1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Opening Statements: John Ridpath

 
 
 

A moral social system defines the proper society for man. Freedom is essential for mankind to thrive, the freedom to think and to be free from the initiation of physical force. Government is a cooperative organization and not a charity        

 
 
 
 

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

John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath: “ …. capitalism versus socialism. What is the moral social system? There really are only two central issues in this debate, the first issue is to argue for the moral code underlying capitalism or underlying socialism. Dr. Peikoff has concerned himself with the issue of the moral code underlying capitalism, the code of rational egoism and he has shown that this moral code is validated by man's nature as a rational being and by man's life as his ultimate value. I want to note that in doing this we have not asserted our moral code that we have gone through the pains of arguing for our moral code on the basis of man's nature, we have in fact done what the debate topic demands so far in making a case for the morality of our system and I look forward to our opponents doing the same”.

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

(LCW) It’s nice to get back more or less in line with the intended expectation of the debate. There is nothing wrong with a personal reminisce and political agendas, but we must remember that there is an objective here, to discuss, defend, and most importantly, to teach others about the issues and philosophies involved as a part of this debate, and specifically what it means to be morally and ethically involved with an ideology that determines the interaction of individuals and groups within our society. The rest is really a distraction and somewhat dishonest since it does nothing to promote anything besides issues related to self. Ironically, a case could be made that this is a simple representation of the non-rational self-interest, or selfishness as some like to call it, and an example of the worst kind of behaviour in relation to that. It often boils down to ‘do as I say, and not as I do’, and that is unfortunate, on so many levels.

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

Dr. John Ridpath: “ …. the second issue in this debate is the application of this moral code to the question what is the moral social system and that is what I'm going to address myself to in moving from the moral code to the question of the proper society for man”.

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

(LCW) It would have been nice if we actually had a moderator that could keep people on track. I am a proponent for the least amount of interference from a moderator, exemplified by our political debates where the moderators seem to be the center of attention and not the candidates, but in this instance, when individuals talk about all of the peripherals and never get around to answering the fundamental questions, it would be nice for there to be at least a reminder of what we are here to listen to and contemplate.

Ridpath at least is promising to do so with his comments. The ‘application of this moral code’, the question of exactly ‘what is the moral social system’ we are talking about and just what may be the ‘proper society for man’ are the issues stipulated. I have no idea if he will actually do so, but I long for the opportunity to hear what all the participants have to say about the subject.

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

Dr. John Ridpath: “ …. the first point to make is that to live which means to use his mind and to act on the basis of his thinking. Man in a social setting needs one thing, freedom, and this, in essence, means freedom ‘from’ the initiation of physical force or fraud by others against him. This freedom is man's fundamental social requirement if he is to be able to live by his mind. It, therefore, is true that it is moral to be free of the initiation of physical force. Is the primary social evil a social system built on recognizing the value of freedom? Is the moral social system any social system adopting and institutionalizing the initiation of physical force in any way for any purpose is by that fact an evil social system and an enemy of man's life?”

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

(LCW) These are insightful questions, and extremely relevant in relation to the original reason for the debate. You will hopefully take note that there was no mention of these things in the opening statements made by Ms. Vickers.

Perhaps living is not to be defined as using one’s mind to think and act in general. What does socialism consider to be the quintessential imperative of being alive, of living? What does the socialist think of the concept of freedom, and how does that dovetail with the acceptance of the will of the ‘greater good’, and how far does the ‘state’ go in implementation of their ‘will’? There is a definite component that exists here in the fact that acceptance is something that needs to be present in the socialist paradigm. Only with a voluntary response to directives does the system exhibit any legitimacy. In all my years, I have yet to understand what happens when an individual, which seems to be a heretical concept, disagrees with the 'community'? Is it even an option? What happens when one of the members of the group comes to the conclusion that something is intrinsically wrong, and ironically, not going to be a ‘greater good’ for all? Is the response to question their own precepts and discuss the issues, or are they shunned or exiled? Are they ultimately canceled or ‘sacrificed’ to ensure the purity of thought and viability of the ideology? Is this not intimidation and coercion in its most base form?

Where does the concept of freedom fit into the paradigm? If there is some kind of freedom I would like to know exactly how it manifests itself, and if not, that seems to be a pertinent piece of information to be used in making a decision as to the efficacy and ‘morality’ of the system. Remember, this concept of morality is what we are here today to speak of. Or are the prospective members supposed to embrace the philosophy, sight unseen and unknown, like some cult or secret society? Are the workings of socialism open and transparent, or are there levels of knowledge that need to be achieved before ‘enlightenment’ is bestowed upon the acolytes? These are questions of import. I have not heard them addressed in any way. I may be wrong, but I question if they will even be mentioned.

Now Dr. Ridpath defines ‘freedom’ in the ‘essence’ as being ‘freedom ‘from’ the initiation of physical force or fraud by others against him’. I have no problem accepting this perspective. I don’t wish to force his definition on anyone else. It would have been nice to have moderation that would have asked the opposition immediately if that was acceptable to them as well, with an opportunity to say why one way or the other. I find that the attempt to have a reasoned argument with anyone, for whatever reason, is greatly restricted if the fundamental concepts are not crystal clear, not as a statement of fact, but as an accepted belief, which can be used in the narrative to give depth of meaning as to what is being presented. I think the concept of ‘selfishness’ is an excellent example. Each side has a firm conception of what they believe this word to mean, and ironically, they are both right. The problem is that the Objectivist perspective, and fundamental belief, have no relation to what the socialist consistently interprets this to mean. Both cannot be right and wrong at the same time.

Not to get bogged down in a complicated set of ideas, but in essence, selfishness to the socialist is people being allowed to be anarchists of the worst order, and I would mention that the concept of anarchism is also somewhat jaded. To be able to take advantage of anyone and everyone to gain advantage and benefit for themselves. To totally disrespect all of the societal institutions and conventions to get what they want, and to have the sanction of the government in the process. And this exists. And should be expunged from the societal environment that we live in. So, what I am saying is that we totally agree these scenarios exist and should be addressed and removed from our reality. What next?

The problem is that the Objectivist does NOT believe, in any instance of their own definition of capitalism, and life in general, that these kinds of actions and behaviours are ever acceptable at any time. They believe that anarchism that impacts others in any negative way is inappropriate, destructive, and should never be allowed. All actions and transactions, in every instance, should be enacted ONLY by mutual agreement and to a mutual benefit. If either has any qualms about the action, they should have the opportunity to respectfully, and to be honest, not so respectfully, decline whatever was on the table, and remove themselves from the situation. What can be more amicable and appropriate than that? What does the socialist find troubling? What would they like to change? Is it the fact that the individual decides for themselves, without coercion or intimidation? Can the socialists offer the same expectation within their own system? Why not? Perhaps because they do not believe in the fundamental concepts of individualism and freedom on a visceral level? This needs to be resolved so as to understand in coming to conclusions and life-changing decisions like the governing factors in our societal makeup.

The Objectivist mantra is often talking about the ‘initiation’ of force. I think it is relevant to find out the opposition views on the concept. From my own perspective, I am concerned that force is an integral part of the philosophy of socialism. I actually accept that the system can indeed work, but only with the unanimous agreement of all involved, and I have never seen that eventuality with any other group of people in any other scenario, so my skepticism is overwhelming. I would like to feel comfortable that force is ‘not’ an inescapable aspect of the ideology, but find it difficult to see how the system works, especially when that ‘greater good’ is not so good in my own investigations. I see no alternatives to have the opportunity to do anything that is not completely ‘in-line’ with the majority. Are there options? I would like to be educated. I am not a fan of coercion in any form. I see no need except under extremely narrow circumstances, like the physical harming of another.

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ …. Now let us consider the state, the government, as a social institution. What is the essence of this institution? The government is not merely a set of laws. It is not a cooperative organization, it is not like an insurance company, it isn't a charity. The government, i.e. the state, is properly defined as that social institution, the only social institution, that has a legal monopoly over the use of force in society. It is society's only legally authorized social institution. Now combine this fact, with man's need for freedom, with the morality of ensuring that men are free and what you get is the conclusion that the moral government will use its monopoly on force ‘only’ to retaliate against those who initiate force. You get a government that seeks not to violate man's need to be free but to protect man's need to be free. You get a government whose only morally legitimate function is to protect the individual's rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.”

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

(LCW) This seems to be what anyone would want that lives in the society. A governing agency that does nothing from a specific perspective, but from a position that treats every single citizen, without exception, in the same way. Is this not what is meant when we speak of equality and justice, and freedom in general? Not the special-interest environment, where deals are struck and favors and votes and dollars exchange hands.

That is the epitome of lady justice, which in essence should be blind, is that not what we want? Are we looking for true equality and justice, or what I see today, which is retribution and vengeance by individuals and groups that feel as if they have been wronged in the past, and hope to replace one form of inequality with a new form, perpetuated by them and for them? That’s not the way to redress the wrong that has been done. We need to fix the system we have, and we have a system that allows for it, but it is indeed broken. Replacing it with socialism, which does not have the mechanisms for legitimate change, is an exercise in futility that will result in an even greater threat to freedom and future.

I believe that it is ‘evident’ that our forefathers, the framers of the Constitution, had the intent of what Ridpath has laid out as far as what to expect from the state. I see nothing but conflict with those expectations and the future envisioned by the socialistic segment of our society. How do they reconcile the differences between the historical immediacy of the Constitution and the unequaled progress within the system with what they propose? It seems that they advocate, if not an actual ‘overthrow’ of the government, a tremendous change in the paradigm of our country and its governance.

Ironically, the system itself allows for the making of changes, even substantial ones such as they promote, through processes set out within the documents. Things like a Constitutional Congress and specific legislated amendments. The problem is that socialists, as well as liberals, which seem to be much the same, are not interested in convincing enough people to support the changes they want. I hear, incessantly, that the ‘will-of-the-people’ is solidly behind them, but never enough to actually create the change they want. The process is already existent within the Constitution which demands that you prove the support, and then you can change pretty much whatever you want.

Ridpath succinctly encapsulates the intent of the founders and the legitimate obligation of the government in relation to protecting the freedom of its citizens and the use of force. It is a shame that they do not take those responsibilities more seriously.

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ …. you get the only moral social system that there is, pure undiluted laissez-faire capitalism. The principle of recognizing individual rights is our way of safeguarding man's need to be free from force. Rights protect man in his freedom to act in pursuit of his life, rights ensure that men will be free to think, free to act, free to enjoy the fruits of their actions. Rights protect men from each other, they certainly don't enslave men to each other, and thus there can be no such thing as rights to the property of others or rights to be the beneficiary of the unchosen actions of others. There are no rights to food, to shelter, to health, to education, and the like precisely because such so-called rights are in fact coercive claims on the property and the actions of others. These rights are really a wholesale assault on the very notion of rights itself, and are remindful of George Orwell's slogans such as war is peace, knowledge as ignorance, and freedom of slavery of which I'll have a little more to say later”.

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

(LCW) I guess that I would welcome the positions and observations of the socialists in relation to what Ridpath has presented. I know that they are not in agreement, but they never go into detail about the what and why. Is it unreasonable to ask for specifics? It seems the only answer is to create wholesale changes with no explanation required. This system does not work, they have no intention of saying why, and simply want to replace the system with another that has no real record of success or benefit. Does that sound like a rational action? To me, it does not.

Do they believe that there is a right to the property or ability or resources of another if undertaken and realized in a legal manner? If the legality is in question, is that not a matter of representation and legislation, and not one of philosophy and ideology and the system that represents that perspective? So how does that legitimize the taking, by force, of these things? It does not. The negligence, incompetence, and yes, corruption of the individuals involved on the political side are in default, and that is where the blame should rightfully be placed. How does that change the narrative that the socialists are trying to portray as valid? Does it not call the whole intent of the movement into question? Without something substantial to support their positions, I think it does.

We need an in-depth discussion in this country about the rights of individuals regarding food, shelter, health-care, and education. The demand from some to confiscate whatever is deemed necessary due to ‘want’ or ‘need’ is in total conflict with the justice and equality that they espouse, to begin with. Under what morality is it acceptable to simply ‘steal’ whatever it is that is desired. This is true anarchy. This is true selfishness with the intent to harm another, and the reasons are irrelevant. This is totalitarianism at its finest, and is that not the inevitable conclusion to socialism, communism, and whatever form of collectivism is perpetuated? If not, then what is a more rational response to the need? I hear nothing of philosophy, nor ideology in the discussions with those that accept collectivism as a legitimate alternative to freedom, and make no mistake about it, if there is indeed the need for any type of sacrifice involved within the altruistic socialist paradigm, the concept of freedom has been tossed to the side in lieu of the collectivist expectations of some kind of Utopian existence.

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ ….the moral society, therefore, is the society where the government stands ready to retaliate when someone's rights are violated, but it never itself initiates force and violates its citizen’s rights for any purpose. The proper function of the government is to supply the courts, the police, and the military and that's it. This is precisely what capitalism properly defined is. Capitalism is that social system based on the total uncompromising defense of individual rights. Capitalism is the only social system in which all property is privately owned, capitalism is the only social system in which men resolve their differences and pursue their individual ends exclusively through rational persuasion, voluntary agreement, and free trade. Capitalism is the only social system in which the initiation of physical force and fraud are abolished from human affairs”.

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

(LCW) You will notice that this particular dissertation speaks of rights. He does not speak of women’s rights, minority rights, sexual rights, any of those special interests rights that seem to take up an inordinate amount of time, effort and especially dollars, and yet never seems to resolve the issue, or even make a dent. What is wrong with the concept of rights, as a comprehensive and transparent issue? Are these not the terms that are used, without qualification? Don’t rights cross all of these indistinct barriers between the competing camps for attention? Is not the right of a woman identical to that of a minority? Aren’t rights an ‘all-encompassing’ issue? If not, then please define for me the differences. Is it not the intent to placate the ‘unique’ groups so they feel they are being listened to and efforts are being made in reaction to their ‘needs’ and ‘wants’, irrespective of the other groups? Do they even care about those other groups except when their participation is required during protests and demonstrations? That is a question you will all have to answer for yourself. You know the truth, or at least you should.

Rights are universal. From my perspective, it is the Objectivists and capitalists that view society in the conglomerate, with all individuals being truly deserving of the same treatment without concern for their superficial attributes. I know I do. I don’t want any person treated in any way different than any other. I want every citizen to be ‘blindly’ equal, and to not only enjoy the benefits but accept the obligations and responsibilities as well for being a citizen and receiving whatever benefit you wish to talk about. I find that these obligations are an obstacle when speaking with these liberals and socialists. They wish to offer these things with ‘no-strings-attached’ and that is simply wrong. There are imperatives with everything that is given and even earned, within a rational and equitable society. There truly is no ‘free lunch’. If you disagree, then we indeed have a conflict.

I think it is obvious that I agree with what Dr. Ridpath is speaking of at this point. I guess I would have to ask the opposition exactly what it is that concerns them with his words. We are not talking about some example that is taken out of context and is only relevant in the mind of the speaker. How about answering, not the question you yourself ask, but the query from another, using his proffered words and meanings. Is it still possible to refute the positions, or is it possible that you actually agree, if what they say is real, and to be believed as passionately held as a fundamental truth? If so, then why is there no agreement whatsoever in the public domain? Is it fear of the constituency delving just a bit deeper into the concepts and coming up with conflicting results, possibly even considering the opposition as well-meaning and with valid and legitimate alternatives? I guess we can’t have that, can we? I wish I knew why.

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

Dr. Ridpath: “ …. Capitalism is the socialism, the social system which recognizes the social needs of man's nature. Capitalism, therefore, as I said in my quote for this debate, is the only moral productive and benevolent social system that there is. Such a social system has never yet fully existed. In 19th century North America it was the most closely approximated. In the 19th century, the principle that men would not initiate physical force against each other in their social relationships was more closely approximated than in any other time in human history. In the 20th century, all vestiges of this principle have been totally swept away. In the altruist welfare state orgy of our times, there has never been pure capitalism and there certainly isn't any capitalism in the 20th century. Nevertheless, we do not advocate capitalism because of our looking at the past, we advocate capitalism while looking ahead. We look ahead to a free, prosperous, and civilized future. I think you can see why we are proud to appear here tonight as advocates of capitalism as the only moral system for man”.

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

(LCW) I found this presentation to be well crafted, with quite a bit of information as well as belief, with consistent attempts to address the subject of the debate, which is the target issue, as opposed to the previous introduction. It is imperative to have these components if we are to have a true debate, with an exchange of ideas and information, so as to understand and share differing viewpoints and perhaps to get some of the listeners and readers to re-evaluate their own perspectives.

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