1984 Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism

Audience Questions & Responses - ( VI thru XI )

 
 
 

We presume that socialism is what it's supposed to mean. I'm here simply for the morality of it. The issue of inherited wealth, Not sure he is entitled to the fruits of his fathers labour. socialism attempts the greatest equality

          
 
 
 
 

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

QUESTION   VI

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous: “ …. This question is, could you convert to the look at the third world where the capitalism isn't working at all, could you get a little closer to the moment, look at the third world where your capitalism isn't working at all, Europe, the people you said cannot exist without any property and I agree with that. What happens to the people who aren't born into wealth, you say that they get their own wealth, and how they get their own wealth by motivation, where they get the motivation from energy, energy requires food, food requires money, they're not born into money, how they gonna get it?

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

(LCW) No matter what you think of capitalism and socialism, no matter what you think about economies and politics, it is so sad to see someone pose a question that is so simplistic and ignorant in a supposed intellectual debate. This is not a question of opinion, but of easily demonstrable statistic from any country, and any economy, but of course we need to speak directly to the United States, who seem to receive the most criticism and derision in this respect.

There is no argument that many individuals receive what you might call a ‘benefit’ through family connections and this ‘inheritance’ thing. I, personally, have a large number of issues that I find distasteful and unfair through these inherent realities that exist in all economies, but certainly in capitalism. What exactly is it that is so unfair and causes such concern? Is it not the fact that someone leaves a legacy to their families after a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears, to those that were the objective of that lifetime of effort, time, and resources invested? Or is it simply envy and hatred for those that have achieved a level of success that another has not? If the wealth was created in an honest manner, through legitimate sources and behaviour, do you really believe that they do not deserve to leave this legacy to their heirs?

Do you really think that a lifetime of success is ok to squander or waste, so there is nothing left to bequeath to another, family or charity or whatever, but those that plan and save, by design, to make sure their loved ones will not be in ‘need’ in the future do not deserve to have their wishes met? Should we throw the spouse and child into the streets, do we deny the children an education, a house, a reasonable beginning to a new life, simply because of a set of circumstances beyond their control? When someone is murdered, after only a short life of 40 years, even if wildly successful beyond their expectations, do we confiscate their life’s work simply because of an unexpected end? Preposterous!

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

John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath: “ …. well you could address that question of the people who lived in the caves and how did they get out of the caves. The way people get out of those situations is by the very process that you talked about. It's a long and slow and arduous process to earn your way in life and to raise your standard of living, you know, in a sense the thrust of your question is comparable to the thrust of an earlier question which actually boils down to under capitalism what happens to the poor, and basically what I'd like to say is that there is a moral premise implicit in that very question when you ask it. Implicitly you are expecting that when you point out the existence of the poor that I will automatically understand that I have some moral obligation to sacrifice some of my values, some of my property, some of my energies, so that they may be better off.

We have argued for rational egoism, for the virtue of rational selfishness, we reject that very morality, it is also that morality which is behind professor Caplan's remarks that our view is mean, heartless, ugly, and miserable. Our view, you're welcome to your own opinion, but all I'm pointing out is that if it's odd it is automatic to you that our view is such as that the reason for that is because you are captured by two thousand years of Judeo-Christian morality which actually endorses the principle of self-sacrifice, and from that perspective you would view what we are saying as ugly and miserable, etc., but from the argument that we have made with regards to the needs of human life and how that applies to every individual we are arguing that the facts of human nature in fact dictate that men are individuals they each have to use their minds. They own their own lives and nobody has a moral right to use their lives for their own purposes.”

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

(LCW) It is not enough for some to say that we should recognize a responsibility to others, irrespective if they actually need it or not, but they say it is an obligation to voluntarily offer such a responsibility, and since there is no imperative offered as to why this has any legitimacy whatsoever, they turn to the state to create and enforce legislation that ensures the expected result. The problem is, as this debate is making more clear by the moment, that there needs to be an underlying philosophy, that elusive ‘morality’ that we hear about but never seem to articulate for others, that ‘demands’ that we act in such a way that the majority wishes us to act, even though I have never seen any legitimate evidence that even a plurality supports any socialistic ideals, for the ‘greater good’. This is ironic since the argument ‘against’ socialism is to protect the ‘minority’ at all costs, and not allow an oppressive majority to control the narrative or the law.

If socialism is to succeed it needs to be something that is organically accepted and more importantly, understood, by an overwhelming majority, to become a legitimate system to govern. I don’t see the motivation and incentive to gain that majority, and that calls into question the validity of the cause. The state should be the tool in the implementation, possibly, but the will to do this needs to come directly from the collective, and not specific individuals, especially since the ‘individual’ is a concept that is not welcome in the socialist paradigm, but history shows that individuals are always a part, and their vision for the movement is the one that is ultimately implemented with the steel fist of the state. If this is not true, then it is incumbent on the representation of the ideology to explain in great detail why. We have heard no specifics on the philosophy, only vague references to equality and justice, as well as need and self-sacrifice and indebtedness to others. Socialism, collectivism, and liberalism are slogan-driven, and there needs to be a solid reasoned argument for what they wish, or they will make no progress with a large portion of the population. I am not sure, at this point, that this is of any real concern within the socialist camp. The question we should ask ourselves is why that is.

A fundamental question that continues to reassert itself, at least in my own reality, is what is going to happen in the eventuality that this altruism does not solve the problems that plague us? Is there going to be a cap on what can be confiscated from the effort of others? Can you be specific as to what that might be? Can we agree on a figure such as 5%, or how about 15% or even 20%? Do we cut off this largesse at any point, or is it open-ended, which would inevitably lead to total confiscation of the life-blood of those who can, and given to those that cannot. We have to acknowledge that even God only expects his 10%. Do you expect more than that? What is the justification for such arbitrary levels? We await for yet another reasoned argument, and the response is …. silence. And we return once again to the concept of morality, with the same thunderous silence as explanation for the enslavement of the few to the many, or is that the many to the few. I am having issues with what the proper perspective actually is. The underlying lesson to be learned before getting into the collective mindset is that one should be careful of success and intelligence, since you will ultimately be one of those characterized as the one of ability, from which anything can be taken, and given to those according to ‘need’. I fail to see a future where anyone in their right mind would work towards anything except being one in ‘need’.

Irony once again rears its confused and frustrated head. I can hear a cacophony of lament that you should ‘want’ to sacrifice to the whole, is that not what socialism fundamentally teaches and demands? For socialism to work, it intrinsically needs to be a voluntary process, and I wholeheartedly agree. For the ideology to be legitimate, for the philosophy to be successful, you need people that believe and are willing to work towards such a noble goal. I have always thought that socialism is a possibility, just that it is not a probability, or even practical, since I see no great groundswell of anyone, even socialist professors, willing to abdicate their property and resources in anything more tangible than ‘words’ as our professors today have done. I am not sure it will ever be human nature to work hard for something, and then give it away to someone else that created and produced nothing, to be redistributed to those that are inarguable in need, but that covers a myriad of circumstances.

To be successful you need to experience pride and satisfaction, in self, and those around you that participate in what we call success. A job well-done, an objective achieved. And when we decide to share, some recognition and gratitude for the effort and resources donated, willingly and with empathy, sympathy, compassion and understanding. Those that talk of selflessness simply want to remove the last vestige of that pride in self, and refrain from letting those of ability get too comfortable with their sense of self-worth, since those people are not prone to continual manipulation. I think people, in all walks of life, deserve recognition for their acts, and their hard work and effort that goes into achievement, from education to business, from the comprehension of ethics and morals, to the exhibition of character and the behaviour of impeccable integrity.

What is wrong with the celebration of being the best human being that one can be? What do those who detest them actually believe? It is a scary thought. We should revel in the fact that a human being can actually be such an example of a lifetime of hard work, determination and motivation. I have a place in my heart for those in need, but I realize that the only way those that cannot take care of themselves properly can continue to survive, is with the assistance of those that can, not as slave and a commodity and resource to be used up at will, but as a reminder of what can be accomplished, and the reason that they are able to survive a difficult existence.

The individual of ability should not be the target of derision, but the epitome of excellence. What we need to do is to figure out how to ensure they are what I portray in these words, and not the vile dregs of mankind, the opportunists, the moochers, the looters that exist everywhere, and they exist with your permission only. When do we take away the power from them, and let mankind achieve its destiny. If that is not its fate, perhaps it would be better to start the experiment over once again. Some say it has happened many times. It may well be true. Socialism is not a viable alternative.

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

Jill Vickers

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

Dr. Jill Vickers: “ …. I'm not ashamed to say I'm a Christian any more than I think that Gerry would in any way want to disassociate himself from his religious background. I have to say to the young men that your question has made the debate for me, it gives me hope I picked that up Mclean's, four and a half million poor in Canada, that's what's before us that's what we can't not see if we have any eyes at all, but your question points to all of the millions that we can't see, that we don't see very often, I think morality is involved in El Salvador and in all of the countries of the third world. I think it's very convenient for us if we can export our exploitation, our sex tourism, that's right, that we can export the effects of our capitalist system into the rest of the world and I'm delighted to know that there is someone who sees that they're there.”

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

(LCW) Oh, my! Our capitalist speakers continually attempt to stay somewhat on topic, and our socialist speakers seem to do whatever possible to completely disregard the reason that we are even here. Who is asking anyone to disassociate themselves from their religious beliefs? Why are you trying to insert your beliefs into the narrative at all? Yes, a reference was made to the Judeo-Christian belief in self-sacrifice, but there was nothing demeaning in the reference. If anything, it is important and it needs to be discussed. Does the credo ‘not’ promote the concept of self-sacrifice? Does not socialism not only promote but demand that self-sacrifice be a part of one’s life, whether you choose to do so or not?

The Objectivist, and by extension the capitalist, is fighting for your right to believe and practice whatever you wish, and at any time. It is the socialist doctrine, and especially the communistic manifestos used over the last century, that inevitably impact and remove the religious paradigm from our existence. I am not sure that this can even be argued reasonably.

I guess if it says so in Maclean’s, it must be so. I heard that nothing on the internet is false either, but of course, the internet was not such a big thing when this debate, or should I say debacle, was going on. There is no argument here, no discussion, and no debate. What does that number of poor even mean? And she immediately says there are millions more that we ‘cannot see’. So the MacLean’s article is illegitimate? I guess we will not be speaking of morality tonight, so can we define even the concept of ‘poor’? What does it mean? What are you doing about it besides attempting to overthrow government?

I am perpetually disappointed in the fact that people give little besides rhetoric in their efforts to further their careers and ‘help the poor’. Now, I readily admit that I have no idea what these people do in their spare time, but she has been highly critical, without evidence of any kind, and called into question the integrity of the opposing speakers, speaking of them in terms that I would deem to be less than charitable, more than disrespectful, and devoid of any attribute of ‘Christianity’ time and time again. I, for one, would love to know what they actually do in their personal lives to help all of these unfortunates. It is more than a little frustrating and confusing. Why can it only be the government that can come to the rescue, when history shows that they do an abysmal job, pretty much without exception? In the end, it will be an individual initiative that will make any progress, and that is not a given.

But she does finally throw in the word morality again, without validity, and references El Salvador once more. I guess there is no ‘need’ for morality in North America? She in tenacious, if nothing else, and deathly afraid of discussing the ‘morality’ of socialism. But always open to talking about things that cannot be validated, like third world countries.

Remember when the moderator said we were not going to talk of politics and economics, nor history. When have our socialists talked of anything else? I don’t blame them, since they are running scared, but the moderator could have stayed home, for all his worth.

Exploitation? The sex-tourism industry? The ‘effects’ of our capitalistic system? It is extremely difficult to feel any respect for someone who obviously has nothing but contempt for this forum and the infinitely important subjects we were supposed to hear about tonight. An opportunity lost, and it did nothing but reflect badly on them personally, and on their illustrious ideology and philosophy, that was not well served. I think it possible that I could have defended it much better. I know the system fairly well, but what I don’t understand is the morality and the intellectual aspects of making it work without stealing the whole concept of freedom with its institution and implementation in any society. I was hoping to be enlightened, and found myself mired in a predictable and tragic example of ignorance and indecision.

This was without doubt, the worst question to be asked tonight. It is interesting that she praises the individual for his insight into the question. She thinks that he understands what she is talking about. She may well be right. She should be embarrassed. She won’t be. Sad.

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

QUESTION   VII

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous: “ …. first of all I'm offended by the morality of the debate itself. We presume that socialism is what it's supposed to mean and not what is meant in the mind of so many people, so in other words socialism is connected with gulag Ukraine famine, or whatever, and capitalism is meant, with the, you know, the 19th Century starvation of the masses, okay. That's not what I came here for. I came here for the moral, simply for the moral aspect of it, and I'm going to talk about the morality. My question is if the professor, he should not be called professor because in the realm of an animal, maybe, you can be professor, but in the realm a human being cannot be professor on anything or anything. The capitalist side there, because especially, the one who said that life, morality, is defined by the rational self-interest.

Okay, I would like to only to beg him to carry that to the extreme consequences. I want the question though, in California, I want the question, mothers are selling their children for self-interest for pornography right now. I will, I wish why his mother, that's the question why if life is determined by self-interest why is the mother, is not, is it for pornographic industry.”

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

(LCW) Wow, another great question. I think that I have some grasp of what he is talking about, and yet I have to ask what the background is on this individual. Does he have an education, or is it possible that he is even a college graduate? I have no idea. I realize how difficult it is to do any amount of public speaking, but this is difficult to follow. Having said that, there are concepts in there that can be used as inspiration for some other thoughts. It must be difficult on the dais to make a split-second decision on how to handle the circumstance.

If I am interpreting this correctly, I would have to agree, that the definitions of socialism, and to some degree, capitalism, are simply not being defined properly, although the capitalist side has inarguable attempted to put a definition together, while the socialists have resisted even trying. But it is a valid point that audiences, and in small discussion groups that I have participated in, individual participants refuse to accept the professed definition and used their own, no matter how imperfect or biased it might be. They refuse to even consider that their own interpretation is not the definitive one, when, to have a legitimate debate or discussion, one has to acknowledge the examples given as credible, and then they can ask questions or attack the definition given based on reason and argument. This does not often happen, and certainly did not happen during this debate tonight.

I am, of course, in complete agreement that the issues in the Ukraine and El Salvador, while not irrelevant, in the case of this debate, are not the issue, and the morality was the driving force behind my own interest. I find it unfortunate that a more focused attempt was not made in delivering what was organized and promoted.

I am at a loss as to the overall position of the questioner, but I fail to see what he was trying to accomplish with his question on the pornographic and human trafficking aspect of his question. This goes directly to the point of the definition of the terms used. I think it is incumbent on the audience to at least be somewhat conversant with the terms used. Peikoff, especially, tried to give some reference to rational self-interest, and it would be useful for anyone interested to do some research on the term, as defined and presented by Ayn Rand herself, and Objectivism in general.

It is difficult to parse the meaning of rational self-interest and a more primitive and simplistic meaning that has little relationship to ‘rational’ self-interest. It is the rational aspect that most tend to dismiss as insignificant, when it is the component that truly defines the concept. Selfishness is often without regard for others, and many within capitalism, specifically those that are opportunists and have a personal agenda that they use to rationalize, in a bad sense, to legitimize completely reprehensible and unethical and immoral actions within business, to the detriment of all concerned, except themselves, of course.

These are not the individuals that Peikoff and Ridpath represent, in any realm. And they have been consistent in their explanations to that end. Both sides do not condone or support these individuals, although the socialist camp certainly never misses a chance to use them as examples of capitalism, knowing full well that they are not representative of the Objectivist or purist capitalistic perspective or philosophy. Extremely disingenuous.

It is the ‘rational’ component that gets overlooked, and it simply means that actions are not taken if they are not in the best interest of the individual, and that ‘always’ is determined by the ethical and moralistic actions taken. If it hurts oneself, it is not rational, since it is not in ones best interests and self-destructive. If it hurts another, it is also not rational, since it conflicts with one’s own philosophical theory that hurting another is the initiation of force, which is not acceptable under the Objectivist philosophy. Therefore, in doing so, you are not being consistent or true to the ideology or philosophy, and therefore not a member of the movement.

In many ways, it is analogous to what our socialist colleagues profess when it comes to the horrific actions taken by many collectivists, mostly socialistic, that have caused vast personal and societal destruction in the name of socialism, but they refuse to acknowledge that they are even socialistic in nature, since it is not ‘their’ own personal flavor of socialism.

Objectivist thought, in a nutshell, does not allow bringing harm to oneself or any other, except in self-defense, with no exceptions. So to address the example given, it would be impossible for an objectivist to initiate an environment where children are given, sold, or used in any manner that is a detriment to them or society, and that would include allowing them to be used in the pornographic industry or to be sold as slaves in any manner whatsoever. I don’t know how to explain it in any more clarity than that. No exceptions. The self-interest the questioner offers is the worst, basest kind of human behaviour, and is to be condemned and the people using those means to be punished to the greatest extent that existing law has to offer, through the courts and laws defined by a legitimate government, since anything else would simply be vigilantism, no matter how justified anyone may think it to be.

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. I'm sorry to say that the hysteria and the form in which that question was asked is a direct result of the fact that people put forth the ethics of self-sacrifice on religious grounds as though it's a revelation, consequently people do not even believe that moral issues can be open to reason, and if they disagree they resort to vilification and apoplexy. That is a sign of a wrong approach to the entire subject of ethics. If I translate that question I'll do what I want with my two minutes. Let's just ask him to keep quietly, no, no, you had the floor, and the speaker must have the floor. If I were to translate that question into something resembling intelligibility, I would say he's asking are you saying that an advocate of selfishness can do anything. Do you believe whatever you feel you should do, regardless of how it runs roughshod over other people, and if he had asked the question that way he would have seen that I already answered that by saying that selfishness does not equal doing whatever you feel like? You might feel like cutting your throat or jumping off a cliff, that does not make it something which redounds to your self-interest. Your self-interest has to be objectively, rationally, defined. It has to be in accordance with the requirements of your nature, and it has to respect the equal right of every other human being. I said over and over, selfishness is not running loose like some kind of monster that is simply the movie image put forth by altruists in order to try to dismiss this issue. Selfishness is perfectly rational. If you are rational you live to achieve your life by certain definite means, you respect the rights of others and you trade, that's it.”

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

(LCW) I think that it is an important distinction that is being made that there are those that have fashioned the narrative, and I include socialists in this grouping, so as the concept of morality is not even allowed to be debated.
Like global warming that will destroy the earth in five years, and the global freezing in the 70s followed by the disappearing ozone layer, that simply moved and is fine today, and even the depletion of natural resources, that we were told would run out before Y2k and turned out to be simply another instance of fake news, the idea of morality is ‘settled’ science and it is religion that will set the definition, and that is simply not the case. There is no irrefutable position on morality, it is yet another concept that needs to be repeatedly discussed and debated to create legitimacy for the reality that exists today, and notwithstanding their hubris in thinking that they are the only source for the information, it is fluid and dynamic, and ultimately we are all our own arbiters as to what is right and wrong, what is ethical, and especially what is morality. Unfortunately, we will not be coming to any conclusions tonight on the subject. Pity.

Everything Dr. Peikoff has said it definable and debatable. The fact that it is not being done is a detriment to the players that are preventing it. He again defines rational self-interest, and has done so multiple times, and yet they simply dismiss the concept, since it will legitimize the positions offered, which would refute whatever discordant positions have been presented in rebuttal. This is not the way learned individuals prosecute a rational debate. It is tedious to continually wait for the subject matter to go in the direction expected, only to find ourselves back in issues from Central America or local politics. A disappointment with no equal.

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. I'm sorry that the questioner got a little carried away. I'm even more sorrier that professor Peikoff was so snot-nosed to him and I apologize to you for that. I want to say I'm going to exert the Chairman's prerogative in a minute. As far as I can figure out a selfishness that is bound only by my own rational decisions as to what its limits are is a selfishness that allows me to do anything I want, in fact, because I'm the only arbitrator. Gosh, it's really nice not only do I have him, I have all of you moaning at the same time, it's really terrific, but it is in fact what the speakers repeat time after time. There is no other force, there is no other arbitrator, to stop me from making those decisions other than my own rational processes and as long as that's so, I assume that ultimately it means I can do whatever I want now because they are sophisticated, they know they will not do anything too bad, except cut off all these people from welfare and social service and all the other things they will do, so the argument, I confess, eludes me, and it has never seemed quite as persuasive as many of you self-evidently appear to be.”

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

(LCW) I’m sorry. I find it incomprehensible that this man has a degree in anything at all. The level of not just ignorance, but arrogance and stupidity is more than just surprising, it is frightening as well. A harsh judgment on the education system, and that is decades in the past.

To begin with, his comment about ‘snot-nosed’ is so inappropriate I am not even sure how to characterize it. The fact that he is devoid of class and decorum only magnifies the vileness of his personality. It was evident to this point, but not glaring. Now it is irrefutable. I don’t know what that Chairman’s prerogative was, but I was breathlessly waiting for the gavel to drop. Perhaps it was something Chairman Mao said to him at some point. Ridiculous orator.

But an excellent example of what was just discussed just seconds ago. He refuses to even listen to the definitions supplied by anyone else besides that screaming voice in his head. He is deathly afraid of using the phrase ‘rational self-interest’ because that would demand that he give some credence to the term as defined, and he just cannot allow himself to do so. The selfishness he tries to use indeed exists, although it has been refuted time and again as not what either of these men believe or profess, and yet he gives no quarter. He might as well call them liars, which he has in every form without words.

The moaning he hears coming from the audience is the sound you hear when you intentionally misrepresent what has been supplied to you on multiple occasions. It is well past disingenuous. It is dishonest and repugnant. The audience knows what he is trying to explain. The moaning is the fact that Dr. Caplan is the only one in the room that does not understand it, notwithstanding his colleague. How does he explain what a socialist believes? Is it not the specific conclusions that the socialist individual comes to understand as legitimate as to whether to believe and follow the teachings of socialism as opposed to something else? What’s the difference? There is none. Each of us has to define, at some point, what ethics and morals and integrity mean to them, and to act accordingly, or mindlessly take the teachings of another, unquestioningly, and act as a puppet to an end that they must, at some point, take responsibility for. If Mr. Caplan does not make up his own mind as a unique individual, who then makes the final decisions as to morals, and ethics, and the integrity he intends to follow? Does he suspend his own personal philosophy to another? Are all of his actions the result of the direction he receives from the mind of another, dare I say, individual? Peikoff clearly explains that it is he, alone, who makes these decisions, and knowingly takes full responsibility for those actions.

It has been reiterated, a myriad of times, that one of the actual, real obligations of authority a government has, is to see that one individual does not harm or bring harm to another individual in any physical way or otherwise, and act accordingly, dependent on laws and Constitution. What does he not understand about this scenario? He cannot do ‘anything’ he wishes. His philosophy and integrity makes sure of that, and ultimately the state can step in if he is causing harm to another. His explanation was clear and concise, and has been consistently made, but he seems to either have ignored or not taken note. In either case, this is an undeniably poor showing and another unfortunate poor example of someone who proclaims himself a socialist, which he may or not actually be, but simply exemplifies the failure of our educational systems.

Evidently, comprehension of much more than the meaning of rational self-interest has eluded him, not just tonight, but with every word he utters. I am not sure he is even cognizant of the fact that he is not cognizant. He makes knowingly false statements repeatedly. I have to question if this is premeditated or a lack of ability. I truly wish that there was a formidable representative of socialism on the stage, but I guess if they were going to lose anyway, might as well make sure that the event will end in disrepute so as to guarantee that it loses its value and substance with time, and simply disappear into the past, instead of something to be proud of, and to point to when someone is looking for answers and inspiration. This does nothing of the sort. I really feel sorry for them. It is now almost 40 years into the future, and I have never heard of them again. I am not surprised. And remember, I lived there.

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

QUESTION   VIII

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous: “ …. Yes, my question is gonna sound dangerously similar to the one before me except that I don't think that the question or the answer, in that case, really addressed the issue. It's addressed to the capitalists. I basically understand where you are, I accept the position except for one thing, why is inherited wealth part of your morality?

Wouldn't it not be better to investigate systems of wealth, just redistribution upon death, rather than allowing huge conglomerates to build up so that the small man from Parkdale South is in a position where he effectively can't compete against Number 10 Toronto Street in any meaningful way?

Just as just as a small addendum, I'll say that I agree with you that a man is entitled to the fruits of his labor, I'm not so sure that he's entitled to the fruits of his father's labor as a starting point.”

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

(LCW) It’s an interesting position. Not to say that I agree with it in principle, for a number of reasons, but because it seems so easy to refute the concept. This is not to say I think that this should not be a part of a larger discussion, but one where I can ask some questions as well. I think I can grasp where the question is coming from, but I immediately can see scenarios that would be harmful to the individual as well as society by totally removing one of the greatest motivators to success, innovation, insight, and incentive to achieve, almost anything.

Let’s start by asking a few questions about property, which always comes up, doesn’t it? I have no idea if the question is just a really sneaky way to insert the issue into the discussion, or a heartfelt attempt to find a resolution to what actually makes capitalism bad. I think he may be on the right track, but the implementation of what he suggests seems to be a guarantee of the death of capitalism, so my position would be to confront and address the deeper issues.

If there is no inheritance, then a number of things happen. First off, what about the well-being of the family and progeny of the individual in question? Do we have any issues with the spouse or children becoming wards of the state, or is that what we are hoping for in any case? Many of the questioners ask about those with handicapped children. What happens if this individual is in the same situation? The family now has to rely on the largesse and altruism of the state and others instead of having the means to take care of it themselves. Perhaps they have been saving their whole lives just for that eventuality. And speaking of ‘them’, does the spouse have any claim to these assets? Was she not a component in the creating of this wealth? She would get half if she divorced, why does she get nothing if he simply dies? This is truly lacking in reason as well as morality.

How about someone who has collected, and restored antique automobiles all of his life, a love of which his son shares in common. Are all of these items forfeit upon his death? Do we give them to someone who also shares a respect and love of the cars, or do we simply put them up for sale to the highest bidder, so someone, of less repute, but with lots of money, but still alive, can make a killing now, but also possibly see them confiscated with his demise? What about a collection of rare books or paintings or art? Perhaps he is an artist or a writer. Does the family get to keep those items, precisely because they were produced by their own flesh and blood? Can there be no legacy for those that loved the poor guy, and he loved them? Why was he working so hard all of those years, if only to lose it when his life ends?

What happens when his life is cut short by accident or by giving up his life through service to country? If you can take my real and existing property, legitimately obtained through a lifetime of effort and ability, then why not my house, my car, and my bank account while I am still alive? All of these things can be sold and assigned to another before my death, but I relinquish such a ‘right’ the moment I cease to be?

Do you understand the irrationality of the proposal? You and I would probably lose what little we have in such a scenario, but do you really think those of position and influence will not promote legislation, much like what now exists, to protect those assets through ‘trusts’ and legal maneuverings so that ‘their’ families will continue to receive the value? Or a foundation, or simply invest it all in a company where only family are owners and members? You must realize how easily those well connected will deflect and avoid what is being discussed.

And since we are talking morality, how can one possibly defend confiscation on any level? Wealth and property is not something that ever belongs to someone else, under any conditions, including the state, since it was never ‘earned’ by those others. This is all just an illegitimate attempt at the rationalization of theft.

If he ‘gives’ any of these things to his family before death, what happens? And, …. if you wish to take these things back, what about charitable contributions? Do we make exception after exception, by bureaucrats, and let the bottom feeders grow fat due to directives and arbitrary decisions?

The deeper question, and one that Ayn Rand addressed in much of her work, and one that I cannot deny when talking of collectivism, that supposedly relies on the incentive of a better world to make the system work, what is the imperative that an individual has to create, to gain an education, to produce items and resources for any and all to share in, if what is done is to be confiscated, ultimately, at a time and choosing of some unknown and undefined entity? Do we let old, rich, individuals die in the hospitals so their wealth can become the ‘property’ of the state? Do we actually promote ‘mercy-killings’ to speed up the process? Will those ‘death-panels’ finally become a reality?

That begs the question that if socialists do not believe in property, why does the state get to confiscate it? If it doesn’t exist, then no one should get it. Perhaps we should destroy it instead? Oh, the howls coming from the halls of government would be interesting to hear. They know the value of someone else’s wealth, so they would never allow that to happen. It would be a shame to not allow this to ‘help’ others, but if one does not believe in property, should that not be across the board? Just asking.

We could talk for hours. If I knew, as a young man, that I could neither keep nor bequeath the fruits of my labour to those I care about, would I have had any incentive at all to even work? How many of you would have made the effort? Some, most assuredly, but all? I think not. Maybe just half? That would destroy the economy of any country that exists. The wars that would ensue would be incomparable to the pain, death and destruction of the last century.

Is that what the socialist envisions? To me, it seems to be inevitable. We don’t have the philosophy, the strength of character, the integrity to do what they think will happen through some kind of magic. We need to fix the shortcomings of the human animal before we talk of socialism. We need to do the right things for the right reasons before we can make the attempt to convince everyone else to join the movement. But you know what? When we are all doing the right things, for the right reasons, there will be no reason to attempt socialism at all, and we can just continue to do the right things. Would that not be ironic? Let’s start on that today.

I find the concept of only post-mortem confiscation fascinating. I think I need some more time to think about it, and some input from different sources before we can continue. Feel free to contribute.

I think the fundamental question is not the confiscation of wealth, but if and when that wealth is ill-gotten or completely legitimate. All of the examples of inappropriateness that are presented in discussions, all deal with individuals that did something that can only be described as coercive, or fraudulent, misrepresentation, and ultimately that would mean illegal, which would in turn mean unethical and immoral.

What is really necessary is to create more precise legislation, and to enforce the laws that already exist. The problem is that the reason this even happens at all, is the level of corruption that exists within the business community, and especially within the government itself. Do you think these things will really go away when the paradigm is replaced by another, arguably less efficient and rational system?

Do you think these reprehensible players will simply disappear, or since they are the movers and shakers, in the worst possible sense now, is it not probable that they will find their way into the new paradigm for the same exact reasons that they are in power now? Do you really think otherwise? Or is it just ‘you’ that will get a piece of that brandy new pie? Until the problem of bad people is addressed and resolved, there is nothing that can be done to bring about the change that, for the sake of the argument, both sides wish to see. Can’t you see that? Can you refute it? I don’t think so. I wish you could.

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

John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath: “ …. the issue is what the father is entitled to. The issue in connection with inherited wealth is what are the rights of the people who earned that wealth including their right to give that wealth to whomever they choose, and that is the focus rather than the alleged unfair head start or whatever, on the part of the child. It is the case when you worry about inherited wealth, many people who worry about inherited wealth worry that, since unworthy people inherit wealth and in a sense have a free ride, generation after generation, they see something unfair in that. The fact of the matter is that, at least in a free society, that people who inherit wealth who are not themselves rational, and productive, and entrepreneurial people, that those people will lose the wealth that they have inherited. There is an expression which was typical of 19th century America, which was the freest period in human history, which was shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations, and that meant the first generation made the money, passed at the second generation and by the third generation the money had gone to more worthy hands, and they were back to shirt sleeves again, but the essential moral issue with regards to inheritance is that the people who earn it have the right to dispose of it as they choose. It's their right to do that and that's why.”

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

(LCW) Entitlement is something that requires a bit of thought. Not for those that are quick to judge, but for those that would like to understand what it means to have a right to anything at all, and are interested in the ‘why’, as well as the responsibilities and obligations of that same right.

I question the ‘right’ of those that wish to control the narrative when it comes to rights, even without the implications of someone owning a right that by their actions may have negated that ‘right’ to do so. One has no rights unless, and until, it is demonstrated that there is reasonable cause to do so. It is a mistake to let someone, anyone, control the conversation or the debate without a reason. Maybe they understand the issues better than anyone else. Perhaps they have a unique insight that is fascinating. Maybe there is some kind of consensus that there is no equitable personality that could explain and clarify the issues.

That is not the case in this example. It continually comes back to the issue of property, as it always does. The socialists perpetually talk of the insignificance of property, but incessantly want to take the property of the few, and redistribute it to the select and ‘needy’ few, which, of course, in time becomes the many, and the property is simply the spoils of the conflict. If property was so terribly unimportant, why does everyone who cannot produce it want to have it?

I find it troublesome that the same people who have so little want to have more, to control it, and to distribute it to those, only, that have a like mindset and agenda. If it were truly the goal to simply give it to those that ‘need’ it, would it not go to everyone, indiscriminately, without thought to background, color, ethnicity, history, or ‘want’, would it not go, arbitrarily, to those that are available to receive it, with no real concern about who they are? Is this what you see when you look around at those recipients who do? It is very important that you understand the ‘who’ that is benefiting from these confiscations. If it is not easily discernable, then it is imperative that you investigate deeply and completely.

If the wealth, the property, is to remain property, but eventually given to another, then why is it appropriate for some nameless bureaucrat to give this property to someone else, but not for the person who envisioned and created that same wealth? I fail to see why he does ‘not’ have any ‘rights’ in this action. It is akin to the rights of the pregnant mother, while the father, and all those other family members involved, on both sides of the issue, that have virtually no rights whatsoever. They say it is the body of the mother, and the fetus is the property, in bondage and under the total arbitrary whim of that same mother, as to whether it is ‘allowed’ to live or die, not just ‘property’, but without any rights, with no one able to speak on its behalf, completely subservient and vulnerable to the whims of its maker. This sounds eerily, and irrefutably, like slaverY.

If there is nothing viable about property, and there is no value to life, what is the expectation for an ideology that supports, condones, and acknowledges these things as a ‘good’ thing, and an eventual part of the ‘greater good’? These are the same issues, they are not unrelated. They are important, since they are inevitably the issues that will impact your property, your freedom, and your life. It is important to take these things into consideration as you contemplate a future as a socialist.

Property can be given, and it can be taken. If earned without legitimacy, it is not yours to keep or to give away, but if it is, then no one has the right to make that decision, under any circumstances. Life, on the other hand, is never available to the whim and considerations of any single individual, or any group for that matter.

The right to life in inviolable, and if you believe otherwise, then stand up and proclaim it for the world to know who you are. If one does not speak for the right to a life of one’s own decisions and direction, then you are for the confiscation of the right to life itself, and should be known as such. That is the true nature of slavery, the owning of another, to do with as you please. There are no half-measures, no exceptions. Convince me otherwise. I dare you.

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

Jill Vickers

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

Dr. Jill Vickers: “ …. you know, I heard the shirt sleeves equipped this morning from Professor Peikoff. That didn't grab me then, it doesn't grab me now, quite simply because it isn't true. It's from shirt sleeves, yes, by hard work, that I will agree with, in many instances, then it's up to three-piece suits, then it's up to wind collars and rather large establishments of conglomerates. I think you put your finger, perhaps unwittingly and perhaps deliberately, on a very important point. I would be far more persuaded of the ethic that I'm hearing if I thought that the monopoly game wasn't rigged. It's quite clear the monopoly game is rigged, not everybody gets 200 dollars when they pass go, and a whole lot of people have quite a lot of lolly in the bank before they start the game. What's more, some people have obstacles to jump that others don't and some have shackles of one kind or another that they're forced to carry the imagery of life as a race when you have inherited property in the middle of the race certainly doesn't sound very fair to me. I agree.”

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

(LCW) Perhaps I missed something, but the shirt sleeve comment came from Dr. Ridpath, not that the quip, nor the response, is of any consequence. I am not particularly interested if it ‘grabbed’ you in any way, I was more interested in a rational response and explanation of your philosophy. I am perpetually surprised that you are not interested in that art of ‘persuasion’ that you have mentioned at times. As we move towards the end of this exercise in futility, I find myself not being grabbed, then as well as now, by any of the statements put forth by either of the socialists to this point. What a waste of an opportunity on their parts.

It must be difficult to live in a reality that is dictated by the actions of the micro, and the total dismissal of the macro, when it comes to what is actually happening in the world of politics and economics. When you throw out comments about three-piece suits, which I at least can identify to some extent, although is it all three-piece suits, or just those that you disagree with? There are a lot of three-piece suits out there. Are any of them legitimate in any form? I am not sure that I understand the ‘wind-collar’ reference. Is that in any way indicative of the rich on their yachts, or something else entirely? It would benefit that intent to persuade if those you talk down to were aware of what you were actually saying.

And of course that leads us to the establishment of conglomerates. I would have a similar query as to exactly what the issue is, for you, with conglomerates. I realize that you simply try to demonize them with the use of such a phrase, but are there any ‘conglomerates’ that are legitimate and not out to destroy the working man? Are there any benefits that derive from their existence? And what percentage of them are good or bad, and is it the conglomerate itself, or the presence of unscrupulous individuals that manage them, and the politicians that allow them to exist, if they are as bad as you would have us believe? This happens often within a discussion on the ills of our society. Demonize and demean and destroy.

It is incumbent upon you, as the initiator of such comments, to make some kind of reasoned argument and to present a cogent position, at some point, that can be addressed and debated. It is curious, to say the least, that there never seem to be specifics or evidence to support any of your claims, just an attitude that it is common knowledge, when in fact it is not common at all, and is based on little or no knowledge that I can comprehend.

I must admit that you are certainly proficient at the subtle digs you throw into your comments. Cute, but inappropriate, but of no surprise or value. You reference that he ‘unwittingly’ or possibly ‘deliberately’ put his finger on an important point. You therefore demean him by your assumption of making a mistake, and in the same breath say he did so for some nefarious purpose, either way insinuating a negative connotation. If not, why say this at all? You never go into detail what that ‘important’ point was or is, and immediately make the statement that the ‘Monopoly’ game is rigged.

It is so disingenuous to continually disparage the business community, again with no specifics or examples, and yet you are part of the business of education and politics, both of which are every bit as corrupt, and destructive, if not moreso, to the fibre of society as anything that is done within the business community.

So let’s talk of this monopoly game. It is easy to make some off-hand comments about passing go or obstacles or an insidious reference to ‘shackles’ just so no one forgets about slavery. Why this is necessary is beyond me when we are supposed to be talking about the morality of socialism versus capitalism. We know you don’t like it, but it would be nice if you told us why. Neither you nor Dr. Caplan have even attempted to do so at this point.

You actually touch on the point of inherited wealth at the end, and even though this has nothing to do with the morality, as stated, it does address the question from the audience. I appreciate that it may not seem fair to you, but you again present nothing to that end. No evidence, no citation from someone else about anything related to the subject. It is a shame, since qualifying your answer just may have touched on the concept of morality, like how is it moral to take, by force, that which has been earned through effort and the expenditure of time and resources, not to mention additional wealth in the creation of the means to the eventual property and assets. Does this confiscation that is being discussed even take that into account?

I want to know how you justify ‘stealing’ these things, from anyone at any time, after death, in context, and simply giving this property to those that expended nothing at all, no effort, no time, no resources, even though many of these individuals of ‘need’ have the ability and certainly the time, to do something productive. At least according to their abilities. Isn’t that what it is all about? From those to the extent of their abilities, and to those according to the extent of their needs? When are you going to give a reasoned argument for anything at all that has been discussed tonight? The audience is waiting. I am waiting. Impress me. Persuade me. Please, at least try.

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

QUESTION   IX

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous: “ …. my question is directed to Dr. Peikoff on the capitalist side. I would conclude from part of this discussion that Orwell has retained some of his apostles in his contradiction of terms and words. Your pursuit, Dr. Peikoff, in the building of selfishness, knowing the survival, to build some your pursuit of survival is built on selfishness contradicts any claim to a peaceful intellectual pursuit to achieve objectives in a peaceful way. Hitler perfected this. Your out was that you lumped National Socialism with international socialism. Hitler saw that his next step was National Socialism which would have pinnacled the power that he had already accumulated on the personal and national basis.

All right, would you not agree, I got it, would you not agree that laws are a matter of degrees, that is, socialism is attempting to pursue the laws for a greater percentage of equality, not equality, but a greater percentage of equality which would include capitalism and this is the area in which capitalism is resenting, if we if we backtrack on that, the underworld resents the laws that we now have, so I would say that capitalism's arguments against further pursuit of laws is not valid.”

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

(LCW) I think that the questioner comes to many conclusions without the benefit of any underlying information or evidence. I realize it is not an easy thing to do, but one cannot just throw opinion out as some sort of fact without some corroborating data, something, anything, to give credibility to the claims. I find the reference to Orwell without context or relevance. I see no evidence of a conflict between selfishness and peaceful resolutions, and you offer nothing to indicate such a reality. The inclusion of the intentions of such an anathema as Hitler is arbitrary and unfounded. How does one respond to fiction? Where is the question in all of this? There can be no reasonable expectation of any exchange of ideas with such a convoluted line of thinking. Whatever Hitler was, he was no Objectivist, and the reference to him is irrational.

As for laws, they are not created to gain something for a greater ‘percentage’ of the society, but for everyone. A law is an absolute, and the intent was for all, meaning every, citizen would be treated ‘equally’ under the law. Is there some conflict in your interpretation of the concept? The equivocation that you offer is that special interests will gain equality at the expense of others. If there is to be an equivocation, it would be in the issue of enforcement, and that is not appropriate either. In fact, that is the problem that we have today, supposed bias in the application of the laws. I reject the whole concept of working for percentages. We have a host of laws today that are being ignored, so how does one ensure that the new laws will be enforced in any relevant or equitable form whatsoever?

We have laws being ignored at the border, sanctuary cities, destruction of property during protests, and even equating said destruction ‘as’ protest, even though there are laws, on the books, that currently exist, stating otherwise. And a whole list of other instances where those who have ‘sworn’, on their honor, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and have refused to do so, which puts them in default, and nothing but criminals themselves.

This has nothing to do with whether you agree with the validity of the laws or not. This is not politics, although it is difficult to dispute that it plays a major role. We either have laws, or we don’t. If there is no enforcement, the contract between the people and the government is null and void, and ceases to exist. The government is rogue, and if you haven’t noticed, it does not seem to be a cause for concern to many.

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. Well, I have to ignore the last part because I don't know what you're talking about, but the first part I would like to comment on. Selfishness as a term simply means that the recipient of the values you create should be yourself, at least entirely open the question what value should you aim to pursue and by what means should you achieve them. If you had any rudimentary knowledge of the history of ethics, there are many egoists of all kinds of different varieties, and it's very uncommon for them to have the kind that is caricatured in your statement.

There's nothing in the idea I should pursue my interest to say I should pursue it by means of cutting your throat or violating the cannons of peace. There is no such thing, particularly when you hold, as I do, that the only essential means of human beings have to deal with reality or achieve values is thought, is the mind, and that all of human life depends on the sanctity and absolutism of the mind, if you hold that you would shudder in the name of self-interest against any form of coercion or wrong peace against others and you would do it for your own self-interest.

As far as Hitler goes, I'd like to say I happen to have made a very lengthy study of the Nazi ethic, and the Nazis are thorough ideological, explicit champions of altruism and self-sacrifice. If you want detailed quotes from Hitler, Goebbels, Göring, the whole hierarchy, you look up my book and you will see that they define the Aryan as the supreme exponent of self-sacrifice. They equate the ideal Nazi as the one who gives up everything, not only his wealth but his mind, his independent judgment, to the Fuhrer, and they preached universal sacrifice. All Germans were to sacrifice for the master race, which was no one individual, it was a mythical, supernatural entity, and the whole rest of the world was to sacrifice. There was no one to be selfish, they were the opposite of the champions of selfishness.”

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

(LCW) Once again, I find myself wishing that the socialists would present their cases in a like manner to what Dr. Peikoff is doing. He is ‘not’ demeaning his opponents, although at times it seems that he does. There is no ad hominem attacks. There is no gutter language. He presents his case to the best of his ability and allows the listener, whether from the audience, there, or online, to digest and come to their own conclusions. He makes an attempt to share his position, and hopes to garner some rational comments in response. I don’t understand the adversarial, to an extreme degree, reaction to seemingly everything that is mentioned. Nothing is accepted as sincere, nothing as legitimate. It is a continual non-starter to any kind of a substantive exchange of ideas. It is both ultimately confusing and frustrating. I simply do not understand the strategy. Please enlighten me.

He again tries to offer a definition of selfishness, but he has done so before, to no avail. It is not what they want to hear, and not what they intend to discuss. The problem is, if they accept what he says, then all of the condemnation of his positions disappear in a wisp of smoke. It seems that one cannot acknowledge even a small amount of legitimacy to his professed perspective, or the opposition falls, as does a house of cards, to the simplest contradictions.

He attempted to make fundamental and uncomplicated arguments to illustrate his points as to self-interest, none of which have been refuted during this whole ordeal of the superficial debate format that we have had to endure. If we are not here to question the oppositions’ philosophy, then I have no idea why we have invested the time and energy into this farce of a debate.

Personally, I am more than a little tired of the format, wishing instead for a question and answer experience between the players, with a single question, demanding a single answer, followed by their own questions, and continue until one drops or acquiesces, instead of this rhetorical back-and-forth, never bringing clarity to any of the issues that have been brought up and seemingly, never having the obligation to do so. It is reminiscent of a political debate, also without any substance or value to the listener, which I have always found to be quite condescending in its own right.

Why is it impossible to talk of politics, and in this case, philosophy, without the mention of that great thinker Hitler as a foil between the schools of thought? Everyone hates the man, and everyone attempts to paint the other as a supporter or best friend of the megalomaniac, when no one agrees with anything he did, or what he wanted to achieve. At least, that is their stated positions. If so, they need to be banished from civilization, and nothing more or less will be acceptable. Stop using these ‘provocateurs’ to prove some never-articulated point. Tell us what ‘you’ think, ask questions, and answer those posed to you. Nothing else will do.

Hitler was ‘not’ a conservative. He was ‘not’ a capitalist. He was ‘not’ an Objectivist by any stretch of the imagination. He was a nationalist, a socialist, and a threat to freedom of thought and freedom of action. For that alone, he is not acceptable to me, to Peikoff, or to Ridpath. I would enjoy hearing if there is anything that is acceptable to the socialist table? At least have the courage, and the integrity, to stand up and allow us to know what you really believe, what you really wish to bring to society, and what you are willing to do to achieve that end. What are you afraid of? Why the subterfuge? Tell us what you really believe.

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. the superior race. To hear that the Nazis believed in a kind of altruism, and sorry, to be told that the Nazis believed in a kind of altruism and self-sacrifice, that in other parts of this evening we have been told is comparable to some of the things that us benighted socialists believe is, forgive me, for a Jew, so offensive and so intolerable that I can't answer any more of that question.

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. excuse me, I'm Jewish, also for what it's worth ….”

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. not much ….”

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

(LCW) How fascinating. How interesting. How revealing. Do you hear what Caplan has to say? He plays the victim card, and we are supposed to simply dismiss the comments because of his sensitivity? Do you see the disrespect in his comment in response to the fact that Peikoff is also Jewish? Does this not have any relevance to anyone? The arrogance displayed is beyond the pale, and irrefutably inexcusable. It displays a lack of character, that for me, disqualifies him as a man of substance and integrity. What are his ethics? How does he define morality? The concept of character does not exist. His integrity is highly questionable.

I have no idea what a ‘benighted’ socialist might be, but I think we might disagree in every respect. The comments from Dr. Peikoff had nothing to do with the diminution of the Jewish community. He made an observation from his research that Hitler was indeed, at least in the public sphere, a socialist, and Dr. Caplan took affront, but is it because what was said was misinformation, which can easily be verified from multiple sources, or because it is a staggering fact that does nothing to support the paradigm that the socialist is attempting to foster through their own agenda? If he is so uncomfortable with the fact that Hitler was a believer in altruism and self-sacrifice, is it not with Hitler that he has the conflict? Peikoff was simply the messenger, and my research tells me that Hitler did indeed believe those things. Perhaps not passionately, after all he was a politician and at least partially insane, but they were concepts he promoted. Does that cause Dr. Caplan some concern?

If it was not true, would you not, as a questionable ‘scholar’, wish to refute and set the record straight? Me thinks that he is far out of his league by even attempting to speak on any of these issues, and the pressure is finally taking its toll. Why is he avoiding the issue? Take a stand. Educate us. Persuade us as to the truth of the matter. Show us the error of our ways. But no, he refuses to continue speaking, he does nothing put the issue in perspective. He basically runs away. What a shame.

But the fact remains that Hitler was an altruist. He championed so many issues that the socialists offer today. The same promises of a better society if you will just give up everything that you are, and take direction from yet another set of megalomaniacs, who will bring you everything that you have ever imagined, with no thought or effort from anyone, just obedience, and self-sacrifice, and an altruism that will fix every problem that has ever existed, but we will not let you know exactly how that will happen until we are securely ensconced into power, and all opposition has been expunged from the reality that we call socialism.

I am uncomfortable if Dr. Caplan feels he is under attack, but I fail to see the reason behind the emotional outburst and the blatant disrespect shown to his, at least in theory, colleague. I don’t understand the interpretation or the reason for the need to act as he does. It is very unfortunate, on a number of levels. I don’t believe that he was the right person to represent socialism on pretty much any level. He was unprepared and uninformed on the issues. I can only believe that he was under some impression that it would be like pontificating to a liberal audience in some Canadian back-woods College, otherwise, why would he have the difficulty that he appears to be experiencing? A debate is a contested competition, not a cakewalk. It should be civil and reasoned, not a street-fight based on invective and degradation. I am very disappointed in his conduct and his attitude. He was not up to the task at hand.

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

QUESTION   X

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

Matthew Marshall

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

Matthew Marshall: “ …. before I commence, I would like to introduce myself. My name is Matthew Marshall, I'm a capitalist and I wash my own underwear. I'd like to address this question to both panels, but first of all I'd like to give the socialist a chance to rebuttal.

Mr. Caplan, did I understand you to say morality has, real morality is defined as how real people operate in the real world?

Dr. Caplan: “ …. Yes ….”

Matthew: “ …. okay, we want to deal with the real world. If we look at the nations of the world, those who have enshrined the value of property rights are the ones who have had the greatest economic advancement, and the masses have benefited the most, okay?

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

(LCW) Not the most relevant point made tonight, but it is refreshing to see that not all students are having their underwear washed by their mothers while in school. I thought the original comment was a bit premature, not to mention immature. To make such an assumption calls into question the ability to comprehend the concepts of empathy and independence.

It is difficult to respond to his assertion that property rights have been integral to the success of many countries, or that the masses have been benefited by that ideology. It would have been nice to have that discussed in much more detail in the execution of tonight’s’ debate, but I guess it was not meant to be. It could have been an insightful and enlightening experience.

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. we haven't agreed to everything yet, okay? “

Matthew: “ …. that's why I finished my question first, okay?”

Dr. Vickers: “ …. we like the underwear though …. “

Matthew: “ … okay, now socialism as I know it is concerned with the welfare of the community, which itself is a very noble idea and I don't disagree with it, but as being a socialist, and empirical observation demonstrates in countries that respect property rights, are the countries that have the greatest wealth for everyone. As a socialist, and this empirical truth is evident, how can you as a socialist disagree with property rights?”

Dr. Caplan: “ …. Well, I guess I don't accept all of your facts, you know, strangely enough. Seems to me, that among the countries, sorry, it seems to me that among the countries that support property rights are Argentina, are Chile, are Uruguay, are Pakistan, are a dozen African countries which have property rights written into their constitution and which work hand in glove with corporate interests and the local elites to oppress and cause misery for their people. Now, why is that so difficult for this audience to understand? Yeah, they are there before you, so spare me your stuff you just don't know what you're talking about. That's why I don't accept property rights in the way you talk about it.

We accept property rights, god, have there not been social democratic governments in this country and in western Europe, in the way that any sensible person does, was there confiscation, did shopkeepers lose their stores, did businesses get taken away without proper compensation, did anyone lose a house, no they did not. Those were lost those were lost in the capitalist created depression of the thirties, those were lost, those were lost in the capitalist created recession of the last three years, that's when people lost homes and shops and businesses, so spare me please.”

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

(LCW) It is difficult to know where to start. Matthew seems to make some good points. I don’t think that they are easily refutable, but at the same time, I am not so sure that they are without question, valid. Nothing is as simple as it looks, and Dr. Caplan surges ahead and confirms this by making accusations that are unfounded and just silly. Putting up countries like Argentina and Chile as examples of countries that embrace property rights is simply an absurdity. What did Argentina have, 200 percent inflation? Did that embrace the concept of property rights? If the property was worthless, the point was moot. They nationalized most of the industries, something that socialists and communists have done repeatedly over time, and the result is nothing even remotely related with private property. The actual ‘value’ of the property was removed, there was no need to physically take anything from the individual, because for all intents and purpose, it ceased to exist anyway. The examples, while probably exhibiting some value, is irrelevant in relation to the subjects under discussion.

Having property rights ‘written into’ their Constitutions has no direct implications to the fact that the corruption in a large number of newly created African nations is irrefutable and defies any mention of actual freedom that is experienced in these countries. Why is the worst examples possible ‘always’ the only ones that socialism has to offer?

Most of these countries have no ‘history’ of individual freedom or property rights, and those that have a history, such as Argentina and Chile who were mentioned, did quite well ‘before’ socialism was implemented. Argentina especially, one of the countries with the richest resources, lost a tremendous amount of value, and therefore property value, due to the leadership during the reign of socialism.

If you wish to defend socialism, at least do so in the context of the reality of the politics and economics that existed. You can point to bad leadership, corruption, or even global conditions, but do not dismiss the fact that socialism was the key indicator and eventual reason for the diminution of the country and its standing on the world stage.

He even pointed to the real causes in these countries, the corporate interests and local elites, in addition to the corrupt local governments that were responsible for the eventual ‘misery’ that the people had to endure. It was not capitalism in any real sense, but corruption, incompetence, greed, irrational self-interest and a lack of ethical behaviour, moral foundation, weak character and total absence of any integrity of consequence. That is what infects freedom, and capitalism, and causes the things that the socialist blames on capitalism, and if socialism ever reigns supreme, it will be the same thing that destroys its best efforts, much like the cancer that exists in capitalism today.

Until this undeniable fact becomes self-evident, there will be no answer to the problem. It is necessary to decide these issues on the field of ideas, and not political back rooms and corporate boardrooms. All of those things I mentioned will be required. Ethics, morality, character, and integrity. These things do not seem to exist in those backrooms and boardrooms. How to get them there is the ultimate challenge.

And he condescends once again, berating some young student that simply disagrees with his positions and asked a simple question. It seems that it is okay to demean some child with his ‘snot-nosed’ comments when they originate with him, but not otherwise. He seems to know everything there is to know, but his detractors seem to ‘know nothing’ if we are to believe in his divinity. I resist. The hypocrisy could be cut with a knife. Disgraceful. The double-standard is alive and well in the land of the socialist.

Maybe we need to have a debate betwixt the socialists. Dr. Vickers, if I remember correctly, was not a believer in property rights. She stated that she had no property, even though I am somewhat skeptical if that is actually true. But Dr. Caplan has just stated that they believe in property rights, as ‘any sensible person does’. I’m confused, as I always am when I listen to liberals or socialists or collectivists. Do we all embrace property rights, or not?

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

John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath: “ …. this is an exercise in Orwellian language. I've spent over a year studying the evolution of the concept of man's rights. I went to length to explain in my remarks tonight that the principle of rights is in essence a principle which acknowledges that each man is an end in himself and must be morally regarded as being an end in himself and therefore must be treated by others voluntarily through trade and through contract and never through the use of force. To say that property rights can lead to oppression, and statism, and Nazism is just totally contradictory, and just ignores everything we've been saying tonight, and as a matter of fact, that I must comment.

Dr. Vickers said that she wasn't very happy with the ethics she has kept hearing from this side of the platform, well, I want to say that I wished I had heard an ethic coming from the other side of the platform, but I never did, I never did hear one word. Why is it that I, as an individual, must be forced to live my life for anybody else? I never heard that justified in the whole evening and I'm sad to say, therefore I think they failed to fulfill the demands of the debate.”

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

(LCW) The fact that Dr. Ridpath has done research, and possibly penned an article by no means forces anyone to take his word as gospel, but it does add an aire of credibility that simply does not exist for his opponents. To dismiss, out of hand, calls into question the concept of ‘ethics’ that Dr. Vickers questioned. It is extremely unfortunate that they cannot even meet their own standards with their own presentation. It is not necessary to agree in any sense with ‘what’ he says, but the onus does rest with the individual that disagrees to mount and present an argument based on reason and some source of information, or the submission comes across as little more than hearsay or biased rhetoric. At least ‘try’ to create the appearance of a viable debate.

Can the presence of property be the impetus for oppression, and statism, and Nazism, which some wish to equate with one another? Certainly. When something of value exists, there will always be those that wish to gain possession of said value for themselves, without the need of effort or ability. There is an imperative, and a demand, that a legitimate connection between the two be illustrated in some way, or again, the information supplied is nothing but vapid argument based on nothing of value or substance.

I think it inappropriate to voice his concerns about the absence of ethics from the opposing forces in the debate. I would have liked him to stay away from those kinds of comments, not because he is faulty in his perspective, but, for the most part, our ‘capitalists’ have refrained from degrading themselves by speaking in the vernacular that seems to be well accepted by our ‘socialists’. The fact that you profess to speak for those people in the street does not mean you have to speak with a gutter mentality and vocabulary. It is demeaning to both sides.

I realize that I have not been as gracious as I could have been, but I am not representing anyone or anything, except from my own personal perspective, and believe that you respond to your adversaries. What goes around, comes around, as it were. You get what you give, to be more precise. I found that almost all of the invective was given, without provocation, simply because of the differences of opinion. The personalization was inappropriate and unnecessary. The level of the discussion was impacted and diminished by many of the comments. When one comes to hear a supposed rational argument on issues such as morality, ethics, character and integrity, these things seem to be a discordant note in the exercise.

It was more than a little bit disappointing, this lack of ethical and moral discussion on the subjects at hand. To accuse one side of a certain lack, when on their own side the attributes were completely non-existent seems like the height of hypocrisy to me. If the moderator had any pride in his own ability to control the situation, he would have chastised both sides when appropriate, and try to direct the conversations in the proper directions. He did not, and we all paid a price for his incompetence.

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

QUESTION   XI

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

Anonymous

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

Anonymous: “ …. I'd just like to say that people voted for Hitler, and also the thing about wealth is that, yes, it's very true that it's hard to earn wealth, but it's also more true that it's harder to hang on to it once you've earned it. I'd like to ask Dr. Caplan if he believes that the state is responsible for creating wealth, and for distributing it, then why didn't some state 300 years ago create a law that said we're going to build everybody cars and give them insulated homes, or, as a matter of fact, why don't third world countries do that today, just decree a law that says we're going to create all this wealth to distribute?

Dr. Vickers asked the question why do the poor stay poor and a large hush fell over the crowd and I would like to say that if there's any amount of freedom in the country and this is the key is the amount of freedom in the country, the poor stay poor because they earn it. One thing the socialists never answer is who's going to pay the deficits, and the other point I'd like to mention is that in Canada, speakers questions, they're supposed to be answering yours. In Canada, we already have lost 50% of our freedom because when you are allowed to be taxed at a rate of 50% on your personal income, money is only a commodity which allows you to buy your freedom, okay? Come on, if you're taxed then you've lost that amount of free questions. That's it thank you.

I just, my question was will Dr. Caplan please explain why states just don't create, decree laws that create wealth?”

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

(LCW) It is certainly a bit disconcerting, the quality of the questions from the audience. It would have been illuminating to know the background of each, and what level of education that they held, because if graduates, or post graduates, it is disturbing the lack of ability to speak well and construct and pose lucid and understandable questions.

Having said that, it is well documented how Hitler rose to power, and indeed, he did not resort to coercion and authoritarian means for some time, except perhaps covertly. He was able to command the interest and respect of the population. I never found him compelling as a speaker, but then again, I don’t speak German, but from what I could see, the country, with its recent history, was simply ripe for a nationalist movement, and he used that very well to his own advantage. But it is indisputable that democracy, at times, does not deliver an appropriate product, even if legitimate and democratic in essence. Our socialist have offered nothing to say how they would circumvent the use of democracy in a less than beneficial situation. I think it irrefutably relevant to the discussion, at least within the one expected. If Nazi Germany was the result of social democracy in the past, why can this not happen again in the future with ‘democratic socialism’?

I think the scenario of any country simply dictating the existence of wealth by law is somewhat overly simplistic, but it does beg to ask the question where the wealth will come from. It seems evident that some do not understand the relationship between cause and effect in the issue of creating wealth. It is not like printing paper money that has no intrinsic value. I have already acknowledged that for socialism to work, all the participants have to voluntarily agree to ‘invest’ or ‘donate’ their time and effort and whatever resources they have to the cause, and ‘divest’ themselves from any responsibility in the attempt to form the direction of the ideology in anything but the most basic levels. If this can be accomplished, without ‘coercion’, then there is a chance for legitimacy in the attempt. Otherwise, it is inevitable enslavement of the population, and eventually democracy is nothing more than a façade to an ominous state control of every facet of ones’ existence. Similar to places like Iraq, where Saddam Hussein was periodically ‘re-elected’ with 99% of the vote. Neither credible nor legitimate. Dictators do not assume power through democratic means. This particular ‘saviour’ killed his own uncle to take the reins of power, and only afterwards decided upon allowing the vote, in a situation where one was not necessary. If he was fooling anyone at all, it was only himself.

The next issue is infinitely more complicated. Poor people do not earn their situation in life. Well, perhaps in some respects, but it is more a matter of happenstance and serendipity, and also aspects of the government that is supposed to protect and assist them. But speaking of simplistic answers, the socialist mindset simply proclaims that capitalism is to blame, and in the same way I disagree with simply creating wealth by fiat, you cannot place blame on a system that is not being run by individuals of strong ethics or morals, legitimate character or impeccable, or even fair to middlin’ integrity.

I will repeat, as often as those that don’t understand who keep bringing it up, that the system is not responsible for the degradation of the plight of the poor. It is the individuals with the power, within the economic structure, and more importantly, the vile and unseemly relationship had between those individuals and those in the government that are derelict in their duties, and making decisions based on corrupt ideologies and self-serving interests. Is there really any disagreement about this? I am starving to hear a socialist explain, in specifics, exactly what it is in capitalism that is causing these ills that they lament so vociferously. They simply cannot do so, for the reasons that I present.

The ‘poor’ are the pawns in this game that is played through politics and economics. It is all fixable, but unfortunately, the easiest way to fix it is through those with the responsibility and obligation to do so, which they swore an oath to do, and it is incumbent on them to take the necessary steps, not to create a system that dictates an equality that is inequitable, but an environment where everyone gets the opportunity to provide for their own futures. I realize that this still leaves many who simply cannot take care of themselves, and it is incumbent on the rest of us to implement that safety-net that so many talk about, and do little, personally, to ensure. But this does not mean there will be no strings attached, which is never referenced when talking about the plight of the poor.

To reinsert into the narrative, a central tenet from the collectivists themselves; from each according to their ability, and to each according to their needs. This does not mean everything from those of ability, but something, yes. And the point I really want to make, is that from each according to ability ‘includes’ those that require this assistance. The debate should not be about how much they get, but what we can ask for, reasonably, in return, from ‘them’, to defray the staggering costs involved in giving to those that I agree are in need, but do not necessarily ‘deserve’. One can never deserve what legitimately belongs to another, but a deal can be made, and that is something that is never discussed in any real degree. I have a hundred possibilities, but collectivists are only interested in ‘taking’ and ‘redistribution’, and never really concerned about ‘justice’ and ‘equality’. If they did, we would not even be having this conversation today.

We have to speak of that ‘legitimacy’, and take steps to identify exactly what is legitimate, and remove what is not from the equation. In my humble opinion, that would remove most, if not all, of the obstacles the ‘poor’ have to becoming self-sufficient and proud and legitimate contributing members of the society. We cannot have this dichotomy of haves’ and have-nots when it is based on envy and greed, irrational self-interest and political agendas. I passionately believe that there are alternatives, but I see no one in the public sphere that has the ethics to do the right thing, the morality to know what the right thing even is, the character to attempt to make themselves an example of that philosophy, and the integrity to incorporate all these things into their everyday behaviour and dialogues. Nothing else will work, no matter what you call it, and no matter how good it sounds to the uninformed, who look to the rest of us to find a viable answer.

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

Gerald Caplan

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

Dr. Gerald Caplan: “ …. Well, of course, it's Professor Ridpath who's an economist and I guess, I suppose, something about inflation and the false creation of extra money has something to do with it, but that's not the serious answer at all, the serious answer is that western capitalism grew up through the 17th, 18th, 19th, and much of the 20th century by being able to batten on and feed off the countries you're talking about. You see, they managed to make us rich by making that third world even poorer than it was and what that, and the real problem, and the real problem, you see, of that third world is it now has no one to exploit, as we exploited them. Now, I want to make an offer to this generous and open-minded audience, I want you to send me your names and I will send you book lists, dozens and dozens of pages long, of books written by very serious people, not necessarily crazy as Jill and I are, who will tell you that what I said is right and that's a serious offer, and if you write me I will send you the books and if you will read it you will see that I'm right, but you won't write me, and you won't read the books because you don't want to know anything other than what you believe.”

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

(LCW) I realize that I have said this before, but I feel compelled, because of Dr. Caplans’ ignorance and hubris, to repeat once again what a despicable and undesirable individual he is. He comes across as an arrogant and totally self-absorbed person who refuses, under pretty much any circumstance, to listen to what is offered, or to even attempt to try and explain what it is that he thinks he knows. It is incomprehensible that he was even chosen to represent the socialist point of view. To incessantly tell me, by extension of his comments to the panel and the audience, that I know virtually nothing, while he is in possession of all knowledge only reflects very poorly on himself.

His rant is self-destructive, his lack of any pretense of respect for his opponents and even the innocent audience members before him is completely without merit. I find little about him that is not irrefutably repugnant. He is right in one thing only, and that is, with the way he presented his ‘offer’ to hopefully close his comments for the evening, I have no interest in hearing what his credible book list may or may not offer to me. The condescension drips from his lips.

To say these things to people that he knows nothing about, while saying that others do the same, is beyond comprehension. He has deeply insulted everyone affiliated with the presentation, and every member of the audience, with abandon. Totally unacceptable. The only person he has not maligned, besides himself, has been Dr. Vickers, and if I am not even sure about that, since he just characterized her, as well as himself, as crazy.

It has been a long time since I have seen a more reprehensible individual, a supposed scholar, in a position of respect, with an expectation of an offer of credible and legitimate information, who treats others in such a fashion. I can only hope that destiny will treat him in a manner that he deserves.

Enough of the positive aspects of the ‘esteemed’ doctor. Let’s take a quick look at his parting comments on the subject that was never covered tonight. He begins with a not unexpected parting shot of derision in Dr. Ridpaths direction, calling attention to him as an ‘economist’ while providing some comment about false ‘creation’ of extra money and characterizing something that I did not even hear Dr. Ridpath say at any point tonight, as something not serious. All night long, creating strawmen that only he can take down. It is so dishonest, but no longer unexpected.

He goes off on some rant that only he is privy to, with again, no supporting data or information of any kind to give credibility or legitimacy to his words. Nothing new here. It truly is not even worth refuting anymore, and I think it’s time to say goodnight to the great doctor.

He then closes with the demeaning offer towards the ‘generous and open-minded audience’ that I think we all know is tongue-in-cheek, at best. Why do we need books from ‘others’ to define and explain his work, and verify it validity? Isn’t that why he made this appearance on the dais this evening? Incredible. Is that the only reason he showed up tonight, to try and disseminate his drivel to the masses? If he had made a reasonable showing with his presentation, on any level, there may have been some interest, at least on my part, to see what he had to offer. Interestingly enough, he was the one that berated those that used the words of others, as well as name dropping authors and book to legitimize their narratives, and he does the exact same thing here at the end, with no way to verify who these authors are, or what their content may be. Is Mao’s little red book on the list? I would be surprised if it were not.

And he leaves us, hopefully forever, with the quip “if you will read it you will see that I'm right, but you won't write me, and you won't read the books because you don't want to know anything other than what you believe.” His words encapsulate his ethics and his integrity. There is no need to say anything more.

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

Leonard Peikoff

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

Dr. Leonard Peikoff: “ …. Well, the socialist side to the bitter end insists that wealth is achieved by robbery rather than by creation, and the question becomes where did it originally come from? Now, when they landed on this continent, there were not skyscrapers, there was no wealth, it was completely barren. You cannot possibly hold in your mind the idea that there's a fixed amount of wealth, there's like a dozen eggs or 10 trillion, whatever, and whoever got some took got it by taking it out of the common pot because the overwhelming majority of what we have, everything beyond grabbing a piece of fruit that falls off a tree had to be created by somebody's thought and effort.

To ascribe wealth to exploitation is entirely to deny the crucial fact, wealth is a product of the human mind. The poor, in those countries which are poor, and which are endemically poor are so not because there's anything wrong with them but because their social system is what ours is becoming. It thwarts, inhibits, and prevents the exercise of the individual of creativity of the entrepreneur and the result is they do an unthinking routine century after century.

If you really weren't concerned about the third world and you wanted them to become very wealthy I would say let American investment go there and you would suddenly see that would be the most humanitarian thing you could do because that would develop those countries and would spread the wealth around but if you close them out, if you keep it a preserve of simply the backward and the dictatorial, they're going to be poor forever. Thank you very much.”

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

END

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