1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Opening Statements: Gerard Caplan

 
 
 

Morality simply means how real people live in the world. Socialism began as an unbounded faith, a vision, almost a religion. Socialism is what a human being is capable of, and traceable from the old testament, the diggers, and the utopians         

 
 
 
 

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. you know it's an important historical evening, it's not the first time, it's the second time. 25 years ago on this very stage, yes, I was in third year and I don't know who sponsored it. David Lewis and William Buckley performed. The forum is certainly the word David Lewis then as always the great voice of socialist passion and indignation in Canada and William Buckley, faye and insouciant newly up from Yale, his great claim to fame his charming and noble voice of approval for Joe McCarthy in all his works and I want to tell you with his wit he gave David Lewis a run for his money that night and I'm only sorry his successors tonight are not doing the same thing of course.

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

(LCW) I wasn’t even going to include this somewhat irrelevant reference to Lewis and Buckley, but the condescension that spews from his lips before he has even started his presentation simply shows the lack of respect he holds for his adversaries without even trying to make a point. Begin with judgment and derision, and then act surprised when the opponent responds in kind. I find his attitude repugnant, immature, and indicative of the uninformed and irresponsible observations that he intends to use as his ‘rationale’ for his comments and exemplifies his lack of comprehension about the meaning of the concept ‘morals’ as a precursor. And yet, a sorry representative for the socialist, and not what they need to make a play for the hearts and minds of the public at large.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. I also want to say that I'm not here in my official capacity as a paid hack of the new democratic party and I say that not defensively, not because of Jim Laxer, not because of 15 in the polls. I'm not embarrassed about it. They're difficult times but I mean it's my job, but I want you to know I'm here in a private capacity even though I do get a derisory sum of money for doing that job from time to time”.

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

(LCW) I am not particularly sure if this great man, who I didn’t know then, never heard of him since, and I lived in Canada for twelve years, this great man doesn’t even seem interested in the challenge in front of him. He actually has the gall to deride his party, himself, the guy paying him, at times, a paltry sum to be a ‘hack’ as he characterizes it. He attempts to exude class and position, but as something no one wants their political representative to exhibit. Is it a wonder that his campaign is running at 15%? He disassociates himself from everything he is doing, and yet he is still here and rambling on like someone with a real psychological problem. I can only say that I am embarrassed for him, and for those that look to him to represent them on socialism, and interestingly enough, morality.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. let's talk about the three social systems, we've talked about two. Let's talk about a third for a second that are at the essence here and let's talk about morality which simply means how real people live in the real world, and I feel at some disadvantage now that John Ridpath has explained that his capitalism has never existed, does not now exist, he does not know when it will exist and therefore can show categorically how it is bound to be the best system in every way. I have some greater constraints, we have a little evidence on our side that's more ambiguous, democratic socialism is as Jill Vickers suggested, not a narrow ideology, it began as an unbounded faith as a vision of a great future as almost a religion that said this is what the human being is capable of, that there is a way of organizing our World”.

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

(LCW) I’m sorry but I have to ask if this guy is for real? I see nothing but vitriol spew from his lips. This is not what I envisioned as an appropriate way to engage in a debate of any kind. What is this ‘third’ social system he is mumbling about? Is morality itself a third social system? Or has he already dismissed his own comments and continues down his path to his religious exaltation. I am aghast, dumbfounded, and somewhat amused.

So morality is simply how real people live in the real world? Are those ‘his’ real people and ‘his’ real world? How are you supposed to have a conversation, much less even understand what he is talking about if he speaks in nebulous, undefinable terms? It’s like not communicating at all, which if you think about it, may be exactly what his ultimate goal is.

Is there anyone that does not understand what Ridpath is talking about when he says his vision of capitalism never existed? Vickers said the exact same thing about socialism. I would agree to the extent that it is defensive to lament that it never existed the way you think it should, and rather just state what it is that is the objective that you are working towards, and criticize the system that does not comport themselves in an appropriate manner. Whatever the system, no matter what the philosophy, it is the individuals that are using it that define and exhibit the morality of the system not only with their words, but especially their actions.

I find his smug characterizations of the comments childish and immature, and beneath the dignity of what I like to think of as a reasoned debate, but when one has nothing substantive to say, then the only recourse is to demean and ridicule the individual instead of addressing the content of their comments. He shows himself to indeed be nothing more than a political hack.

He then goes on to compare socialist tendencies with a religion? After castigating capitalism as a dream? The man has no concept of irony. I find no consistency in his comments, finding it difficult to even follow his train of thought at times. He continually digresses. He promised to speak of morality, and yet never went into any detail except to say he knows what it is and his system epitomizes it, ‘sans’ evidence of any kind or reason in any respect. His whole presentation is vapid at this point.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. and believing certain things that will suppress that black part of the human soul that will elevate that best in the human soul that's not always found in our world and that's what socialism was going to do and we can trace it proudly from the old testament and the sermon on the mounts all through the diggers and the utopians through European history”.

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

(LCW) Isn’t that interesting? He simply makes pronouncements and that should be sufficient for the masses to accept as fact? What exactly is this ‘black part’ of the human soul, mind you, and this black thing actually ‘elevates’ the best in the human soul? Is he introducing Satanism into this supposed argument based on reason? And what exactly is it that will do this suppressing? Socialism by any chance? Exactly how is that accomplished? Through blind belief, or is there something more concrete that he can present? Oh, never mind, he wants to talk about something else now.

But he can ‘proudly’ trace socialism from the Sermon on the Mount throughout history? Examples? Nope, were moving on once again. Does he ever even attempt to make a case for his musings? It doesn’t seem so. I question just how many in the audience, then and now, have any knowledge of the True Levellers from the 17th century, and strongly feel that it is unfair and inappropriate to speak of things with no preface or context. In what sense are Utopians connected with socialism? Because they believe in something that will never become a reality? Because they live in a dream-world? We never find out, even though we are waiting breathlessly for something, anything, from the speaker. Explaining any of these things seem to be of no concern to him as he plows through his fantasies. How terribly disappointing. The socialists in the crowd must be very proud of their champions at this point.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. and it's a proud tradition and it's an ethical proposition and it talks well, we're in a problem here, it talks just the way they talk, it says that people are at the center of things, now they said that people are at the center of things but I heard them ending up saying that property was at the center of things, that material was at the center of things, that wealth was at the center of things ….”

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

(LCW) It never seems to end. I can’t help but feel I am watching some comedic parody of either the attempt at debate or the concept of socialism itself. His ability to articulate is all but lost on me. The fact that he cannot follow his opponent’s comments is disturbing on many levels. The fact that he can do nothing but criticize is another. I am trying to appreciate his respect for his own perspectives on life and socialism, but he explains nothing, he doesn’t even try. I cannot be convinced to adjust my own point of view without substance, and without reason there is no imperative why I should. Each instance where he offers a statement about some aspect of socialism, he immediately goes somewhere else without explanation. This is very troubling.

I am fatigued with talking to socialists that do not have the ability to have a conversation with anything but demeaning observations. I want to hear them speak of their passion about their ideology. I want to know why they feel that way, and I especially want to be enticed into consideration that their perspective is a legitimate one. This is not what is happening with this debate. I am so disappointed with this example of the liberal/socialist paradigm. I long for someone who understands their own philosophy and is willing to engage on the field of ideas. I see nothing but subterfuge and misinformation and avoidance. It does not reflect well on the individuals involved, but much more disheartening is the way it reflects on their intellectual movement. If I were a socialist, these representatives would be the last examples of my ideology that I would wish to offer.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. not for socialism. The touchstone is people, and people always, and the ends are clear, simple and clear, one is a belief in an egalitarian society, a belief in the moral equality of all human beings, and therefore a system that functioned that way regardless of background or regardless of each of our accidental attributes. Secondly, it's a philosophy that calls passionately for social justice for the fight forever, and forever for civil rights for groups, and for civil liberties for individuals. Thirdly it's a philosophy that calls for economic and social security, not just a larger cake but a fair distribution of the cake. My old polish uncle used to talk about ‘stomach socialism’, ‘don't give me all your fancy ideas he said. Unless people are full in their stomach, they're not going to be able to talk about dignity, and so socialists honed in on the welfare state, and made that proudly one of the great contributions of this civilization in the era we've lived through”.

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

(LCW) He continues to evade explanation but at least he is attempting to present something. I am trying to appreciate his ‘pride’ in his narrative, if not socialism in practice, but the problem is that he does not tell me from where this pride emanates. To tell me the ‘touchstone’ is people is rather simplistic, is it not? The Objectivist passionately believes that there exists a touchstone in their own philosophy, and that is intricately connected to the concept of true freedom. When an individual is free, the intent is that all will be. There is no conflict with egalitarianism. In fact, the expectation is that it will ensure equality, although maybe not in result, but certainly in opportunity and in potential.

No matter the system, it is an ‘impossibility’ for there to be a uniformity in result. It has never happened, and until everyone is identical in every respect, it is irrefutable that it will not happen, unless, of course, if you are irrational. If you think me wrong, then produce evidence to the contrary. No? I thought not.

To believe in the ‘moral equality’ of human beings is, in effect, also irrational. First of all, how does one measure such a thing, and secondly, by whose standards? The concept of an egalitarian society is immeasurable as is some mystical morality meter. People cannot ever be equal. We do not run as fast, some are able to paint, where others have no aptitude whatsoever. Some can do calculus in their heads, and others can throw a baseball over a hundred miles an hour. The list is endless.

Not everyone can be a neurosurgeon, or a teacher or a chef or an architect, no matter how much they want it, or how much their parents wanted it, or how much society ‘needs’ it. We all have different capabilities, or as he characterizes it, ‘accidental attributes’. The only equality that can even be offered, or in this case, guaranteed, is towards the concept of potential and opportunity. It is ultimately up to the individual, and his support group, to whatever extent it exists, to assist and nurture the individual to be the best person they can be, or at least achieve some level of competence in some discipline.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing that he presents that is not covered under many other philosophies other than socialism. The value is in the result, and socialism is underwhelming in its ability to produce a positive result. Capitalism, and especially in the form of Objectivism, has repeatedly been able to do so. Not perhaps from a national level, but that is not the measure of the philosophy. It takes initiative and a will from the people to institute philosophies on a national and societal level. It is not the fault of the ideology if it cannot do so, but perhaps simply the fact that the individual constituency of the population in question is not ready for it, or unable to comprehend the ramifications of the philosophy. This works as well for socialism, so this is not a criticism, but a simple observation of things that are self-evident, but only for some.

His third point is towards economic and social ‘security’, which again, is next to impossible to define, and even more difficult to put into practice. Objectivism ensures the ‘security’ of the society, as well as the individual, but the expectation is to allow the individual to find their own level of competence which, unfortunately on some level, will have to be accepted at some point. Does egalitarianism mean that every individual will inevitably end up with the same wealth and capabilities? Do you really mean to insinuate that? Why would we have leaders at that point if one is no more beneficial to the whole than another?

A more curious observation that has become apparent is that when we speak of ‘egalitarianism’ does that not mean equal across the board, with each individual reaping the benefits? But the whole idea of socialism is something about the ‘greater good’, and that is in relation to the state and not the individual. That is why some people, perhaps not the socialists themselves, characterize the system as ‘sacrificing’ the few to the many. Is that even something that socialists agree with or not? It would be interesting to see them balance and equate what I just presented with the reality.

It will always be about either the individual or the collective. Socialism says we must ensure the viability and perpetuation of the state. It must never die. The Objectivist says ensuring the viability of the individual will create a society of individuals, and they will not subjugate another individual because that will ultimately diminish their own benefits and freedoms. In the reality of Objectivism, there are no ‘special-interests’. Everyone will be treated the same, with the same opportunities and the same resources that anyone and everyone will have access to. Education, the ability to ‘buy’ health care, objectivity and equal justice under a very specific, limited, and rational set of laws.

Any deviation would be against the philosophy and need to be addressed. Pretty much the same paradigm that exists today, and yet the presence of corruption, cronyism, nepotism, negligence and incompetence dictates something else completely incompatible with Objectivism. With socialism, would it be more or less of the same or something else? How would that be accomplished if there is no accountability, and no real choice, and no transparency? It is an important question that is never answered. In my experience, it is never asked either.

Mr. Caplan does not seem to believe in a larger ‘cake’. I would be intrigued to have him explain why the GDP of the world in the past was a mere fraction of what it is today. What happened to the cake? Are we all getting a smaller piece, or has the cake expanded exponentially to the point where there seems to be no real confining boundary. While I agree that the so-called ‘distribution’ is somewhat skewed, is it the result of the regulatory system which is not being embraced and implemented with the true intent of the founders, or is it the corrupt and, for wont of a better word, the fundamentally ‘evil’ players that have assumed the power and wealth and control that they were never meant to have?

The socialist says we can do much better, while the Objectivist says we must expunge those attributes and individuals from the system unless, and until, they play by the rules created by individuals infinitely more reasoned and insightful, not to mention being individuals with intrinsic character and integrity, that is so lacking in those we consider ‘leaders’ in our society today. Let’s not forget the ethics and morality that everyone keeps bandying about in their presentations. Please, for the benefit of those trying to listen, can you please produce legitimate examples of behaviour consistent with these concepts?

What is it that socialists do that capitalists, i.e., Objectivists do not? They promise the populace pretty much everything, but deliver very little. They are not treated with true respect, and while a better vision of the future is offered, it is not for today, but only for some distant future, very similar to that which most religions offer. It seems that your champions cannot enter into a dialogue without using demeaning and derisive language, and an unabashed, blatant and relentlessly condescending attitude towards those with whom they disagree. Where is the civility, the decorum, the empathy and the sense of fair play in their behaviour? Are these things not a part and parcel of what you attempt to define as egalitarianism? Are they all not noted as aspects of this ‘greater good’ that we are all supposed to participate in within socialism?

How is that possible if you cannot do so with your opposition in a simple reasoned debate? Are these things only for those that embrace and agree with only ‘your’ point of view? Is the exact opposite what anyone can expect if and when there is disagreement? I cannot abide by the ideology if there is no trust and confidence that your leadership will act consistently and passionately in defense of the philosophy, and not, as with every example of governance that has ever been recorded, inevitably search out that objective that is not for the greater good, but their own self-serving interests and needs, and at the expense of any and all that conflict with their visions. Purely selfish behaviour, which ironically enough, is the term most often used in relation to capitalism and Objectivism. The epitome of hypocrisy on the part of the leaders, and the epitome of pure ignorance on the part of the adherents.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. and finally peace. Now, I know some of you will say that we are being self-righteous, that there are even some on their side who believe in peace. Well, there are people who espouse laissez-faire and people who suppose free enterprise, and they speak of peace and they include the people who move back and forth between the pentagon and the American arms movement, and they include Ronald Reagan and his trillion-dollar arms budget. I know that all of us believe in peace in the same way”.

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

(LCW) It seems that he accepts that ‘all of us’ believe in some version of ‘peace’, at least ‘tongue in cheek’ but, of course, there is peace, and then there is peace. It’s just difficult to understand what he means by peace, and how we achieve it. I would have to agree that there is a degree of self-righteousness in his stance. After all, the liberal/socialist position is pretty consistent. Even their concept of the ‘greater good’ exemplifies the fact that they feel that their point of view is superior, or it would not be characterized as ‘greater’. I find that the collectivist, in all the flavours, attempt to teach their members ‘what’ to think, as opposed to ‘how’ to think. I don’t see much wiggle room when it comes to policy. There seems to be limited choice, and very specific opportunity, to suggest change or exhibit dissent. The word ‘dissenters’ is a much used term in the socialist/collective/liberal lexicon. It is a derogatory label, and one to be avoided. Objectivism, and capitalism, on the other hand, consider it a goal, and a badge of honor, to question and challenge those in power. A fundamental distinction between the two camps.

The Objectivist wants peace through the power of the individual, while the socialist desires it through the use of power and control and the ever-present state. For you ‘own good’, so to speak, but unfortunately, whether you want it or not. Exactly like a child. The ideology is not really interested in your own personal take on the issue. Remember, with socialism, it’s not about you, about the individual, but the few who have taken on the responsibility to speak for you, and direct you where it is you need to go, and especially what they would like you to do. If this is a misrepresentation, then by all means, educate us. And why are we talking about peace anyway? When are they ever going to speak about morality? It was what we were here for, wasn’t it?

What’s the connection with laissez-faire capitalism? Ridpath already stated that during the 19th century, during the ascension of capitalism, there was more relative peace, not less, and there is some evidence to that end. When has socialism initiated a time of peace? Why do they talk of revolution and the use of force to initiate their template for Utopia? Does this not imply the opposite of peace, until of course, they are in a position of unquestioned control? Why are we talking about this anyway? What do Reagan and the Industrial-Military complex have to do with anything? They do not represent capitalism or morality in any way. They neither espouse the fundamentals of Objectivism or capitalism in any real way. Even the reference is a distraction and misdirection of the ability of the speaker to focus on the objective of the discussion. Can we talk of socialism in terms of Stalin and Hitler, and pogroms and concentration camps? If there is some esoteric point to be made, then make it, otherwise move on.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. I don't want to talk about communism because it's not what we're here to do. We do not believe in any socialism that is not democratic, if it's not democratic it's not socialism. A tyrant who calls himself a socialist is only a tyrant and anyone who thinks he's on our side or she's on our side and doesn't believe that, is not on our side”.

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

(LCW) It’s actually fairly amusing to listen to Mr. Caplan speak. His opposition does not get to determine what he talks about, and he talks about nothing relevant to the subject at hand and about versions of capitalism that have nothing whatsoever to do with what they are trying to present as an alternative to what exists today. But he gets to define exactly, and only, what it is that he wishes to talk about. I interpret a rather unsavory amount of hubris in his position. Each side gets to speak from the heart, but then is asked to defend and/or explain to the best of their ability why or why not something is relevant or legitimate. This makes him uncomfortable, and I understand. He says that he does not wish to discuss communism, but it is one of the sides of the same coin, whether he believes this to be so, or not. The argument can be made that the concepts of socialism and communism are symbiotic and intimately related. A few others may disagree with him as well. Someone named Karl Marx had this to say:

“Democracy is the road to socialism,
Socialism leads to Communism”

~ Karl Marx ~

And Vladimir Lenin had his own perspective:

“The goal of socialism is communism”

~ Vladimir Lenin ~

I always find it tragically delicious when they walk right into their own trap. It is so refreshing to finally hear him espouse something tangible when he says that “We do not believe in any socialism that is not democratic, if it's not democratic it's not socialism.” We must be cognizant of the fact that at one time slavery was affirmed by way of democracy. Be careful what you wish for. He deems himself a spokesman for all of socialism with his pontification on tyrants. The problem is, once your ideology is administered by a tyrant, who is going to usurp them? In a system where the few direct the many, I think that would be a moot point. In a system that does not answer to the individual, it is a nonexistent point.

There need to be other safeguards on the system to ensure expectations. What are the safeguards in socialism to prevent slavery, or is it inherent in the ideology? An argument could be made for that position. At the same time, capitalism, through the efforts of a democratic ‘republic’ and a document of vision and integrity, the United States Constitution, it was eventually possible to remove the practice completely from our lives, if not our memories. Irrefutably and undeniably. The system works, but it is always a challenge to institute a truly superior alternative. It takes motivation and resolve, intelligence and reason and integrity. And morality, it will always demand a morality. Where is morality in his statements? We continue to await its arrival.

He is so smug as he proclaims that “A tyrant who calls himself a socialist is only a tyrant and anyone who thinks he's on our side or she's on our side and doesn't believe that, is not on our side”. How interesting, since I feel quite the same way about capitalism. Notwithstanding his own irrational perspective on capitalism, a system that calls itself capitalism, but fails to follow the fundamental tenets of the ideology, based on Objective beliefs, is not of like-mind, and anyone who thinks they are, and doesn’t agree with me, is not on my side either. See, I can say pretty much the same thing, and yet I am quite certain that he does not agree with me. What gives him the authority to do the same thing with ‘his’ socialism? You see, he never attacks what the capitalists espouse on the dais, since he would have to refute something different than what he considers capitalism, and he would fail miserably. Not that he is any more successful with his manufactured, irrational perspective on capitalism, but he thinks he is.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. but let's talk about the issue for tonight, let's talk about capitalism let's say what it is. I agree with that, with our colleagues, I agree it's about inequality, it's about the rights of property, it's about the right to seek profit, it's the right about the right to exploit others in order to seek profits, it's about accepting the role of wealth and property as a gauge of power, of your power and your status”.

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

(LCW) unfortunately, it’s not about anything he just mentioned. It is not about capitalism, but about the morality behind capitalism, and socialism for that matter, but it seems that will not be covered this evening in his comments, so I am not holding my breath. It’s not supposed to be about property, inequality, or profit, wealth or any gauge of power, and certainly not about exploitation unless you can present an argument in relation to the morality of the actions, and connect them directly with capitalism itself, and not the actions of some random players that are the epitome of selfishness and manipulation and overt intent to take advantage of other individuals, which is not ‘capitalism’ in any sense. Show us the manual on capitalism that promotes these things, and in the way they have been perverted and directed towards others. You won’t because you can’t, it doesn’t exist.

Well, to begin with, it’s only about capitalism in your own mind, perhaps because you just dislike it so much, or maybe because you feel comfortable with demeaning the concept. Let’s face it, you seem to have made a career out of it. But the issue for tonight is not capitalism. If you were paying attention, which is a very real ‘if’, you might remember that the moderator, who seems to have left the stage, in spirit if not physically, specifically pointed out that;
“…. the two systems under debate are socialism and capitalism brought together tonight for your scrutiny and judgment. The issue is morality, NOT economics, NOT history. This means that the two systems will be defended on the grounds of fundamental moral principles, NOT on the grounds of economic or historical statistics.”

And ‘that’ is something that the socialists have refused to attempt.

It is imperative that you keep this in mind as you listen to the speakers. Which ones are speaking of pet peeves and personal agendas, and which are even attempting to speak of the issue at hand. Morality of ideologies, not politics and not even ideology itself, but the morality on which those philosophies stand. That is the objective, nothing else.
Mr. Caplan agrees that it is about inequality. It exists in practice in both camps. It is not nonexistent in socialism.

In fact it can be argued that it is prevalent in socialism. Speak of why that is, and the relation of the morality employed to the extent that this is even possible. And yes, it also exists in capitalism, and as the socialist may argue as well, it is because the ideology is not being implemented properly, those entrusted with making sure are incompetent or corrupt.

I see no difference between the two philosophies on that issue. I question where the weakness lies. I can specifically point to where it exists in capitalism, and it is not endemic. I honestly have no idea where it exists in socialism except that is ever-present, in whatever guise it takes. There is no process to expunge it from the ranks. The Objectivist does not decry the individual socialist, but the moral base of the philosophy itself. The socialist condemns both. Therefore, we have to decide which one epitomizes inequality, not to mention the bigotry in the sense that each and every member with an opposing view is guilty as charged, by association. Again, the Objectivist singles out the individual to criticize, the socialist sees with a blanket perception, and all that disagree find ‘equality’ in the derision they receive. I find that perspective troublesome.

I can make the same arguments about the rights of property and the ability and opportunity to seek wealth, and profit, and success. There is no imperative in Objectivism to seek power, but the concept ‘always’ exists when speaking with the liberal and the socialist. It is a component of the ideology. There can be no leadership without the ability to exert control and power over its membership. It cannot exist without that control.

As for the ‘right’ to ‘exploit’ others to seek that profit, I would passionately have to disagree, and demand that you show where that is a tenet of capitalism in any form, and, of course, Objectivism, at any level. It does not exist. It is anathema to the philosophy and to me personally, and I detest anyone that would say such a thing without an overwhelming amount evidence to that end. It shows a real lack of character, devoid of integrity, and indicative of what the Objectivist abhors in the guise of any form of collectivism, and today we speak of one form, socialism. Is there not any evidence in reality that there is no alternative but to create false narratives, and demeaning terms with no foundation in anything but a warped sense of duty to a cause that has no substance? If this is the best that can be presented, whether individually or as a group, then the philosophy is vapid, and undeniably flawed. Where is the morality, not in the disagreement and conflicting points of view, but in outright misrepresentations and blatant lies?

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. you remember a wonderful old saw from a French writer, Anatole France, 100 years ago that in the in the sight of the law, rich and poor alike could sleep under the bridges of Paris. This is the liberty I think that we get from our friends. Look what they say themselves, they've heard it here, they've written it”.

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

(LCW) Well, it seems that you ‘think’ wrong, very wrong. I was going to give this comment a pass, but it is illustrative and indicative of someone who doesn’t understand the efficacy of a concept such as debate. While a debate can be considered a ‘competition’, and I am a big fan of competition, it is more important as a tool of communication and contemplation and comprehension. It is about the world around us, and of other individuals, especially those that we may not agree with. We need to understand their perspective to ultimately come to conclusions about a specific subject, and the speaker themselves, in context. If we refuse to even consider the value of their positions, then there will be no learning from the other, no growth. I find that all of the examples, and almost all of their ‘off-the-cuff’ and ‘tongue-in-cheek’ comments tend to be condescending and irrefutably mean-spirited, and that is, of course, disappointing and unfortunate.

Not only is this particular reference infantile, does it really prove some kind of point? I realize that you don’t like capitalists, I find it fairly obvious. The fact that you have no working knowledge of Objectivism is also evident. A number of personal and degrading comments have already been offered, and the quotes that are used are self-serving and completely irrelevant in the sense that they have nothing at all to do with our discussion today.

I acknowledge that you probably think that they are amusing in some smug and disrespectful way, and perhaps there are those in the audience that enjoy them, but that only reinforces my impression that there is no real intent to either come to a meeting of the minds, or for you to attempt to persuade me of the value of your beliefs or to even give me a reason to think that your positions have some kind of legitimacy. When people make light of my own personal beliefs and philosophy, that has taken me over 5 decades to craft, and aggressively disrespect what I hold to be of value, it makes it more than a little difficult to take them seriously and to engage with them in a spirited and reasoned argument. I do not find this to be an intellectual endeavor, but a efforts of a schoolyard bully.

I question whether there is any real interest in having the debate itself, and I have to consider if your motivations are simply self-serving and malignant in essence. This would be the antipathy of why we even have such a challenge to begin with. To learn and achieve growth. If there is no honest desire to do so, then why are we even making the attempt? It reflects badly not only on the speaker, but the ideology that they represent. There certainly may be an effect on some in the audience, and I think that is unfortunate, but overall, I would think it is a losing scenario. Ironically, it demonstrates, on a real and illustrative level, the shortcomings of the philosophy itself, that this is acceptable and inevitable. The attitude towards learning and growing needs to change, and drastically, if there is ever to be any expectation working together in any way as we move forward into the future.

I realize that you think that you are too smart by half, but I believe that it shows the opposite. You ‘infer’ that the capitalistic camp, as well as the Objectivists, believe that freedom is when both rich and poor are ‘equally’ allowed to sleep under some indiscriminate bridge, and that they do not only believe this as equality, but have professed this in their dialogue. Can we ask exactly where and when that occurred? Of course not, because they did not.

Are you aware of the concept of the strawman? A large number of the comments have been exactly that. You paraphrase something in a completely disingenuous way, assuming facts not in evidence, and speculate what this particular perspective would mean, and dishonestly attribute not only the words, but the interpretation you have devised, to those individuals you oppose, and proceed to talk about something that for all intents and purposes, does not even exist, has never existed. I can only hope that the audience understands what you are doing, but in my experience, it does not, which is why you do it. Can we deal with actual statements from opponents, or must we do our utmost to divert ‘away’ from the intended issues? Unfortunate.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. John Ridpath says that laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system that's based on the recognition of individual rights. Peikoff, I'm sorry, the only alternative to tyranny that's ever been discovered. Peikoff actually says that the United States is soon going to become like Nazi Germany. Well, Ronald Reagan said last night last night that the United States is back, now what's it back to? Maybe he thinks it's back to Nazi Germany, but even I don't accuse him of that. There is a hyperbole that I can't deal with, there is a meanness that I can't deal with, there are series of contradictions that I can't deal with, they talk about free enterprise but every free enterprise government in the world regulates a system on behalf of business which always and invariably benefits”.

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

(LCW) There is so much to assimilate and process here. I am trying very hard to find a single instance of something factual, with no success. While Dr. Peikoff did indeed say that laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that’s bases on the recognition of individual rights, I see no evidence that he said, or intimated on any level, any of the conclusions he sets forth as vindication for his intense dislike of everything capitalist, which in many ways is amusing, in a tragic sort of way.

First of all, I have noticed that both participants from the socialist mindset are simply incapable of actually enunciating the names of their opposition with an undeniable consistency. It is a constant reminder of the disrespect that these individuals hold. They have admirably referred to them as their honorable esteemed opponents but … excuse me while I shed some crocodile tears.

Mr. Caplan begins to reference the alternative to tyranny but gets lost in the weeds of Nazism. Are we to assume that he is talking about something Dr. Peikoff said? If so, be specific and say so. If you disagree, then make your point and give an argument. It makes no sense so I have no alternative but to dismiss and move on. Not very constructive or instructive, or relevant for that matter. I am not sure Peikoff would be completely correct in his comment, but if he is wrong, I guess we will never know. To mention Nazi Germany, and in the same breath say that you would never ‘accuse’ Peikoff with anything similar is so over the top, so disingenuous. The speaker should have been booed off of the stage. But you made your point in any case, so you accomplished your little ambush. I feel very sad for such an individual devoid of integrity.

I find no instance where Dr. Peikoff makes a statement about the United States becoming like Nazi Germany. The only reference I find is that he makes the point that Nazi Germany was the ‘Democratic’ Socialist Party. Nothing more, nothing less. Does that implicate you in Nazism, their ideology and their goals? Where is the source of Mr. Caplans’ comment? If you must know, I am surprised it took this long for the concept of Nazism to get introduced. I have rarely heard a liberal, or a socialist, speak for long without the insertion of one of their favorite subjects, Nazi Germany. Is it the need to make the false connection between capitalism and Germany before someone starts comparing the behaviour of Germany with socialism?

I hope everyone is cognizant of the fact that Germany, under Hitler, promoted free education, free healthcare, assistance for food and housing, old age assistance, unemployment and disability, interest-free loans for married couples, and the eventual abolition of guns in the hands of its citizens? Does that sound like capitalism and Republicanism? Does the socialist not believe in and support all of these initiatives? Do they want to sever ties with the philosophy of Nazi Germany, or not? Please excuse my own digression, but it is difficult to discuss morality if no one is willing to breach the subject.

I was not involved in making the decisions of what Socialist Germany did or said, then or now. Pretty much the same authority I have in dictating what American socialism does or says, the consistency, or the ‘morality’ of same. Pre-war Germany, at least on paper, sounded quite the progressive and philosophical alternative, much like the socialism of our speakers. Oh, by the way, did I mention that all of these things were available only to citizens? All others need not apply. All charities were banned, so the only way to receive benefits was to be a citizen. The residual to all this is that today, you can still not be a citizen unless you are related by blood. They still search for that ‘purity’ of the Aryan race.

But they only reference Sweden and Finland when they look for examples of socialism, democratic socialism. As for democracy, which Mr. Caplan demands as a part of socialism, remember that Hitler was elected in a completely legitimate democratic process. Somewhat convoluted and jaded, but legitimate just the same. The German socialists believed that ‘capitalism’ was compatible with socialism, as is exemplified with Scandinavia and much of Europe, being the economic driver behind the socialistic social programs. Without one, there can be no other. Does this not cause some degree of conflict with the fundamentalists? Can socialism not achieve success without the support of capitalism? Ironically, socialism seems to accept welfare from the reality of capitalism to bankroll their own efforts. An interesting conundrum, no?

Mr. Caplan again brings Reagan into the discussion, for what reason I fail to understand. He has no direct connection, but the socialist loves to use him as another strawman. He does not represent any of the principle philosophies at the focus of this debate. Why is he back in? Because he is someone they love to hate? I can’t think of another reason. He again infers something not in evidence, that Reagan thinks America is back, but not back to its previous splendor and success, but from Caplan’s view, back to Nazism? Is this a legitimate position? Is this an example of what ‘integrity’ looks like in socialistic circles? Absolutely repugnant and unacceptable. The speaker is devoid of ethics and any semblance of ‘class’. Does he really think the audience is brain-dead? He accuses Reagan of embracing Nazism in one breath, and denies the accusation in the next. Disingenuous at best, malignant at worst. What a horrible way to prosecute a debate. Where the hell is the moderator? Shame on both.

He continues talking about ‘meanness’ and ‘contradictions’ but for the life of me, I have no idea what he is babbling about. It is not the first time I am considering his mental acuity. And he concludes that ‘every’ free-enterprise government in the world regulates the system on behalf of business, which invariably benefits business. In response, I have to point to a certain ignorance of the reality of living in a world of individual people and not a mindless hive, which, personally, I think is the ultimate goal of socialism. I have been trying to make a point, which is that the problem with capitalism is the corruption of the individuals that retain the power and control over the system, especially within government, which is why Peikoff and Ridpath have been incessantly talking about the reasons why the government should be minimal, and the intrusion basically non-existent ‘except’ for in the instances of the ‘initiation’ of force which includes regulation and intimidation. If those aspects are removed from the paradigm, much of what the socialists lament will be diminished or expunged completely.

There is nothing etched in stone. There should even be the ultimate possibility to work together to create a new version that can address many of the shortcomings of the system as it is today, which is not what it should have been according to our founders, and especially what is espoused by laissez-faire capitalists and Objectivists alike. Business unfairly benefits, a concept I actually acknowledge as evident, because we ‘allow’ it to happen. And I can’t reiterate this enough. This ‘corruption’ will ‘not’ disappear if and when socialism is able to gain power, it will simply be transferred from one imperfect version of one philosophy with a deeply flawed version of the other. This issue will not go away until a resolution is found to resist, restrict and remove those that act only on irrational self-interest and biased ideology.

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

Gerald Caplan: “ …. they talk about laissez-faire and they are part of a moral majority that wants to dictate to us what we do about divorce, and about birth control, and about homosexuality, and about abortion, and they want to interfere with our private life. They talk about liberty, and through all the rhetoric here's what I hear. I hear McCarthyism, I hear the problem of the Japanese Canadians, I hear civil rights in the United States, I hear the padlock law in Quebec, I hear the war measures act in Canada, I hear the question of labor rights, I hear the question of torture of citizens in Central America by those who talk about individual rights and I want to tell you that the argument for them is always made by the left and the argument for the oppressor is always made by the right. We’ll pursue it later, so much for their liberty”.

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

(LCW) I am sure that the reader is getting tired of hearing it, as I am in reminding everyone that we are not talking about a ‘moral-majority’. The concept is one of specificity with religion and a movement in the U.S. It is not an aspect, under any paradigm, of this debate. Where in the world is the moderator? The moral-majority does not represent capitalism in any way, and don’t even try to make a connection with Objectivism, it doesn’t fly.

We were not talking about divorce or birth control or homosexuality or any sexuality for that matter. Nothing about abortion, and contrary to his weak grasp on reality, we were not talking about interfering in anyone’s private life. If truth be told, Objectivism wants government, as well as individuals, to have the least impact on the ‘private’ life of any other individual. Where do you find the audacity to say otherwise? Socialism is obsessed with an intrusion into the thoughts and actions of every citizen while capitalism and Objectivism see a complete different paradigm. We are NOT talking politics here, although you seem to speak of absolutely nothing else. What is your problem? It seems evident that you obviously have one, you know?

He says ‘they’ talk of liberty, and they do. He, of course, is able to cut through all the ‘rhetoric’ and give us what they really mean. Does he have specific statements they made, or references they actually offered? Of course not. He is just making stuff up. Just another strawman that I referenced before. He has nothing to say. Whatever he says has no basis in fact. It is his ignorant beliefs being presented as fact. Less than an opinion, since he never has anything to create even a vestige of validity or legitimacy.

Who was talking of McCarthyism, of Japanese Canadians or the padlock law in Quebec? What is the relevance? What of the war measures act, and labour rights, and civil rights? Are these not ‘human’ rights that Objectivism wishes to promote and support for each and every individual that exists? Not the special interests of the liberal and socialistic mindset, but for ‘all’ individuals. Who is talking about the torture of people in Central America? Where is the relevance?

The disrespect you show to everyone in the audience and on the stage, including yourself, is beyond the pale. You are incapable of following the rules I assume you promised to follow, and you have difficulty even putting together a coherent sentence without digressing to fully functional ideological and political issues that do nothing to address and educate the people who have come to see a profoundly important debate on the deeply important issue of the underlying morality of those ideologies that may someday control their lives. You have done nothing to that end, absolutely nothing, and have shown a real lack of anything approaching a scholarly demeanor. I find your behaviour a complete disgrace to education, philosophy and integrity.

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