1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Closing Statements: Dr. Leonard Peikoff

 
 
 

One cannot shackle those able to function in the name of helping the weak. True compassion requires the efforts of those with answers, our welfare state is not the result of capitalism but the interference of government

         
 
 
 
 

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. I just want to say that I regard the welfare state as an abomination, as morally evil. I do not base morality on the Sermon on the Mount and I do not put forth a moral case in terms of the lame, the healthy, and the blind. I say if you are talking about what mankind requires, what man or woman requires by her nature and his nature to survive, you have to first say what does the healthy, unafflicted, individual require because the weak, the sick, the helpless, by definition cannot survive on their own. You cannot shackle those who are able to function allegedly in the name of helping the weak because then you will wipe out the whole human race.

So, if quote, compassion, is your value, compassion for those who can't survive on their own, the first thing that you should do is take the shackles off the people who are able to think and produce and create the wealth that everyone requires to survive, including the weak. What the welfare state does is exactly the reverse. This shift in direction that Dr. Caplan talked about is precisely a gradual tightening of the noose around the necks of those who are able to produce and the result of this is increasing economic crisis. We're oscillating just the way Nazi Germany, Weimar Germany did between a potential runaway inflation and a potential depression. We have hordes of unemployed just as they did as a result, not of capitalism but of all the government controls in the economy.”

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

(LCW) I have to make the comment that is a breath of fresh air to hear someone present a position, and not just demean the opposition. He certainly had every right after the thrashing he had to endure with the last comments of Mr. Caplan. It is not a matter of if you agree, and if your feelings were hurt by some other point that was presented, it should be a matter of pride to make your own presentation, in some reasonable manner, making your point to the best of your ability, and letting the audience contemplate your words. I am not in complete agreement with Dr. Peikoff by any means, but it is so much easier to digest his statements when they are cogently presented.

No one has to accept that socialism is an abomination. I find the term to be a bit over the top, but I understand his position and accept it as given. I am under no obligation to accept it in its totality, and I would resent anyone representing it as my own since it is not. Whether you agree is irrelevant to me. I am here to hear if I can learn something to add to my life experience. Our socialists do not allow me to do the same thing. They make it difficult to not experience a prejudice towards them because they are so unabashedly bigoted and judgmental against their opponents. It is difficult indeed to respect people that treat other people in such a way that negates whatever positive influence may be available between open-minded individuals. In its own way, it is intimidating and oppressive. I guess they don’t even see it, but it exists, and it is a dangerous component of the ideology as well.

I don’t believe that it is unfair to try and compartmentalize and talk about the realities of the normal individuals that comprise society before speaking of those that have difficulties with being a participating and vibrant component of the society itself. It is not demeaning to do so. It is done to create a baseline of those who do not need assistance, and those that do, and that obviously means many different levels of that assistance.

This is not to exclude them but to simply create an analysis so as to be able to make a reasonable and empirical determination as to the scope of the problem, and that directs action and resolution. I have no idea what Dr. Peikoff actually thinks in relation to my own perspective. It really doesn’t matter. The point is that I can understand what he presents, and I can make some sense out of it. It is much more difficult to do so with the socialist point of view since they exclude so much more information and only want to talk about their own interests, which does nothing to create clarity. If one cannot define the problem, it will never be resolved. The animosity that is created when there is nothing but conflict and not a welcoming environment in which to create discussion, we end up with neither, and the debate loses value and legitimacy. I find this to be self-evident.

Compassion is an interesting concept. Many people believe that sympathy, empathy, and compassion are symbiotic and indispensable to one another. I am not one of those people. They are separate entities and encompass unique capabilities, none of which are pertinent here, but to have compassion for someone does not mean simply to help them with money or food, or even shelter and health care. All independent issues.

I am an ignostic, so the religious connotations do not flow from Reagan or even the Moral Majority. Compassion is something someone of ability has to control, in conjunction with a level of empathy, to try and understand what it is that the individual needs to change their own paradigm. I can feel sorry for them, deeply, for their situation and circumstances, and yet feel angry and frustrated that they are not doing what is necessary to change it. Before concluding that money will be the answer to the problem, and it rarely is except short-term, we need to understand what their personal challenges are, whether mental or physical, emotional or societal. Only then can we even begin to consider what would be in their best interests.

Compassion allows you to do this without impacting the individual in some hurtful or oppressive way. We should not want to simply alleviate whatever discomfort they perceive, whether it is real or imagined, but determine how best to change the paradigm. But I believe in something that comes directly from the Bible that is appropriate in almost all situations. We should not rush to judgment, and give something to the individual that is not necessarily in their best interests.

We should not give them that ‘fish’, or monetary assistance as is normally the case, but make the attempt to teach them how to fish, so they can care for themselves, and inevitably give themselves so much more, such as pride, and competence, and independence, and a chance to be a real and participating member of the community around them. I do not know to what degree Dr. Peikoff believes in this scenario, but I am confident he would agree in principle.

This is not to say that we do not help at all but refrain from making this assistance a way of life. Do the socialists agree as well? I have no idea of that either, but I question what it is that you could ‘not’ agree with as to the example. Is it not a superior conclusion if possible? Why are these types of resolutions lost in the conversation? I am at an incomprehensible loss.

This, I think, is the challenge before us. One side attempts to paint the other as uncaring or downright psychopathic, and that is simply not the case, probably not in any case whatsoever. I lament the dishonesty and ignorance promoted and displayed by those given the chance to make a real difference in this world. I have no idea if it is a lack of awareness or inherent evil. Either way, those that need the help continue to wallow in a sea of incompetence, both of themselves, and those around them that they look to for guidance.

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

Dr. Peikoff: “ …. if we have poor, and in the west poverty is a very relative thing, if you go to the east and see what poverty is, but such poverty as we have here is essentially caused by this very glorious welfare state which is undermining and making productivity impossible, moreover this is not a stationary thing, every control requires further controls. It produces certain dislocations which necessitate still further controls, you can check that by looking at history. Every single decade, it doesn't make any difference what party is in office, has more and more controls to try to cover the consequences of the preceding controls and there's only one end of that road as there was in Weimar Germany and that is total control.

This is the end result of the welfare state which is only a transition point in history. Having said all that, I nevertheless despair arguing on this topic because I do not think you can argue about politics by itself.”

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

(LCW) To even begin to discuss such an issue as poverty, there needs to be the distinction, and the understanding, that poverty is indeed relative. Ask the ‘poor’ anywhere around the world if they would prefer being poor in America instead and there would be a resounding ‘yes’ in response. Why? Simply because the poor in America, no matter how difficult their lives seem out of context, have quite a bit more than those others in countries that do little if anything to assist those in need. These ‘poor’, in many cases, would actually consider our poor as relatively ‘rich’.

It is not unusual for the poor of the world to live in shelters that could hardly be considered ‘houses’ and certainly not ‘homes’ although home is where you live, irrespective of the surroundings, and if you actually accept the situation. Many live in hovels with nothing but dirt floors, as many of our early settlers in this country did. Dirt floors do not mean poor, it is something much more complicated. It is the impotence and inability to do anything about your conditions and your expectations. Dirt floors for our homesteaders were acceptable then, but not now.

The poor of the world do not have the ability, or even the possibility, of rectifying their own paradigms in any appreciable way. There are no food kitchens and charitable organizations for clothing and healthcare. This is a real and present danger. Not that there is no one making an attempt to make a difference, but it is not really a concerted effort, and it does not impact the reality in any substantial way.

Some of the worst, truly destitute areas of poverty that exist in the world, places like Kenya, and Pakistan, and Lagos, as well as surprising destinations like Cape Town and Rio de Janeiro as well as Mexico City, that once hosted the Olympics, are where some real poverty is a way of life. Places where the most basic requirements for life, like sanitation, clean water, education, and employment are almost non-existent. Compare these situations with America, and as bad as it is, there is no real comparison.

These people around the world do not get to live in apartments, no matter the condition, they do not receive heat, and in most cases, cooling as well. They do not receive monthly checks with no real restrictions on their use, they do not receive healthcare, no matter how inconvenient it may be. They don’t have the ability to own a car, or a phone, or a computer, and they certainly have almost non-existent possibilities for an exit strategy out of the situation they find themselves in.

No one wants to deny those in America the benefits they obviously need but want it to be with a level of responsibility ‘and’ obligation, and that is something that never seems to be a part of the discussion. It needs to be, both for society and for the individual. Even socialism seems to say that all of the individual ‘members’ of the collective should do what they can to improve the greater good, do they not?

I have yet to ever hear a proponent of socialism talk of the value of those that are incapable, or better yet, those that refuse to participate fully in the ‘dream’. How do you handle those that do not embrace the vision, not those that are undeniably incapacitated and unable, but those that ‘choose’ not to, and yet, at least verbally, give their consent and support to the stated goals, fully expecting to get ‘something’ for ‘nothing’.

Those that you would have us believe are the capitalists, the selfish, the self-absorbed, and those with personal agendas that have nothing to do with those around them? Like the millions that resist returning to work, as we speak, because the government gives them more to stay home and do nothing, creating chaos in the business community, starving for workers, paying them double the minimum wage, and yet, they remain on their couches, waiting for the ‘teat’ to be torn from their mouths. Many of these individuals, dare I say most, are not in dire need, and it would ‘benefit’ the greater good if they went back to work, and yet they do not.

I would enjoy hearing an analysis from the perspective of a future socialist bureaucrat. What is to be done with those that have diminished interest in the greater good? Are they the first to get sacrificed? They are certainly not helping the paradigm to achieve success. They are an obstacle to each and every ‘other’ individual with their actions. What do you then do?

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. politics is not a primary, whether you are a socialist or a capitalist depends upon basic philosophic questions. Our opponents have already appealed to the sermon on the mount and, by implication, have rejected reason in the suggestion that rationality is subjective and that one person's rationality is not somebody else's, so they have an entirely different philosophic framework so it's no wonder that they are socialists.

It also happens to be the case that the thing is entirely rigged against us because the universities in this country and in the united states are entirely skewed in favor of the two ideas that socialism depends on, namely the rejection of reason and the insistence on self-sacrifice that absolutely dominates. You can take the typical college graduate and see it very easily by asking him what he thinks and as soon as you say anything he will say, well, it's all a matter of opinion, who can know anything, there's no absolutes, etc, in other words, he's been brainwashed. To conclude his mind as helpless, except although you can know nothing, he knows one thing, it's bad to live for yourself, you've got to live for the society, for the poor or whatever. How he knows that is presumably by revelation.”

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

(LCW) It would be preferable not to have this debate based on politics, but as he says, based on the philosophic fundamentals that might better explain the ideology, although it is understandable that people react more in a political and emotional response in these types of discussions. I wish it were not true, but my experience says that, while unfortunate, it is the reality.

I was also somewhat disappointed when socialists, of all people, pointed to something as irrelevant as the sermon-on-the-mount to attempt validity or credibility in a philosophic discussion, and while it can be very important to them on a personal level, it does nothing to legitimize a reasoned argument.

Ironically, I must voice some defense of the intimated position of the socialist when it comes to the subjectivity of rationality. While I consider myself an Objectivist, Ayn Rand herself might not agree. She has made comments on many occasions on what it means to be an Objectivist, and while she can be somewhat dogmatic in her expectations of what a good ‘follower’ may or may not think, I find that to be one of the issues that I have continually held with her own positions.

I think that one of the most fundamental aspects of her philosophy is the claim that is incumbent with each and every ‘individual’ to make up their own minds as to validity and legitimacy of each facet of their own philosophical and intellectual beliefs and to exhibit the ultimate integrity in the use of that philosophy. Having said that, it means that we (myself and Rand) can legitimately come to different conclusions at times, and have different perspectives. If she wishes to excommunicate someone such as myself she has the right, and possibly the obligation to do so. For me, her opinion, while extremely relevant to herself or others, may not be as relevant to me, in certain circumstances.

While I believe strongly in the expectation of searching for and finding the most objective positions possible, I also have come to the conclusion that objectivity may be more rare than Rand would like to believe. Mankind is not particularly based on objectivity, but while, if possible, it helps in making decisions, especially between individuals and in a societal context, we still remain virtually exclusively subjective in our own considerations and perspectives. There are no two individuals that share experiences in the exact same way, even if standing side by side while experiencing them. This leads to an arguably unique experience in every instance, even in the event that they are siblings or even identical twins. This suggests to me that while subjectivity can be so similar on so many levels, it still remains an ‘individual’ experience unlike nothing encountered by anyone else.

This does not mean that it cannot ‘approach’ objectivity through shared values and expectations. It is the essence of what most would call objectivity but is more a reflection of the degree of mutual agreement the individuals have with each other. Fundamentally it is subjective, and not the same, but not particularly different either. I cringe to think that it makes me a socialist or collectivist, but there are other aspects that I tend to agree with as well with these groups, but as a societal ideology, not at all.

I lean towards the concept of reason overriding even the belief in objectivity. It is the mutual agreement, and not the dogmatic agreement in specific actions that make a society. I don’t care if someone agrees with me on specific words and directives if we can agree in principle on behaviour and direction, and the ability for the individual to come to their own conclusions, and define their own actions. The extremes do have to be dealt with, but I find it hard to believe it would constitute the division and hatred that exists with the narrative we have in politics now as an obstructive aspect to living in peace. We are not going about this in the right way, and both camps are losing. I know that it will not be easier, but if there can be a more open-minded discussion than the one that is being exhibited with this current debate, there are possibilities. If this is all we are going to get, then I guess it is simply not going to happen. If only one side makes any progress, then all bets are off.

I have experienced this phenomenon of there being no ‘absolutes’, and I must admit to agreeing in many cases. But again, the concept of objectivism and subjectivity is not a matter of right and wrong, and black and white. We live in a world, a reality, of a million shades of grey, so we do not live in absolutes, but in approximations. I think that is where agreement and consensus reside. I completely disagree with speed limits of 65 on the highway and even see limits of 15 in residential areas, which are simply unreasonable and impractical from my perspective. I don’t expect to live in a world where only ‘my’ opinion counts, but in one where we can find a ‘reasonable’ meeting-of-the-minds.

I find socialism and collectivism to be undeniably on that side that wishes to ‘force’ me to the impractical and inequitable. In many instances, I have the same issues with religious and conservative intent, and voice my concerns there as well. The Objectivist, on the other hand, wants there to be some rational middle ground, where people control their children and teach them not to play in the street so we can have perhaps a 25-mile speed zone, as well as being able to drive at a safe speed of 70 or 80 on the highways. Our roads and our cars are more than reasonably safe at those speeds. The drivers may not be, and reckless and incompetent behaviour is still up for debate. I know people who can’t drive responsibly at any speed, but penalizing 99% of the people for the 1% that should not be allowed to drive at all is simply irrational and totally inequitable.

Unfortunately, my basic belief is that we should have fewer laws period, and only penalize those that do something wrong, after the fact, but I also realize that this would mean some people getting hurt, but making it more difficult to get the ‘privilege’ to drive would perhaps be a better course of action. But I don’t like regulation. It is all quite a bitch.
I have never said that my perspective is the answer, I simply know that the oppositions’ views do not work either. I would like that sweet-spot in between, but the discussions and debates such as this one show me the frustration and inability that we experience daily in making progress towards such an end.

The Objectivist position allows more possibilities to be discussed and options to be created and implemented, while the socialist perspective is simply too rigid and dictatorial, with little or no ability for growth and evolution in the future, and especially the ability for freedom to flourish. Freedom is another concept that I would like a more in-depth position from the speakers. It seems to be anathema to the concept of socialism and collectivism, and I would like clarity.

There are many that have said that we give up freedom to achieve security. How far do we go in this endeavor? Are we looking for total security? Would that not infer, neigh demand, the abdication of freedoms? I want ‘more’ freedoms, not less.

Freedom is not my right to do what I want, or even for you to do what you want, but for each of us to do whatever we deem appropriate, without restriction, or the least amount humanly possible, as long as I do not impact another in any harmful way. What is so wrong with that particular ‘dream’?

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. now in my book ‘The Ominous Parallels’, I point out that this exact same intellectual situation existed in Weimar Germany and Hitler counted on it and cashed in on it, specifically on this kind of unreason and this kind of intense commitment to self-sacrifice on the part of the Germans and the result was that socialism triumphed.

Nazism is Socialism, it's one form of socialism and it is that in theory and it was that in practice. Let us define our terms. I think we would have had a definition of socialism by now, government control over property. Are you going to tell me that in Nazi Germany there was such a thing as private property and free independent action? If so, you have never been there. You know what you're talking about only for the rich. Now Hitler was able to rise to power in Germany because he had no opposition. He had his liberals and conservatives just as we have in this continent. The liberals in Germany at the time said let's have more economic controls, the conservatives said no let's have more intellectual controls by the government, and Hitler said you're both right, let's have total control.”

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

(LCW) Due to the fact that both the right and the left have ‘Hitler’d’ us to death over the last fifty years, we have to understand that it was not the annoyance in 1984 that it is today. I hope that we all understand in context what he is saying. I don’t think this is the same derogatory usage as today, and we should acknowledge that. The underlying fundamentals that he references are indeed sound and rational. The context not so much.

If only our educational process went into detail about the things Peikoff is talking about. Hitler was an intriguing individual. As nutty and fruity as grandmas cake at Christmas. A megalomaniac, and yet a genius as well. With just a bit of self-control, he could have conquered the world. Luckily, he was not ‘smart’ enough to realize his own genius. He did indeed have, eerily, the same basic setup that we have in America today. He took advantage of the squabbling of both left and right where society eventually ended up with something which was neither, with himself being held up as the alternative.

The people of Germany embraced him, and the rest is, well, history, unless you learned it in an American University. He was a socialist in almost every instance, and the state eventually controlled everything, and the people received benefits, they embraced and loved the state, and did so for some time, until he, and the real Nazi’s began showing their true colors, and by then it was too late. But even then, the people continued to support him for some time.

After all, it was not the Germans that suffered, they were taken care of. It was simply those ‘others’. If you have never heard the following poem, you should read it and think about it, and I know that most of you have, but possibly not in its entirety. I think it quite appropriate under the circumstances, and reflects an ominous undercurrent in this country. I see it quite prominent in socialistic and collective circles. I think it relevant to make the point that an ideology is not how you feel about your family, those that you care about, and those that agree with you, but with those that you do not consider friends, exhibit behaviour that you do not embrace or even agree with, and those that you do not consider as ‘like-you’. It is quite prevalent in socialism and collectivism. It is something to think about. The following is one of the most poignant and profound poems that I have ever seen. It is the piece by Martin Niemöller:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out
-- because I was not a socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out
— because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
-- because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
— and there was no one left to speak for me”

I am not sure what the socialist fear, but for me, it is to be treated, not as an individual, but as an ‘other’, to be dictated to, coerced to action, and used for my abilities, and at a time not of my choosing, or benefit, to be ‘sacrificed’ to help others, while no one cares to help me. Tell me how socialism does not do these things, and promotes these things. Convince me that there is a future under socialistic domination. I lament the inability of my ‘vote’ to determine my own future in my own country. Persuade me as to how it will work better in a socialist reality. I dare you.

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. the only antidote to this development is somebody who says let's not have government control, let us stand up for the rights of the individual as absolute to his life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. Regardless, he has no obligation except to live as a rational being. If we can't establish that, there is no hope, so my concluding remark is this; if you go to college I don't ask that many professors teach reason and selfishness, I think a fair ratio would be one professor advocating reason and selfishness to 200 advocating reason and socialism. If you would get your faculties to allow that ratio, just one to 200, I would have no fear for the future of the country, but unfortunately they will not allow it.”

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

(LCW) One of my gravest concerns is closely related to what he has presented here. It is no secret that I am an unabashed Objectivist. I am confident and passionate about my beliefs and willing at all times to defend and explain what it is that I believe and why. I find it troubling that our Colleges and Universities have made an undeniable effort to not only restrict the sharing of opposing thoughts and theories on the field of ideas but to deny and abolish all things that are in any way in conflict with their beliefs.

They attempt to present their own arbitrary philosophies, without verification, as something they currently like to call ‘wokeness’ or some such garbage. As with their labels of ‘liberal’ and ‘progressive’, which didn’t last very long, this too will pass, as soon as the general public begins a process of pushback because they are concerned with the ultimate changes and restrictions. It is inevitable.

The point is that by attempting to regulate the fundamental existence of opposing ideas, you will undeniably, at some point, introduce a totalitarian, or at least a strongly authoritarian ideology into the vacuum.
It has always been a basic tenet of education that it is actually advantageous to have the largest amount of perspectives to stimulate the debates and to benefit the overall exercise of discovery through intense scrutiny and investigation of the issues. This attempt at restriction and prohibition is counter-productive and produces a certain lack of comprehension of whatever is the focus of study.

That is the wonder and the benefit of education when it is truly unbiased, provocative, and open-minded. I think it is irrefutable that a certain mindset has been able to gain control of the system, and is trying to bend it to their own agenda and ideology. Good for them, not good for anyone else. Not what this country and our educational system were supposed to be, not what it should be, and not something that will be beneficial to the ‘greater good’. Freedom of education implies freedom from coercion or the tyranny of thought. We live in a time, right now, that exemplifies that coercion and tyranny. A discussion for another day.

The fact that Conservative thought is blatantly repressed, and guest speakers are banned or restricted while their counterparts are welcomed and celebrated is a cause for concern. Are you not disturbed by the practice of actual censorship in our halls of learning that are there ‘primarily’ to stop such an eventuality? Where do these people stand on the concept, as well as others, such as freedom of speech, freedom of information, truth, individuality, and the ability to be a critical thinker? All of these things are being regulated to a degree that this country has never seen in its history. It is a clear and present danger. It is an existential threat of the highest order.

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. today's topic is which is the moral social system. We have tried to present an argument in defense of man's moral right to live his own life, we have tried to present an argument in defense of man's need for freedom, for man's need to have his rights respected. We have tried to present our argument, therefore, for capitalism as the social system which does this as the only social system that offers man this, that offers man the opportunity to live his life, and therefore the only moral social system.

Had our opponents bothered to try and argue for their more, the moral basis for their system, they would have had to have argued for man's duty to serve others for altruism, they would have had to have argued for their moral appropriateness, and Professor Caplan has admitted to this, the moral appropriateness of coercing men into the good life as the socialists see it. They would have argued for socialism as the social system where the government has the power to force people to live the good life. The issues therefore I think are clear, we have argued for laissez-faire, they are arguing for state management, we have argued for the state as the protector of individual rights, they have argued for the state as our parent. We have argued for individual rights, they have argued for sacrifice to the group.”

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

(LCW) I find it difficult to understand why those on the socialist side of the aisle simply do not stand up and either agree with the summary, or not. Can they not say what it is that they believe if what Peikoff has presented is invalid? I fail to see the problem. What we wanted was a debate. One side says something and the other refutes it, validates it, or presents what it is exactly that should be understood as their position. NOT just continuing on with some disconnected and unrelated narrative that does ‘nothing’ for the clarity and legitimacy of their own ideology and philosophy.

I see this type of behaviour all too often and it is more than a little disturbing. What are they protecting? Or is it hiding? They should be proud and eager to make a reasoned argument for their perspective, aching for the opportunity to educate those in the audience as to why their vision for the future is superior to their opponents. But they do not do so, and I am at a complete loss why that is so. Why did they come to this forum if not for exactly that?

The so-called ‘capitalists’, while having some issues with their own presentations, have offered a much more complete and coherent proposal for direction, and more importantly, why. They have actually given specifics and attempted to give clarity to a complicated set of concepts. Agree or disagree, it is a legitimate example of the tenets of the ideology and philosophy. I was really hoping for the same from the socialists. While they do present much of what they ‘want’, they offer virtually no validation and even less explanation of the why. It begs the question if that was by design or the inability to articulate their vision.

They have not addressed the morality of their positions in any real way but a superficial wish-list of what they see as benefits to those in need, but no reason why their vision actually ever rectifies the underlying reasons for the ‘want’ at all, except to point fingers at capitalism as the culprit, which is disingenuous and overly simplistic. It is a complex list of cause and effect, and they refuse to go into details.

They have also not addressed things such as property, although Dr. Vickers was quick to note that she doesn’t have any of that, which is more than a little disingenuous. Her salary is property, and I am sure she does not refuse that.
Neither has gone into detail about Altruism and its requirements, ramifications, or morality, and remember this was supposed to be about morality, in detail and in-depth, not politics or economics, which has been almost the exclusive content of their submission. The concepts of ‘force’, as well as ‘sacrifice’, have yet to even be mentioned, in anything but a derisive and condescending manner. Fascinating subjects to consider. It is a shame to have to sit through this seminar by and for six-year-olds.

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. we are arguing that we are not our brother's keeper and they have to morally rest on the claim that we are our brother's keeper, so now the issues are out, and you must think for yourself. If you want to know my basic reason for agreeing to engage in this debate it is because of my belief in the power of ideas. Ideas count. History is determined by ideas, ideas will determine our future, true ideas will lead us ahead, and false ideas will kill us.

The enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the 19th century, the creation of the United States of America were all products of ideas, so as this is also true for Nazi Germany, for Communist Russia, for Communist China, for slavery, for slave labor camps, these also are ultimately the results of ideas.

I must say that I literally believe that the ideas that our opponents have propounded would, if followed, lead to poverty, slavery, and the destruction of civilization, civilized life on this planet.

On the other hand, I believe that our ideas, if followed, can lead us to a prosperous and happy future. Thank you very much.”

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

(LCW) Once again, agree or disagree. Actually, I would like those that disagree to get more involved in the discussion. Refute ideas. Everything is ideas. Good ideas, bad ideas. Is socialism suggesting that the state is our brothers’ keeper, or should we first take care of ourselves, and then look to our neighbors and help those in need? Who determines need? And what happens when you say there is need, and your ‘brother’ disagrees? None of these things have been even mentioned, much less debated or discussed. Why is that?
These are fundamental problems that have been around for centuries, millennia. Have we given up completely? What will it take to find the effort necessary to determine resolution, however imperfect and temporary? Or do we try something that is speculative at best, and disastrous at worst? Or do we make an effort to fix what is before us that offers possibilities and opportunities without equal, but only if we work together for resolution? It is a question that is going to have to be answered at some point. We are all going to have to accept culpability for our own decisions. Or at least some of us.

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