embrace it without reservation, and the debate would be at an end.

There are not just these two versions of capitalism, either. There are a thousand ‘shades of grey’ as well, with individuals rationalizing as they pervert aspects only partially, for whatever misguided reasons, some benign, some malignant, and yes, often completely selfish. I do not condone, I condemn. It is just an observation. This is also unacceptable, but may be human nature in essence. Is it rational to think that all individuals will act with a level of integrity that is beyond reproach, all the time? I would say no. This does not exist at all in our world today, with few exceptions, and can only be seen as a hope for the future. It is what we should all be working towards.

The cancer that exists in capitalism, like cancer itself, is normally a very small infection that targets vulnerable aspects of health. It is not necessary to destroy the whole body to eventually kill the host. One or two specific incursions and the individual ceases to be. What needs to be done is to cut out the cancer identified, and allow the totality of the individual, or in this case, capitalism, to flourish and evolve.

The concept of capitalism is not corrupt. Todays’ elitists would say it is systemic, and they would be as wrong as they are about racism.

Individuals are corrupt, not systems. The true irony is that if capitalism were to disappear tomorrow, and the collective was allowed to flourish, where do you think these horribly corrupt individuals would migrate? They would infect the collective, and it would be business as usual, with the same players controlling the game, and the same poor individuals at the bottom of the ladder still looking up and dreaming of freedom and security. Nothing would change. It is something that has never changed during the entire existence of civilization. The paradigm of politics and business and economics does not need to change, the paradigm of the individual needs to change.

We are fighting a battle that cannot be won under the existing rules, so they must be changed. The problem is that I see no individual or group that has the capabilities, or vision, to define and recognize the problem, much less create and implement a solution. Stalemate.

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

Dr. Peikoff:   “ …. in other words of sacrifice, a selfish man in the sense I advocate does not sacrifice others to himself. Selfishness means each man is an end in himself. A man should live independently by his own mind and effort, with no victims. Such a man uses his mind to the fullest and acts accordingly. In other words I’m talking about rational self-interest”.

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

(LCW)   It is more than a little frustrating to try and explain selfishness to someone that refuses to even listen. Rand has defined and explained the concept in great detail with a clarity and comprehensiveness that is irrefutable, and the amount of information available in the society around us is overwhelming, from working for personal physical health for the individual to their psychological health as well. It is selfish to have a child, to excel at any sport, to earn an education, even to help others in most cases. From the selfish way we protect our family and our friends to the simplest task like giving yourself oxygen in an aviation emergency so that we then may be able to help others. Those that sacrifice themselves without thought for their own safety invariably die and therefore are unable to help others. The obviousness of that statement seems to be lost on the multitudes.

To equate rational self-interest with hurting others is simply ignorant and self-destructive. There exists no imperative that success and wealth cannot be invested in others, and Objectivism nowhere promotes or supports such a concept. It exists nowhere but in the minds of the very same people that denigrate the concept of selfishness, capitalism, and Objectivism.

Objectivism teaches, or should I say suggests that we do what brings us joy and happiness, peace and contentment, and harmony in our lives. Never at the expense of another. What is the problem if that is true? If I never harm any other individual in any way with my actions, including within the business environment, then what exactly is it that you judge me for? What exactly are the actions that you condemn and denounce with such venom and intense hatred? I continue to be at a loss. And yet, these same individuals have no issues whatsoever with the Gate's, Bezos's, Zuckerberg’s, and Soros’s of the world, or the complete array of undesirable political representatives that represent us, on either side of the aisle. This is incomprehensible to me.

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

Dr. Peikoff:   “…in dealing with others this means trading value for value by mutual consent to mutual advantage. It means each party respecting the sovereignty and the freedom of others with no sacrifice either way”.

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

(LCW)   The fundamental ethics of Objectivism. Trading value for value. Every transaction without coercion and to a mutual benefit through mutual agreement. Each individual with the freedom to walk away if they so wish. No coercion, no use of force in any guise. Again, what is wrong with the statement? What am I not seeing or understanding? One of us is horribly wrong. Show me the error of my thinking. Show me the flaws in my reasoning, please point out my inconsistencies.

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

Dr. Peikoff:   “the ethics of social service, the ethics of self-sacrifice is what is destroying the world today. Who is supposed to sacrifice and to whom?”

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

(LCW)   Objectivism dictates that the individual is in total control as to how to use or distribute their resources. No one is instructed to hoard wealth, or the intangibles such as knowledge and ability, creativity and innovation and insight. Each can dole this out as they see fit. But there are those, who have little or nothing, that wish to dictate, with the use of force through intimidation and legislation, what those with these things will ‘have’ to do, under penalty of written or unwritten law. What a horrible philosophy. What a repugnant ideology.

I was just thinking while deciding what to discuss today, and the illustrious Bill Gates came to mind. The man who wishes to change the world. The philanthropist. Charitable giving is admirable, but when you choose the charity, you choose the cause. Where are the Pulitzer Prize articles investigating where those contributions actually go? Capitalists are chastised because they do not pay their employees enough and the benefits are inadequate. Why does he run a single company when he could create thousands of companies, with millions of workers making $100 an hour, working 10 hours a week, and able to retire at 25? What about Bezos, Musk and Zuckerberg? Something doesn’t make sense. Have you never questioned why?

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

Dr. Peikoff:   “Are the incompetent supposed to sacrifice to the able, the parasites to the productive? Obviously, no, the able and the productive have nothing to gain from such a sacrifice. It’s supposed to work in reverse, we’re told the able are to sacrifice to the incompetent, the productive to the parasites, the thinkers to the mindless, the healthy to the afflicted. In other words, the common denominator is the successful at living are to be penalized because they are successful in the name of rewarding the failures who get rewarded because they are failures. You could not invent a more anti-life code of morality and the only practical effect it can have is to strike down all who succeed at life and thereby drag down the whole human race as you now see happening all over the world”.

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

(LCW)   I realize that those that promote and support the subjugation of the men of ability to the individuals of ‘need’ don’t think in these terms, but it seems absolutely necessary to define exactly what it is that they actually suggest. This debate was supposed to be about the morality of socialism, i.e. collectivism as opposed to the conflicting ideology of free-market capitalism, epitomized in the ideology of Objectivism.

I am not interested in trying to defend the tarnished façade of capitalism, with all of its warts and scabs and sores, against the polished versions of collectivism, the image of perfection as presented by the representatives of the ideology, only recognizing the theoretical and impractical examples that cannot be assailed since they have never been realized. No, if we are to engage in a comparison, it has to be between both perverted philosophies as implemented by imperfect human beings, or between two pristine versions of Utopia.

Both camps decry the other and lament that the fundamental ideologies have never been given the chance to prove their efficacy. If so, is the debate already over? We can talk of the perversions we find before us, and we should if we ever hope to make some progress, but first, as Peikoff said, it is necessary to define the terms and concepts we use. I accept the challenge because, without definition, there can be no resolution. Some of the participants never want anything concrete in the discussion, since that will ultimately determine the stronger argument and, therefore, the more practical philosophy.

That was the intent of the debate. To discuss the benchmark beliefs that the ideologies are built upon. The fundamental concepts that are employed in explanation and clarity. The essence of why one set of beliefs is superior, or perhaps even equal to one another. That means the ethics and morals behind the beliefs. It is important to remember this during this entire exercise. Remember who speaks of what they ‘believe’ and ‘why’, and those that do nothing but distort and pervert the words of the opposition. They are both going to do so, but it is your challenge to determine to what degree.

There needs to be an acknowledgment that deficiencies exist, and even talk about how and why they exist. To determine exactly why they are inappropriate, and how they can be addressed and rectified. If that is not done, then this is all an exercise in futility.

It is difficult to admit imperfections, but without that recognition, there will be no progress, no adjustments, no growth, and no evolution. Beware of those that admit to none of this. Problems and challenges exist. What can be done to fix it? Without ethical morality and integrity, I am afraid the answer is nothing of any consequence.

Should the incompetent sacrifice to those of ability? While the characterization is somewhat derogatory, and yet apropos, it is more a matter of recognizing one’s own level of competence, and listening to those that have been successful so as to change their own personal paradigm and learn to adapt and make the changes necessary to not being a burden on others, and to actually help others in a way that the truly incompetent cannot.

Is this not one of the integral questions we all have to ask ourselves? Do we wish to be a burden on others, do we wish to be in their debt, do we wish to take resources that could help others? Are we ultimately capable of independent action, or are we truly in a position where we are incapable of helping ourselves? And if we indeed are in need, do we recognize the actions being taken by others to benefit us are through the largesse of those individuals, or do we think that whatever we want, whatever we need, is some god-given right, or some undefinable law-of-nature?

Are we grateful when they help us when they have no imperative or obligation to do so except what they determine within themselves to do? Do they have the right to make their own decisions, or can the state or any arbitrary individual compel them, at the point of a gun, to help you, even if you are capable of helping yourself? And if so, can they coerce you at the point of the same gun to accept responsibility for your own existence? These are important questions that need to be answered. They are the essence of the morality that is supposed to be presented tonight, although I fear that these kinds of questions will not be covered, and that is a shame.

This by no means demands that the individuals involved should be forced to do anything except through voluntary means, and to the extent that they feel they are able. If I feel that I can help to the tune of $100, is it in the power of others to arbitrarily determine that it should be $500 or $1000? Who gets to make such a decision if not the owner of the resource?

Perhaps he would like to help more, but wishes to wait until he is sure he will not put himself at a disadvantage due to his own circumstances and requirements. Who gets to decide? This is not just the morality of helping a single individual. This is the morality of a society, encompassing politics, economics, social responsibilities, religious freedom, even the concepts of fundamental freedoms themselves. It is not meant to be taken lightly, and not to be based on personal or ideological concerns. It is ultimately the decision on the course of the future, and not one, but millions of lives will depend on the final decisions.

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

Peikoff:   “The common denominator is the successful at living are to be penalized because they are successful in the name of rewarding the failures who get rewarded because they are failures. You could not invent a more anti-life code of morality and the only practical effect it can have is to strike down all who succeed at life and thereby drag down the whole human race as you now see happening all over the world”.

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

(LCW)   Mr. Pickoff’s comments, while a bit extreme, are not unreasonable. But again, we have to make the point that if these individuals do so ‘voluntarily’ there is no issue. Capitalism, exemplified by the concept of Objectivism, is in total agreement with helping those in need, that is not the question, and that is what the opposition will often point to, and condemn as ‘selfishness’ when it is nothing of the sort.

It is supposed to be a matter of choice. Is not the Liberal-left known as the party of ‘choice’? Why does that kick in ‘only’ when it is a matter of abortion? Why not with charity, and school choice, and immigration as well as taxes and the welfare state? Why do the ‘Democratic Socialists’ allow democracy to work, but only in the hiring of bureaucrats, and not in the daily application of the people’s will?

And yet they point to ‘democracy’ as the process they intend to use to get the ‘will’ of the people reflected in the actions of the socialistic ‘state’. These are fundamentally relevant questions to be asking in relation to the morality of the belief systems under discussion.

Individuals should not be ‘penalized’ due to their success, but that success should be totally legitimate. I don’t disagree with such a statement. Those requiring assistance should not be helped because they are ‘failures’, but because they are in need. The problem is always about coercion, and the absence of consent, not to mention if the ‘need’ is legitimate, and to what extent. My support for this ‘paradigm’ of helping those less fortunate would be so different if the corruption and fraud were addressed and resolved. It is an endless stream of endemic failures that plague pretty much every program that has ever been attempted under the guise of ‘altruism’. That has to stop, or this discussion is irretrievably lost.

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

Dr. Peikoff:   …” this has to be a marginal issue. If everyone was in such trouble the human race couldn’t exist. If you are in such trouble you have to depend on the voluntary generosity and private charity of those who are not in trouble, you have to ask for help as a ‘favor’, not a right. You cannot use your trouble as a club over your neighbor’s head. You have to recognize that other men have a right to exist too, that you suffering does not make them your slave”.

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

(LCW)   It is important that the assistance offered is recognized and, if nothing else, gratitude is offered in return. Does the concept of gratitude even exist in the lexicon of the liberal and the collectivist, or is it always a matter of ‘deserve’?

I think that Peikoff is trying to make the point here that it is not just a matter of assistance, but something more integral to the concept of government. We all know that they are not just trying to help these people out during a difficult time, but are trying to offer an alternative lifestyle which many would find hard to reject, one of doing nothing and yet being able to not only survive, but do so with a modicum of ‘dignity’. This is another moral concept that needs more attention. Why are so many people in such dire straits? Of course, the collectivist will make the case that it is capitalism that is robbing the poor of their ‘piece-of-the-pie’ but it is not that simple.

Most of the legislation that has been created and enacted came by way, not from the collectivists directly, but from the Liberal-left most assuredly. All of the off-shore activity, as well as the tax loopholes and subsidies and most of the business-friendly legislation were initiated at a time when Washington was controlled by a single party, and that would be the Liberal-Democratic Party, long before they came to be the Liberal-left. Perhaps not ‘collectivist’ in the traditional sense, and yet their issues seem to be in perfect accord with one another. And the issues I am trying to present are irrefutably examples of the worst that capitalism has to offer, and a major reason why some individuals end up at a disadvantage.

Can we not resolve these issues first and then determine if capitalism is working just a bit better? A distinction should be made here, has to be made. While the Republicans have had some success in recent history, gaining majorities in the House and Senate, although rarely at the same time, the power they controlled was infinitely less than what the Democrats enjoyed during the 50s through the 70s, especially the sixties, which is when a majority of the legislation favorable to those horrible one-percenters was ‘debated’ and enacted.

While the Republicans held sway with never more than a handful of members, the Democrats held insurmountable majorities, often veto-proof majorities, for years, decades at a time. The Republicans have been inept and have held marginal control and not often and not for long periods of time. In my lifetime, which spans almost 68 years, they have NEVER held a veto-proof majority for even a single day.

Just to put things into some kind of perspective, during those same 68 years, the Democratic Party held a 144 member ‘majority’ in the House for six years, and a 50 member majority for over 36 years during that same time-span. Compare that with the Republicans with a 50 member majority a TOTAL of a single session for a period of 2 years. Similar results in the Senate with the Democrats holding a membership edge of 30 or more for six years and 10 or more for 32 years, again compared against the Republican Party with an edge of over 10 members a single time for two years. All of the issues that the collectivists embrace, and for which the Liberals ‘voice’ support over the last 60 years, were in their ability and grasp to rectify, and yet very little was ever accomplished, while the ‘bogeymen’ of wealth and power had their way with our representation. It is important that you realize this, and think about what that means.

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

Dr. Peikoff:   “…this is not the function of government…” “…we hold the governments’ function is to protect each individual precisely from being sacrificed by others or to others to protect the independence of each man’s mind. In other words to protect his individual rights and leave every man free to act on his own judgment and for his own profit and this is exactly what capitalism is”.

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

(LCW)   Or what it should be. When he says ‘we’, of course, he is speaking from an Objectivist point of view. The role of government is to provide an environment where man can make his own decisions. The only role of government is to make sure foreign interests, and the interests of any other individual will not be allowed to prevent the exercise of those decisions.

Not to instruct and direct those actions, but to be a passive player until and only if someone threatens that freedom of thought and action. I find the position to need no clarification. This is not just an expectation taken by Objectivists. It is the expressed directive of the people set forth in the Constitution that is being usurped and perverted and ignored on a daily basis, as the individual is coerced into following directions and legislation that is undeniably contrary to that same Constitution. It is only through the corrupt and self-serving behaviour of a rogue Congress and the illegal activities of duly sworn local governments and legislatures that this is possible.

It cannot be stated strongly enough that they ALL swore an oath to that same Constitution, and they have not had the integrity to follow through. They are all negligent and in default to that oath. This is not by mistake but through design. The Supreme Courts at all levels have failed us as well with the abdication of their own oaths and lack of integrity. I am personally ashamed and embarrassed by their actions.

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

Peikoff:   “…I want to stress this capitalism is not what we have in the west today. I’m talking about let’s say fair capitalism in other words. The complete separation of state and economics. Not government by pressure groups, not government favors for any group whether businessmen, labor farmers or consumers, not tariff protection nor subsidies nor franchises nor any kind of handouts or welfare functions”.

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

(LCW)   There is nothing enunciated in the Constitution that gives government the power to do any of these things without the specific inclusion in the Constitution itself. The beauty of our Constitution is its ability to grow and evolve. There are many that say it is a ‘living’ document, and in many ways, I have to agree. Justice Scalia is known to have strongly disagreed, but I have no choice but to voice my own disagreement, but specifically with him, and not the Constitution itself. A vibrant society has to have an outlet for change to be able to stay solvent and viable.

The only way is to change with the vagaries and realities of society as circumstances change. Our Constitution is available to do so, and there are those that would like to trash it and replace it with something that obviously will not allow such an eventuality. Our system does not work perfectly, by any rational consideration of history, but it was designed explicitly to do just that. Not ‘what’ to do, since that would necessitate precognition, but how to go about the players at any one point in time being able to initiate those changes necessary, and with enough agreement, to implicitly start a process that would result in that change.

It was created, by design, to be difficult, and often more difficult than most are willing to accept, but that is a part of the beauty of the vision. To make people work together for change that, if I may use the Objectivist vernacular, would create mutual benefit through mutual agreement. If there is no agreement to an overwhelming degree, there should be no changes until they find a way to do so. That protects the majority as well as the minority, a concept that was foremost in the minds of our Forefathers and the creation of the Constitution, which is exactly what anyone who has ever been a member of a minority could hope or wish for. As Ayn Rand has said:

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities”

The government was not instituted to direct any specific vision for the future of America, but to insure that every citizen has the freedom to work towards their own vision without fear of intimidation or coercion. The framework, the template were granted to us, but the wisdom to use that template seems to be in short supply. Those we relied on to help us to that end have failed us completely.

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

Peikoff:   “…I’m speaking of government as an impartial arbiter to prevent citizens from violating individual rights and otherwise hands-off which is what laissez-faire means. Capitalism is the system that leaves man free to function. It leaves each individual free to live by his own mind and judgment, pursue his own goals, trade voluntarily with others. It’s the system based on the morality of rational self-interest.”

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

(LCW)   The question continues to demand an answer. Why is what he has been saying so offensive to the collectivist? What is wrong with having the right to choose? Is this not what you wish for yourself? A different version of reality is what they see, but they do not wish to convince anyone of its efficacy. They wish to impose, and never really to vote and come to consensus. You cannot have consensus to govern a country of 330 million individuals. It must be an overwhelming and enthusiastic ‘roar’ from the people for it to become the law of the land.

That is what I always envisioned as true democracy. Not a majority of 50.1% but a groundswell of 70% or even 90%. Something that cannot and should not be questioned. That will still leave those that disagree, and I have no answer to that, but it would finally be what may be characterized as the ‘will of the people’. Can we really expect anything less to be acceptable? Why is there no will to work towards such an end? The only other possible alternative will be one of eventual authoritarianism and inevitable totalitarianism. That is what history has shown over 5 millennia. That is the only example of what collectivism has done to this point.

Show me the error of my deliberations or I can never acquiesce to the destruction of a viable system that has proven itself time and again, even with its own shortcomings. Once capitalism and a rational constitutional form of government are expunged from the field of ideas, I find it hard to believe that it will easily ever work its way back into the paradigm. It will possibly prove to be the end of the alternative. Is that the strategy? Is that the end game? It may well be. We can’t have that, and many of us will simply not allow it.

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

Peikoff:   “…socialism is the opposite, however. Socialists may protest that the individual will benefit under their system but the fact remains socialists claim that the standard of value is not the life of the individual but the welfare of the group whether they call it the collective, the community, the race, the nation, the proletariat, they hold that it’s the duty of the individual to serve the group, to sacrifice for others as decreed by the group’s representation and spokesman, the ‘central-committee’, the all-powerful state”.

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

(LCW)   I am somewhat uncomfortable with Peikoff dictating what socialism is actually saying or promoting. I would like to see, and hear, what the representatives, for their part, have to say for themselves, but they continually decline, enjoying, rather, their own attempts at dismantling the opposition. How do they summarize and explain exactly what it is that they expect from the implementation of their ideology?

I must admit, I cheated and watched the whole debate before embarking on this exercise of exploration into the differences of the competing philosophies. And that is one of the issues. They don’t want to compete. Everybody gets a participation trophy and then gets directed home to shut up and do as instructed. But I like the idea of competition. Collectivists cannot allow a meritorious system since it immediately separates individuals into, well …. individuals.

We are here to talk about the morality of collectivism. Peikoff has had his say. I am fascinated at what the socialists will offer as a way of clarity on the morality of collectivism. Now is the time. They have been called on to explain exactly what it is that they have to offer. I don’t remember them presenting a definitive response. Peikoff has been fairly specific and passionate. If the socialists cannot offer something in kind, then what real value does their position offer those that have an honest interest in understanding the concepts, the direct consequences to their lives, and the ramification moving forward?

I am disappointed and to be honest fairly disgusted with the perversion I see of a valid system such as capitalism. I have nothing but fear for the existence of a collective hive mentality being in charge of my life, deciding to negate my own personal value at any time, on the whim of some indistinguishable drone, canceling my abilities, my resources, my future, and my life because I don’t fit into some vague and undiscernible plan for the future. Give me a reason to believe that your paradigm is not going to destroy me, as well as the country I love. I have my doubts, more than a few.

I want to know when I get to cancel those that I think are expendable, even if a part of the ‘high council’. In capitalism, I have a tenuous ability to be heard or to walk away and be left to my own devices and abilities. I don’t see that in a collective environment. Convince me that I am mistaken. What does it mean to live for the greater good? What value is placed on my life? Be specific. Give me examples. What happens when my usefulness has reached beyond its potential? Who decides these things? Is there a communal vote, which would be terrifying as well, or does the decision come down from some god-like creature that is never seen but only heard?

I believe that one of the best examples that I have ever read is John Galt’s speech when he left the Twentieth Century Motor Company. You might wish to give that some time. Some people find it interminably long, but I do not count myself among them. It is specific, it is important in its implications in the book, and profound in its implications within our society today relative to our current debate. In the collective, is it even allowable to disagree? What are the procedures in place to display that disaffectation? What happens when a group of individuals disagree?

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

Peikoff:   “ This viewpoint must mean ultimately the enslaving of the individual by the state and therefore the crushing of thought, production, achievement, and finally of life itself. In the 19th century when the west came closest to capitalism, the result was the highest standard of living and the longest internal of peace in mankind’s history. The moral is the practical, and as for socialism, look at the collapse of England, look at Soviet Russia, and remember that Nazi Germany meant National Socialist Germany. The results of socialism everywhere are as bad as they could have been predicted”.

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

(LCW)   It seems that Dr. Peikoff may have gone off the rails to some degree, but I understand the passion, and in principle, I probably agree. While enslaving is a bit harsh, it does have an element of truth. Even capitalism has a component of slavery in it. We work in an extremely complex society, and with all of the costs, and no real alternatives, we are ‘forced’ to ‘work-for-the-man’ to pay all those bills, taxes, utilities, etc. There are no options to go out and homestead or live in the wilderness, at least not anymore. There was a time gone by that we could have walked away. Most of us would have died, but at least it was a choice, albeit perhaps not a rational one.

There are different degrees of enslavement. One where there is a certain ability to make choices, and one where there is less, or none. At some point, we all have to make a choice. The socialist has many fewer choices than the capitalist, but that sounds like another endless argument.

But one thing is, I think, undeniable. The standard of living most certainly rose during the Industrial revolution. Maybe governments actually at some point thought they were doing something positive for their ‘constituents’, even the socialists, but in the end, it was themselves and cronies that got most of the benefit. I don’t disagree with that.

Capitalists deserve some of the credit, or blame, for their actions. But I hear no acknowledgment from the socialists that they have been the source of much pain and suffering. They would do well to recognize and admit and point to a lack of morality and integrity for the failures, but I never seem to hear that. It would make the ability to come to some agreement more viable, but they just can’t seem to bring themselves to do so. While the issue of peace is difficult to define exactly, I think we have to agree that even with the continual pain and suffering by way of any form of government and economy that it is indeed true that relatively speaking, there has been a greater presence of ‘peace’ than previously experienced.

It would be interesting to explore the claim, but we are here to speak of morality, and not war and peace. Is there a relationship? Nothing can be presented or defined in addition to the focus of our debate in any reasonable amount of time. The issue is the morality of the movements, and the theoretical expectations and demands of each ideology, and not the perversions perpetrated in the name of these movements. We interminably seem to focus on the outliers and the exceptions to the rules instead of the actual beliefs and teachings of the philosophies. We are now going to hear the opening of the socialist perspective.

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