1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Closing Statements: Jill Vickers

 
 
 

I believe by our deeds shall you be known. Human beings that believe only in reason cannot be entrusted with government or the teaching of students, we must reason just how much self-interest we can be 'allowed' to assert

           
 
 
 
 

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

Jill Vickers

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

Dr. Vickers: “ …. Peter, I wasn't aware that this was going to come into a debate as to who owns philosophy. I'm willing to concede some share, but I'm not going to hand in my philosopher's badge just yet. Philos, philosophy, desire, a love of the truth. Truth, it seems to me, does not just exist as you have been told in the idea, or the written word, or the book titles that can be dropped. I also believe very strongly that by your deed shall you be known. It seems to me it's important to look rather closely at the deeds of social democracy as they have been implemented here and there in bits and pieces in this country, in this century. It seems to me that has a truth that we should be pursuing every bit as much as my opponent's desire to define my philosophy.”

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

(LCW) A couple of points need to be made here, especially since they seem to be the same issues that are being perpetrated time and again. First off, who said anything about owning philosophy? I didn’t hear anyone say anything of the sort. It may seem that way since you have not been ‘waning’ nor ‘waxing’ philosophic. It may seem that way since you seem to have abdicated your ability to philosophize at all. You have had the opportunity to express your views and have neglected or been uninterested in doing so. Why the need for the condescension once again?

Defining philosophy is appropriate, but what does it do to further the comprehension of what you are supporting and proposing with the concepts of socialism? Truth is a wonderful thing. Both Peikoff and Ridpath have been trying to present their own perspective on truth, and have paraphrased your own only because you have been reluctant to speak of anything that can be refuted or philosophically questioned. Virtually nothing to reference or refute directly. Even now, you define nothing but philosophy in a benign and neutral manner, that brings no clarity to the differences between the two ideologies, and both of the socialists have refused to do so during the entirety of their presentations.

You seem to disengage from the definition of philosophy in ones’ own personal philosophy, as well as the philosophy within one’s own ideology. When you diminish the value of the written word you do so in the defense of your own ideas as well. You demean the dropping of the names of books as some degree of validation, although both of the socialists have done so repeatedly during the elusive ‘debate’. I fail to see the relevance of vilifying the actions of the opposition when they have done nothing that you have not done yourself. It seems a bit dishonest if ‘truth’ be told.

Indeed it is true that ‘by your deeds shall you be known’. It would behoove you to understand your own words. What deeds are you talking about? You seem to insinuate that there are deeds, by only capitalists, of course, and we should judge them, even without the decency of showing some kind of evidence or reasoned argument exactly what those deeds are, and were enacted by whom? You again give no citation or evidence of anything at all, nothing but opinion, and poorly presented. If you are talking about yourself, or other ‘socialists’, I ask again what deeds have been done, and by whom, for what reason, and do we all get to decide for ourselves that ‘judgment’ or do we simply take your word for it? Why do you never go into any details in relation to your ‘words’?

You have mentioned a number of books, ‘dropping their names’ as you so aptly put it. You have referenced the sermon-on-the-mount, and now you directly quote Matthew from the Bible once again. Talk about name-dropping. But I assume there is nothing wrong when you do it, only when those who oppose you do it. When they do, it is nefarious, when you, it is simply a matter of ‘truth’ of some sort, n’est ce pas?

Truth is not defined nor illustrated by ‘bits and pieces’ that are evident ‘here and there’ to prove a point. That is called ‘cherry-picking’ and it is used by those that have very little to say, who lack value and substance in their presentations. We all want you to talk of your ideology. We want you to define it and defend it. We wish that you refrain from using misrepresentations and immature devices to attempt to give credibility and legitimacy to statements and instances that prove nothing of the sort. And of course, you finish with a last shot at Peikoff as trying to ‘define’ your philosophy. I think it is more a case of begging you to do it for yourself, and not leave it to others to make the attempt.

If you had defined your philosophy, you could point to that and say, ‘that is not what I said, this is what was said’, but since you didn’t, perhaps he felt no choice but to make the attempt, no matter how imperfect, to maybe, just maybe, to get you to stand up and give it your best shot. Alas, I believe that you have given it your best shot, and it was woefully inadequate.

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

Dr. Vickers: “ …. for me. I believe in reason, but I believe in emotion too, and I'm not afraid to say that I think that human beings who believe only in reason should not be entrusted with the running of governments or the teaching of students. I don't believe that altruism is only to be defined in these terms of self-sacrifice but I do believe in self-sacrifice, not as an exclusive virtue, I certainly don't go around day in, day out, saying how can I self-sacrifice next.

I'm very much an old Aristotelian and that I share a great deal with Leonard Peikoff. I don't accept that Aristotle's, I don't accept his defense of slavery, Aristotle's that is, I don't accept some of his social programs but I certainly accept his belief in moderation, all things in moderation, and that, of course, also includes self-sacrifice. I define what I consider social democracy to be, and a great deal of that definition came out of my experience in this country with those small experiments we have proceeded with, and it seems to me that this is a false dichotomy. Self-sacrifice, altruism, selfishness, I tried to say that at the beginning, and talking about relative morality because that is what we are talking about.”

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

(LCW) I can’t help it but it is very difficult to follow whatever design you have in your presentation. You say you believe in reason, and I enjoy hearing that, but I find so little of it in your comments. Saying you believe in it is not the same as giving examples and a ‘reasoned’ argument, not defensive vilification. I don’t believe I heard anyone say they did not believe in emotion at all. Anyone who does not acknowledge the existence and importance of emotion could not proclaim the attribute of reason.

The point being, if that it is unbridled emotion, and if we let it ‘drive the bus’ as it were, there is the danger, since emotion has little use for reason, that the end result will be catastrophic. Subservient to reason, emotion has an important part to play. Are you saying your opposition made any statements as to not believing in emotion in any respect? I have looked but found nothing at all in relation to emotion. You once again simply make stuff up and present it as legitimate, when it is not at all valid. If I am mistaken, then where and when does it exist might I ask? Give us an example. No? I thought so.

And because of your belief in what was never said by them, you have made it clear that ‘those-kinds’ of people should not be allowed to govern, nor teach. Does the system even get a chance to intercede? I thought you were gung-ho for democracy, and yet you seem to wish to dictate who gets to do what. That is what socialism has always exemplified for me, thank you for confirming the intent of the philosophy. That is what people are afraid of, and here you have a perfect opportunity to show us why that is not the case, and you simply verify and validate it. And not as a part of a debate, but only as part of a personal dogmatic opinion. I find it more difficult with each comment to believe that you understand the concept of a debate. Sorry, you leave me little choice.

So you like self-sacrifice, but not as an absolute, not as an exclusive virtue? But you do define it as a ‘virtue’. Altruism should not be defined in those terms ‘all-the-time’, but you don’t go into any detail about the differences, or when and where it is appropriate, and those times when it is not. And yet, I have never heard about when socialism relaxes its diktats and allows you to ‘not’ self-sacrifice. Is that even a possibility?

Does the whole concept not turn into utter chaos when the members are ‘not’ self-sacrificing? At that point, the members are left to make their own decisions, and digress from the stated claims of the ideology, which is that very same self-sacrifice? The problems never cease, the ‘need’ never diminishes, and the problems are never solved. Does that not demand that the self-sacrifice is never-ending? Please clarify these issues for us. No one is defining your philosophy for you, they are requesting that you do it so they have something to study, investigate, and comprehend.

Your comment on moderation is tenuous at best with reference to Aristotle. It is arguable if he had any direct connection with the phrase. In any case, even if true, it does not give any degree of credibility to those that regurgitate the words. Speaking of words, did you not say it was somehow unseemly to reference books and words of others? Again, we are asked to not do as you do, but certainly do as you say. The ironic part is that we are not in disagreement at all. I fail to see Peikoff or Ridpath deviating either. So what’s the point? Aristotle certainly said nothing about self-sacrifice in moderation. It is nice to see that you acknowledge that self-sacrifice is something you support. At least your opposition was not misleading anyone when they mentioned that ‘fact’.

Why are we talking about slavery once again? Because Aristotle was mentioned, and slavery is ‘bad’ and you want to make the insinuation that your opposition is to something bad as well? It is all so tedious and tiring. Anybody else feel that way? I am still waiting to hear about morality almost two hours in. Frustrating.

When have you defined what social democracy is? Did I miss that? The amount of useful information about your beliefs can fit on the head of a pin, with all of the angels you borrowed from the Bible.

I hate to bring it up, but self-sacrifice, altruism, and selfishness would not be deemed a dichotomy but rather a trichotomy. You mention relative morality, as an off-comment, like we have spent hours discussing it, but the concept, and your comments in relation to it, have been virtually nonexistent. And you say that is what we have been talking about? That is truly amusing.

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

Dr. Vickers: “ …. I know that a lot of people would like there to be absolutes written up there in the sky, written up there on stone but there are not, there are values that we can reason about with one another. For me, the chief value about which we must reason is how much self-interest we can be expected to be allowed to assert and I'm a self-asserting person, most feminists are, and how much commitment to others, how much responsibility for others. We should expect ourselves to give, I say expect ourselves, I have never felt coerced by my government in the context of providing for others, nor do I just leave it to tax day, nor do most of you.

Canadians are among the most generous people in the world and indeed that is probably why it has been possible in this country to get away from the stereotype dichotomies and to see how much, as generous Canadians, we are willing to give to others. Sometimes we say to ourselves we went a little too far there, okay, maybe we better pull it back here, and maybe university students ought to pay a bit more for their education, and taxpayers a little less, and we have been able within the rubric of a social consensus that exists in this country, and I believe that despite some of the things I've heard this evening, to balance, to say yeah, we want to get as much as we can, we want to assert ourselves, but we believe we are members of a community, and as members of a community we will spend some time and some property and some of our fabric and some of our energy and some of our love on those people around us.”

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

(LCW) It is so painful to try and follow what it is that you are trying to say, especially in relation to the focus of the debate as formulated. I really would have expected a much higher level of verbal articulation than what has been offered. You say you are a fan of ‘reason’ and yet we are talking about clouds and things being written ‘in stone’ up in the sky. What in the world does this have to do with anything? Some in the audience may well look to the heavens for answers, but you did speak of reason, and reason is the only way we will ever find a resolution to our differences. You mention ‘reasoning’ with each other, but where do you ever reference something that had value from the other side? Between that and the reluctance to give clear representations of what it is you believe, how are we supposed to reason at all? It takes an open-mindedness and an ability to entertain ideas and concepts that one does not agree with to even begin a process that ever has a hope of success.

I don’t see that opportunity here, that possibility. I don’t want to hear that your opposition is not willing ‘either’ because I have my own issues with the handling of their own positions. What I was looking for was a presentation that would tell me what the socialist mindset was, or is, and give me a chance to try and understand what that means, and you have not done that, and it is to the detriment of anyone that heard this debate, and especially those that read my words. I fervently, and passionately still want to have that conversation to comprehend if your perspective has any validity at all. I have been studying and investigating collectivism for decades and find little of value. Certain aspects, certainly.

There is virtually nothing that you want to do that I am not for, 100%. At least what I can discern from your sometimes incoherent rants. It is admirable, but altruism, self-sacrifice, and collectivism, and in this case, today, socialism, seems to be totally devoid of the capabilities for doing so. Perhaps short-term and in ‘bits and pieces’ and ‘here and there’ but the destruction is inevitable, and someone else will always have to pick up the pieces and try to make it whole again.

It doesn’t work, and you don’t seem willing to make the effort required to even defend your own positions, much less the attempt to convince me otherwise. I guess it’s not worth it. You can pick up the uninformed and the disconnected, the unhappy and the destitute and vulnerable, but to convert just a single critical thinker could result in thousands or millions of converts. I don’t think that it is possible, I know of no specific individuals that have crossed over that were not latent socialists to begin with. But if it is possible, I see no effort whatsoever being made to try. The irony is, that without cooperation, we may both lose, and that would be unfortunate.

You speak of just how much ‘self-interest’ can be ‘allowed’. Interesting that concept of ‘allowing’ members to do anything, as coercion and force once again rear their ugly heads in your presentation of your ideology. And self-interest is anathema to socialism. Can it exist with ‘any’ degree of ‘self-interest’? Objectivism is fundamentally ‘rational’ self-interest, and you just now come out in favor of limited self-interest, and you said not long ago you are a big believer in reason, so the concept of rational self-interest should be a no-brainer, or at least a ‘debate-starter’, but I guess just not today.

As for commitment to others? Is that how much members will be ‘allowed’ to exhibit, or how much the state will expect before repercussions take place? How does one determine how ‘nice’ someone is?

It is very comfortable for you if you have never felt ‘coerced’ by ‘your’ government, but fully half the population does not agree, here or in the U.S. How does one reconcile that fact, and, as always, then who decides? Make an attempt to answer questions like those.

It is a little too saccharine to hear just how generous Canadians are. The argument can be made for many countries, with the U.S. at the head of the list. How many trillions of dollars of citizens’ hard-earned wealth have come from Canada to fix the ills of the planet? With all the disasters, the wars, the famine, the lack of water and food, who is the number one country donating time and effort, and money to help those in need, as well as helping their own citizens. If you want to blame America for all the ills in the world, and capitalism for all the shortcomings of individuals in business and government, you may of course do so, but it would illustrate the ignorance and hatefulness that exists in the world today, and why your ideology hopefully never enjoys the opportunity to control and coerce the destinies of countless billions of human beings in any way.

There is a disturbing thread that I hear in your narrative. It is relentless and aggressive. It is this concept of ‘we’ that continually gets inserted as an integral aspect of whatever is being considered or promoted. I guess it is to be expected since the collective ‘we’ represents, at least in principle, if not in practice, the symbol of the community, and the only real legitimacy that can be offered for the ideology itself. The collective must be the ‘we’ since capitalism will always be the ‘I’ of individualism, and that will continue to be the eternal disagreement between the ideologies. You make an attempt to speak for the community, even when no mandate exists, and that is troubling.

It’s more of a ‘we’ have to do this, and less of we ‘should’ do this. You even validate my point when you say that “We should expect ourselves to give …. I have never felt coerced by my government” but you expect and need the overwhelming support and authority of government to coerce the community to do what ‘you’ think is required. If a true community, would it not be incumbent, and compelling for others, if your members simply did all of these things on their own, voluntarily, to achieve this ‘vision’ of a greater-good?

It is really the primary difference between the camps. I know that you don’t think so, but everyone wants the same things for those around them. It’s just that some want to simply give them what they need, and others want them to understand what is required of them, and to work towards that objective to the best of their ability. Speaking of those that are not capable of doing so for themselves is more a diversion than a reality.

Why can’t the membership take care of themselves and then work, together, to help those others around them? People do that with family, and specific groups within society, why can’t that be accomplished without government? They can even help, and be instrumental in partnership with those efforts, but why do they have to be the primary?

I can simply not understand, or even support, this repugnant use of force. I continue to question the role of government in creating an environment where everyone ‘must’ do something when I think the optimum result would come about through individuals ‘wanting’ to do so. I passionately believe that government is meant to stop us from doing things considered ‘bad’, and only through the overwhelming agreement as to what is considered bad, and not use the power of oppressive government to do things that are considered ‘good’, while never reaching that level of irrefutable consensus.

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