1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Reader - Online Commentary - A

 
 
 

Political power and corruption. Regulation of the state and the existence of idealism. Imperatives of wealth in relation to expropriation, exploitation and non-physical coercion. Do socialist states exist? Free-markets and the nanny state     

 
 
 

READER - VIEWER - COMMENTARY - A

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

The Objectivist movement is a movement of individuals who seek to study and advance Objectivism, the philosophy expounded by novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand. The movement began informally in the 1950s and consisted of students who were brought together by their mutual interest in Rand's novel, The Fountainhead. The group, ironically named "the Collective" due to their actual advocacy of individualism, in part consisted of Leonard Peikoff, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Alan Greenspan, and Murray Rothbard. Nathaniel Branden, a young Canadian student who had been greatly inspired by Rand's work, became a close confidant and encouraged Rand to expand her philosophy into a formal movement. From this informal beginning in Rand's living room, the movement expanded into a collection of think tanks, academic organizations, and periodicals.

"The Collective" was Rand's private name for a group of close confidants, students, and proponents of Rand and Objectivism during the 1950s and 1960s. The founding members of the group were Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, Leonard Peikoff, Alan Greenspan, Joan Kennedy Taylor, Allan Blumenthal, Harry Kalberman, Elayne Kalberman, Joan Mitchell, and Mary Ann Sures (formerly Rukavina). This group became the nucleus of a growing movement of Rand admirers whose name was chosen by Rand as a joke based on Objectivism's staunch commitment to individualism and strong objection to all forms of Collectivism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...

Harry Binswanger (/ˈbɪnzwæŋər/; born 1944) is an American philosopher. He is an Objectivist and a board member of the Ayn Rand Institute. He was an associate of Ayn Rand, working with her on The Ayn Rand Lexicon and helping her edit the second edition of Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. He is the author of How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation (2014).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_B...

John B. Judis is an author and American journalist, an editor-at-large at Talking Points Memo, a former senior writer at The National Journal, and a former senior editor at The New Republic.

In 1969 he was a founding editor of Socialist Revolution (which was later renamed Socialist Review and then Radical Society before ceasing publication in 2009). In the 1970s he was a founding editor of the East Bay Voice. He moved to Chicago in December 1976 to become the foreign editor of In These Times, a democratic socialist newsweekly. Judis moved to Washington in 1982. He started writing for The New Republic in 1984, became a contributing editor in 1989, and joined the regular staff in 1995. He quit in December 2014 along with other editors in protest of the owner Chris Hughes' firing of the editor and plan to turn the magazine into a profit-making vehicle.

He has also written for GQ, Foreign Affairs, Mother Jones, The New York Times Magazine, and The Washington Post.

In 1988, he published a biography, William F. Buckley: Patron Saint of the Conservatives; in 1992, Grand Illusion: Critics and Champions of the American Century; in 2000, The Paradox of American Democracy. In 2002, he published The Emerging Democratic Majority (co-written with political scientist Ruy Teixeira), a book arguing that Democrats would retake control of American politics by the end of the decade, thanks in part to growing support from minorities, women, and well-educated professionals. Its title was a deliberate echo of Kevin Phillips' 1969 classic, The Emerging Republican Majority. The book was named one of the year's best by The Economist. Later in 2015, in an essay The Emerging Republican Advantage he revised this view as he noted that the long-term Democratic Majority had given way to an "unstable equilibrium" between the parties.

In 2004, he published "The Folly of Empire: What George W. Bush could learn from Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson," an attempt to put the disastrous American invasion of Iraq in historical context. In 2014 he authored the book Genesis: Truman, American Jews, and the Origins of the Arab/Israeli Conflict in which he discussed the connection between the Israel lobby in the United States and the origin of the modern state of Israel. In 2016, he published The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics. This book, which was widely reviewed, analyzed, among other things, the remarkable success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. In 2018, he published The Nationalist Revival: Trade, Immigration, and the Revolt against Globalization, which attempted to explain the rise of nationalist parties and candidates, including Donald Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Judis

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

Angelina

Listening to Harry Binswanger argue that if a corporation builds a toxic waste dump next to your house you can take legal action to make them remove, without acknowledging the insane wealth disparity and thus legal and political power wielded by the corporation, is both laughable and disgusting.

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

(LCW)   You would make a stellar socialist speaker, since you offer no corroborating evidence to your comment. Where is the significance of wealth in this scenario? It does not take wealth to pollute the earth, and there is not enough wealth to subvert the system if the representation is not corrupt enough to allow it to happen, in complete conflict with oaths sworn to uphold the interests of the populace.

Possibly it makes it easier, but that is not relevant. This is not a matter of wealth, although it can be, but should not be, a factor, but a matter of character, ethical and moral behaviour, and the integrity of the individuals involved.

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

MUSTASCH1O

Only misdirected or no-state anarchists would ignore the real problem of third-party effects, which is the situation you describe. The no-harm principle advocated by the capitalist debaters necessitates some state regulation to prevent harm to a third party who didn't agree to any contractual arrangement.

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

(LCW)   No one, at any point in this conversation, has ever promoted the negation of any state whatsoever, while Mr. Hitchens embraces Marx, who envisions, at some undetermined point, a future with no state necessary, but fails to articulate why or how that could ever happen.

Who is to arbitrate between equals when there is a disagreement? Are individuals going to one day be so perfect there will be no conflict whatsoever under any circumstances? And Mr. Judis says that the capitalists are ‘hopelessly Utopian’? He should spend more time analyzing his own comments, and those of his colleague.

The state is an absolute necessity, as is espoused by the Objectivists. The key distinction is that it will be an imperative to be as minimal as possible to mitigate the opportunities for all the bad players that take advantage of the system.

Allow free men to create transactions, and the state can arbitrate, but only if and when the disagreement cannot be resolved by the participants. On an individual basis, it will become next to impossible for the corruption to control the system, instead of the other way around.

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

Bobson Dugnutt

I'm more annoyed that the guy asking the question didn't use a better example of non-physical coercion, like when a company buys your property out from under you by making deals with the local government, or they just buy the surrounding area and make it so hellish to live in you have no choice but to leave.

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

(LCW)   Again, your example does not talk about imperfect transaction between free individuals. It even specifically cites the ‘deals with the local government’ that creates the conflict. The corruption in government is vastly more significant than the wealth of individuals.

As for the ‘forcing’ of individuals out because of external pressures, this is a perpetual danger and one that will not be mitigated or expunged by the implementation of socialism. It is important to note that socialism cannot exist without the introduction of that state authority to use force and that in itself is against the whole concept of what the state is supposed to represent.

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

Very Danger

@Bobson Dugnutt How does somebody buy YOUR property from the GOVERNMENT?

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

(LCW)   Good point. Without the involvement of the government in some intimate way, the transaction has to be between individuals. If the government only assures mutual benefit through mutual agreement, the transaction cannot be forced in any way.

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

Bobson Dugnutt

@Very Danger Money can make all things possible when it's greasing the right palms, don't kid yourself.

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

(LCW)   Quite correct, but that is what we are talking about, is it not? The issue is not capitalism, it is corruption, and the insertion of force on some level, or it doesn’t happen.

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

Very Danger

@Bobson Dugnutt In a system where property rights aren't protected, sure I guess. So can I interest you in a political ideology that says protecting property rights should be the sole purpose of government? Or am I preaching to the choir?

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

Bobson Dugnutt

@Very Danger I should probably make my position clear: I'm not anti-Capitalist, I just think it's beyond naive (or outright dishonest) to suggest ANY system operated by humans won't fall prey to corruption at some or all levels.

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

(LCW)   I grant you some level of legitimacy with your comment, but then what is the alternative? What you say is defeatist and without the possibility of resolution. Has corruption not been even more of an issue in every collective experiment ever tried throughout history?

If humans are inherently evil, then we have to address that aspect, or give up the fight and allow might as right. I am not prepared to do so.

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

It's all very well for Mr...Binswanger, was it? It's fine for him to say 'just go to court/get the cops' but that assumes we live in a world where these institutions can't be paid off or in other ways persuaded to bend their principles ('do this for us and we'll make sure you get re-elected, Mr. Mayor',) which even a cursory knowledge of history will show you is not the case.

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

(LCW)   Same comments as above. So what is a viable alternative? How do we prevent this corruption from happening at all? First of all, I would suggest the smallest government possible, and this thing called ‘transparency’ has to be an integral part of everything that is done within government. Those that cross the line need to be punished, without exception, since the transgression is against the fundamental concepts the country is based upon, and against each and every citizen with every instance.

If we are not willing to do so, then it simply won’t happen. How often do we see any politician held accountable for their actions? You can’t even count them on a single hand. The ones that do fall prey to culpability for anything at all are invariably politically motivated and highly suspect as to process and sentencing.

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

I still believe Capitalism is the best system for a prosperous society to advance, but the version the men in this debate put across is, as one of the audience pointed out, idealistic to the point of being utopian.

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

(LCW)   Your point is well taken, but the socialist is every bit as Utopian and unrealistic as the capitalist vision of the future, if not more so. You offer no alternatives. Idealism is where all change germinates. It is philosophy that discovers and defines these options, and for others, more versed in practicality, to come up with scenarios that might keep those bad attributes in check and allow man to freely trade and exist without the need for violence or force of any kind.

Was that not the intent of our Founders and the actual concept of America? Am I saying the Objectivist has the answers to all of these challenges? By no means do I say that. It is simply my opinion that socialism, any collectivism under any guise, will certainly not bring the result we seek. Objectivism is the best I have seen, and experienced, in my lifetime, and until I see something more credible, it remains my choice for going forward.

I find freedom and liberty idealistic, in theory as well as in practice. Ethics and morals, character and integrity, love and compassion and empathy. I find all of these things rooted in idealism. I see no choice. I see good and I see evil. I will choose the good whenever those choices are placed before me.

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

Very Danger

@Bobson Dugnutt From that point of view, is there any political system that is NOT "idealistic to the point of being utopian"?

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

(LCW)   Exactly. The idealism is the genesis. The practicality is something else entirely. I actually appreciate the idealism in the socialistic mindset. I simply do not believe in its practicality in the implementation, and see no way possible to get there from here. If you think that the capitalistic vision is idealistic and Utopian, I find it almost impossible to experience the human being that the socialist envisions, that is willing to lay down their life for the greater good, even when they don’t truly believe it and have no expectation that their sacrifice will be of value in the long run, or even know those that will actually be sacrificed or benefit from that sacrifice. That is a true irrational Utopian dream.

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

Bobson Dugnutt

@Very Danger No, any ideology taken to its extreme will either become a utopia or a dystopia, but my point is these guys put it across as a utopian ideal instead of acknowledging the flaws inherent in the system which, in my opinion, makes their argument look weaker; the stronger position would be to acknowledge Capitalism has its faults but it's better than any alternative that could realistically be implemented.

It's like the people who deflect criticism of all the failed Communist states by saying it 'wasn't real Communism'.

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

(LCW)   So what is your choice between these two options? I see no credible future paradigm using socialism. But I have seen the capitalists, and especially Objectivists, acknowledge the failures in the past and have put the time and effort into a philosophy that negates those things that didn’t work and reject them without exception, and use them as an impetus to make the changes necessary to create an environment that will eventually allow a superior result.

When the next failure is identified they will, at least in theory, do so once again. Is this not what is required with every system that has ever been imagined? Do you really think we can make a perfect paradigm in one fell swoop? I don’t believe it is even possible.

Is it really necessary for the capitalists to call into question the legitimacy of their own philosophy? Who does that? I don’t see the socialists doing that at all. Aren’t they pointing out enough negatives? Can’t we talk about the positives envisioned, and how to achieve them? I see no specificity from the socialist camp as to what is and what is not permissible.

Virtually the full extent of their presentation was the negations and the de-legitimizing of the capitalistic ideals, and they are not informed or perceptive enough to do so adequately or credibly. They spent, arguably, no time whatsoever in defining or defending the socialist vision for the future except in rhetorical and nebulous desires for the time ‘after’ socialism has gained prominence. I find that troubling and threatening.

But I did see them reference the phrase ‘that wasn’t real communism’, or ‘socialism’, dozens of times.

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

Very Danger

@Bobson Dugnutt The capitalist side could have conceded that the system they are proposing has potential for corruption, sure, but I don't see the value in that given that the same is true for any system. The point of an "A vs B" - debate is to evaluate the differences, after all.

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

(LCW)   Excellent point. And that ‘evaluation’ was not a prominent part of this debate, especially from the socialist side. I find that irrefutable. Their reluctance makes the whole concept of socialism highly suspect from my perspective.

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

Bobson Dugnutt

@Very Danger I appreciate that, but I think when you ignore or hand-wave away obvious flaws like Binswanger did with the legitimate question, it undermines your credibility.

The response should have been Capitalism is the superior system in spite of its flaws -- you at least HAVE the option to go to court with Capitalism; good luck doing that under Communism/Fascism -- but to act ignorant of the existence of non-physical coercion just came across willfully ignorant and would have made me less trusting of the Capitalist side had I been on the fence, and I would assume the purpose of a debate like this is to win people around to your way of thinking.

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

(LCW)   I’m sorry, but I did see him do so on a number of occasions, and to be fair, there was not enough time to do justice to every secondary concept in the discussion. The fact that they even talk about arbitration and mitigation, and the absence of what the socialist regimes would do to control the same issue, was glaringly evident in their comments, or lack thereof.

I would tend to agree on the issue of non-physical coercion. It rears its ugly head repeatedly in discussions such as these, but if we cannot even discuss and debate the larger issues, like the actual physical abuse of force, how can one enter into a reasonable debate about the finer, nuanced issues of a non-physical use of force? It may be a far greater threat than the physical in some ways. I give them some leeway in the dereliction of the subject for that reason. I don’t believe it was in any way intentional or willfully ignorant.

I agree that both sides may not have the correct focus for what was to be a debate. I agree that it is a contest, of sorts, to educate and entice those in the audience, whether live or in time over the net, to their way or thinking, and I think they both were shortsighted in their own ways, but the socialist side was completely blind to this intent, while the capitalists just got lost in their proverbial weeds trying to refute the opposition, when those not in opposition may have been the better target.

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

palladin331

1:34 Binswanger says colonial slavery is voluntary employment. Need you hear more to know what Objectivism is all about?

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

(LCW)   You’ll have to cite a location for such a claim to be entertained. I never heard such a comment and have gone through all the comments multiple times to write my own rebuttals. Slavery is based exclusively on a lack of freedom and an imposition of unwanted force.

The Objectivist is crystal clear in their refusal to accept any and all version of force, with extremely few exceptions. I find the comment to be invalid. You can attempt to point to different capitalist paradigms with such a criticism, but it is demonstrably invalid when it comes to Objectivism. It is simply not an aspect of the philosophy.

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

Angelina

OK the capitalists side lost at 43.47 when he had the audacity to say that the law disproportionally on the side of the poor and wrlking class and that large corporations suffer needlessly under the law. give me a break.

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

(LCW)   I don’t think that you are paying close enough attention or focusing on the actual comments made. I realize that with the corruption in our system, the wealth of individuals and corporations can be, and will be, used to protect them from any real loss of power, but I think it is irrefutable that the corporations are consistently losing cases to the tune of millions of dollars, and in some cases, billions of dollars, that would not have been forfeited in the past.

While it is true that they will continue to appeal forever to try and win the game of time, but what is happening, and cannot be refuted, is that they are facing continuous defeats and setbacks, deservedly so, especially in the court of public opinion, even if that does not translate into actual courtroom victories, garnering the vast majority of support for their causes and cases. I am not going to comment on outcomes, but the tide has certainly turned and will result in more and more cases, not in the favor of those corporations.

Actually, this is a bad state of affairs for the country in many ways, as the opinion of those on the street should play no part in the outcomes in the courts. If it becomes part and parcel of the process, the trials will be played out on the streets, like the protests of the last few years, and it will destroy whatever integrity remains in the system, which is under heavy attack. I would rather see it fixed instead of it subverted to the will of the mobs on the street.

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

Bobson Dugnutt

@Julius I wouldn't say he lost, I found myself agreeing with both sides on a lot of points (although, surprisingly, the socialists came across far more personable).

The point of a debate isn't always necessary to have a winner and a loser; it's supposed to make you consider both sides of an argument and draw your own conclusions.

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

(LCW)   Actually, it is supposed to be the presentation of reasonable argument with the inclusion of credible evidence to create a legitimate position that stands up to random criticism. Also, something that reasonably can be expected to deliver expected and professed results.

I was certainly not looking for ‘personable’, and I failed to see what you saw in any case. I have found a lot of used car salesmen and insurance agents to be quite personable. I also would not particularly want a personable neurosurgeon. I would prefer the most dependable and competent individual available.

Judis was somewhat reasonable but overly scattered in his own positions, making in some cases a better argument for capitalism than the capitalists did. Hitchens was a big disappointment for me since he was the focus of my interest in experiencing this particular debate. I found him smug and hubristic and overly pretentious with what I can only perceive as an intentional refusal to expand or explain any of his own comments. I found the arguments from the capitalists to contain much more information, and their positions were defended in much more detail.

I found the socialist arguments to be grounded in some irrelevant past history that had little or no direct connection to today or the future, especially with respect to the concept of the morality of the ideologies, which was the focus of today's debate. I agree with much of what the socialists wish to accomplish but heard no substantive reasons as to how and why they would be implemented.

But I do agree with you that the objective of a debate is to inform and educate and to especially get you to contemplate and investigate issues afterward. I admit that I am well acquainted with capitalism and Objectivism, so was at no disadvantage with their presentation, but if you followed my comments, found instances where I had no choice but to refute their statements.

The socialists, on the other hand, I thought, did not do a credible job to the same ends. I was interested in this venue, this debate, for the express purpose of learning how socialism is going to make a positive change within society and how they expect to accomplish this, and if they can do so without the use of force. They were woefully inept at answering or even addressing these issues and therefore received very low marks on their presentation. The whole focus of the debate was to be on the morality of the ideologies, and it was almost nonexistent from the socialist side.

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

LL

@Kyle Horvath CH's speech was literally 60% quotes. Literally, with text on hand. And his expressions are actually harder to understand because of his way of speaking and his constant intentions to pick 10 dollar words. He suffers the same dysfunction all socialists suffer, they do not understand (or want to understand) how the market works. So they have to create a parallel system of values, like when he states that a human society is an enterprise and so demands that humans should work together, which is exactly what the market makes them do.

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

(LCW)   Hard to argue with these observations. At one point, the criticism was made that the capitalists were using the citation of books and the quoting of other individuals to the detriment of the debate, when I found that to be the case much more with the socialists, especially Mr. Hitchens, who would simply refuse to speak of anything except what the exalted Marx had to say. It was tedious. I did not come to hear about the communist manifesto, but to hear Hitchens take on the contemporary socialist mindset. It was frustrating.

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

William Johnson

@Patrick Kirby no way. If you're rich you get the perks of socialism. But if you want a true mixed economy look at Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden.

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

(LCW)   When I first talked to someone about socialism thirty years ago, there was no talk of mixed economies or the transition or absorption of capitalism by socialism. There was no talk of ‘perks’ within socialism, only obligation, and sacrifice. Now there seems to be a distinct attempt to distance themselves not only from the 19th century but from the 1970s. A curious observation that keeps me re-evaluating the socialist philosophy.

This was not supposed to be about mixed economies, but about capitalism and of course socialism, and they, the socialists, continually disallowed any deviation from their own limited and restricted versions of either ideology, capitalism from the 17th and 18th centuries and socialism in the 25th century, and it was like pulling teeth to get specific information on what is happening in 1986, and nothing else, and that was the only kind I was interested in.

The problem with mixed economies is that it does not solve any of the problems, but simply extends the timeframe it will take to come to the same conclusions. The social costs continue to climb, and as they continue, they will only put more and more pressure on the capitalistic production side until it becomes untenable. What does the socialist ideology do at that point? I can only assume that they will smile and say ‘I told you so’, but ironically, the capitalists, Objectivist capitalists, with a tear in their eyes, will say the same.

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

Luke Villarreal

@William Johnson every country in history before Engels Leroux and Marx had social programs ...including the Romans ...that doesn’t mean they were socialist countries ... If people believe in socialism so much ....they should start distributing money starting with themselves.

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

(LCW)   I have always thought that the best way to convince me that it works, in any way at all, would be by showing examples of the system in action. If everyone is, in essence, going to have to ‘contribute’ pretty much everything they own or will earn, why not do it now, and start the ball rolling? It seems that no one wants to do that, especially those at the top that speak about the concepts each and every day. If it cannot work on a limited basis, where do we draw the confidence that it will work on the macro level?

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

E

@Luke Villarreal well my family is poor and we live in the UK and are perfectly happy with paying tax towards public services even though we can’t really afford it

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

(LCW)   Good for you. I am not sure what your point is. If you are receiving more than you are ‘donating’ then that answers one question. It would be more pertinent if you were living in a rich family, and you were ok with paying even higher taxes than you are today. At least then we could talk about it. And if it was ok with you, who is stopping your friends from joining in?

Why the incessant need to ‘initiate force’ to ‘invite’ everyone else into the party, whether they want to or not? Is it a matter of fairness, and everyone needs to be a part of the scam or it won’t work? That sounds an awful lot like the communists I have talked to that say communism never worked because it can’t work until capitalism no longer exists.

That was what they were saying fifty years ago. Now they want a mixed economy? Be careful and listen carefully to what they are saying, since they may not mean exactly what you think they do. How do we go ‘back’ to capitalism if it no longer exists and you have determined that socialism doesn’t work? Do you think the ‘state’ will willingly give up the power that was painstakingly achieved? I don’t think so.

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

William Johnson

@E Thank you. As long as the people get out something good I don't mind paying taxes

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

(LCW)   A bit simplistic. What people, and who decides? What determines what is ‘good’ and how much more are you willing to pay in taxes? At some point, the rich will be eliminated and you will be considered rich. What happens when you are paying 90%, or even 100%, in taxes? Will there be an incentive to work harder, or to work harder to not work at all?

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

William Johnson

@Luke Villarreal lol come on get real. Yes, countries have socialist aspects. And I’m not even saying I want full-on socialism. A mostly free market with a social safety net is just fine. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. Capitalism has its strong and weak points and so does socialism. For example, I think healthcare and capitalism mix very poorly.

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

Luke Villarreal

@E then speak for yourself ...some of us have abilities and genius ....if you wave your white banner...fine...then you can become a govt pet, ...I think I can do a lot more for myself then the damn govt ever will ...

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

William Johnson

@Luke Villarreal you once again missed my point. I’m not against capitalism. I'm extremely happy that people are helping those kids. If it works it works. But that's just one example. And yes I know first-hand how capitalism can be very unforgiving in the medical field. My gf has diabetes and the way the pharmaceutical companies are set up here they can just name the prices. Her insulin has skyrocketed. A lot of people can’t afford medicine. The free market doesn't solve everything. A mixed economy works just fine.

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

(LCW)   Once again, it is easy to miss the point completely. Capitalism is not the reason that costs are so high, it is the influence of corrupt political interests that keeps things like prescriptions so high. A free market does not even exist, especially in relation to pharmaceuticals.

There are markets across the globe that could reduce costs drastically if they were allowed to participate. But that would require the need for the abdication of this incessant obsession with the nanny state. Americans would have to take their chances, possibly, with the quality of the products. Are you prepared for that? It is not an easy issue to define or resolve. In America, we could cut the costs by two-thirds if there was more competition, and buying across the borders.

This would reduce costs of insurance as well, but regulation, albeit sometimes relevant, is the roadblock, and not for legitimate reasons, but reasons of influence and power and corruption, all those things that socialists point to capitalism as the cause when it is nothing of the sort.

Medicine is an iffy and complex conversation. This is not the forum for a resolution. Chemicals are a product and if the company did not research and discover the ‘recipe’, then it would never have been able to be released or used by anyone at all. It would never have existed.

Now that it does, the socialist wants it and doesn’t care to debate the issue, much like the morality of their philosophy. If I want to sell you a rock for a thousand dollars, you have the right to buy it, or not. The same holds true for that medicine. Someone can buy it with their own earned wealth and give it to the individual, or they can go without. Perhaps the rich liberals and socialists could buy these pharmaceuticals, even at inflated prices, and give them to those that need them? It is what they intend to do when they are in power, why don’t they do it now?

It would get them a lot more support for the cause than their empty rhetoric. It would certainly get my attention. The government should not be involved in any way except possibly in the matter of efficacy. Perhaps the government should be outside completely and wait for patients to die, and then hold the companies responsible. Is that what you want? Grandpa can die, but you can make a killing in court. If the company refused to research and develop that medicine, then grandpa would not be here anyway and the point would be moot. Does this play a part in any scenario that you propose?

If you truly think that this is ‘only’ about greed, you only call attention to your inability to identify the problem. Why does an iPhone, already overpriced, not cost $20,000? Why are cars not all $100,000? Because if they were, there would be no one to buy them. The market puts pressure on supply and demand, and if pure greed were the only driving force, the whole economy would suffer, and at times it does.

That is the distinction that should be understood. These ‘parasites’ are opportunists and make their wealth through taking advantage of situations, and ‘milking’ those that allow it. Even the legitimate players may overprice their products at times, but competition will mean that everyone buys from another source, and puts them out of business. Allow the competition and see what happens. The government is supposed to be an ally in this and not the source of the problem.

The ability to ‘afford’ something, anything, does not grant them the right to that item or commodity or produced item. You are looking for something that is ‘needed’ or ‘desired’ but not necessarily ‘deserved’ in any real way. People die early from many causes, which could have been prevented by the intervention on a thousand levels.

Does this give them the claim on another individual to help them, even if it means a hardship at some point in the future for the ‘giver’? Does he get his confiscated ‘donation’ back in any scenario? I didn’t think so. All I am saying is that this is not an easy issue to resolve.

It is as complex as can be and there are hundreds of other subjects, just as complicated and nuanced, and just as difficult to resolve. The inevitable answer is to all become slaves, with the state making all the decisions for the best of all, with no input and no recourse. Or, if you wish, welcome to socialism.

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

Nathan Bruce

@Luke Villarreal my brother had to use a GoFundMe to raise money for a lung transplant. Even with insurance it almost bankrupted my parents
My experience is not like yours where hospital bills are somehow free and supported by businessmen looking to pay for poor people without getting something in return. It relied on the kindness of strangers or dying because you can’t pay the cost. The richest country in the world and we can’t invest in our citizens' health? Such horse s***

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

(LCW)   You may be a little too close to the problem to be able to discuss the issue in any rational sense, but I would ask one question, and that would be why? Your position is too short-sighted and limited in scope to even debate, but when we cannot pay for something, and I don’t even care what that thing might be, we are at the mercy, or largesse we might say, of those that have the wherewithal to take care of the costs for us. That is what has been called charity in our societies for centuries. We don’t demand that the same people pay for our inability to pay and give them no choice in the matter because that inevitably is called theft.

We make decisions. I can make no claim on another to fix my roof, or my plumbing, or my car, or feed my family, or unfortunately, to find healthcare that will, and possibly will not, repair my body. I understand the concern, but I fail to see the rationale behind the demand since we really can’t call it a request. I don’t see anyone ‘asking’ for help. A ‘go-fund me’ page is a good example. You ask for assistance. With government, you don’t ask, you expect, you demand, but it is not for the government to speak for anyone else in such a scenario.

When the government gives assistance, it is the cumulative assistance from thousands of other individuals that have their own burdens, their own family members in need of something to make their lives livable. Do we vote on each individual situation?

If you have not already done so, read John Galt’s monologue on the Twentieth Century Motors factory. It is a stellar example of what can certainly happen when we look at this from a more personal and direct reaction example. You might just call it a democratic-socialist perspective. It is illustrative and informative. We have to find another way, not just expect the state to control and resolve any issue, no matter how incompetent the players are that waste so much money in the process that the number of people who do not ever get assistance because of that incompetence is never addressed. It’s significant.

Yes, it’s true that we are probably the richest country in the world. The problem is I don’t see where anyone has the right to demand that we invest in something that holds some importance to ‘you’, but not to ‘us’. You are more than willing to force those others to do your bidding, but refuse to entertain whatever their concerns are when you are asked to do the same.

Think about it just for a second. If everyone was able to pay half what they now pay in taxes, they would have the opportunity to help those people that need assistance directly. Socialism says that is what they want to do, and all the members will gladly do so, so why not now, why not directly, why don’t all these great humanitarians give until they have given all they can, and let the chips fall where they may?

They don’t, and I have to question why. The costs will go down, the pool of money will increase, the incompetence will not be an issue, and the world will be a better place. Less government, no socialism, just all those really, really nice pseudo socialists making their society work for us all. Why is an authoritarian leadership an imperative to such a reality? I have never received an acceptable answer. Persuade the rest of us, convince us of your plan. Why is the intolerable need to force people to do what you have decided is the right thing? What if you are wrong? Something to think about.

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

Ricardo Maza

@Luke Villarreal

I'm from Portugal. A country classified as trash by Wall Street. I had Leukemia, a bone marrow transplant, 3 prostheses.
Never paid a dime.

We have a free market. But we need regulations. Our Socialist country saved me a lifetime of debt. And death itself.
In America, I would be f***ed. But your banks and insurance companies treat us like trash. That shows you the true liars' capitalists are.

Edit: Portugal is a Republic. We are Democratic and have Social policies to protect our people. We also have capitalism. But even here, we need more regulation. Our Internet Service Providers are a Cartel for example.

But even this last year our "Association of Competition" (?) has billed millions of euros for vulture pricing to some supermarkets and beverages companies. Our police investigators found emails between companies and supermarkets fixing higher and higher prices and saying clients wouldn't have a chance.
Capitalism without HEAVY scrutiny always goes bad.

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

(LCW)   Not particularly interested in delving deeply into the reality of Portugal. I am of course glad to hear that it worked out for you and that you are happy in your little hamlet by the sea, but it only took about 3 minutes to find some interesting information that begs many questions, and also gives me pause to accept the Shangri-La picture that you paint.

Portugal is a country of 10 million people. America has cities with almost as many people, and that happens to be one of the difficulties with capitalism, cities. Be that as it may be, it is difficult to compare such a small country with one of over 330 million. Portugal has one of the lowest GDPs in Europe, per capita, and had to be ‘bailed out’ by the European Union to enjoy whatever benefits you are experiencing today. The cost of housing, energy, food, and electronic goods is higher than in most other European countries. The unemployment rate is quite high and was slow to rebound from the 2008 recession.

This is not to say that some of what you have to say is not true. The problem is, you cannot say why it works, as you cannot say specifically why capitalism has its problems. I have given some insight into my own perspective, and without more information, will reiterate that it is not capitalism that is the problem, but the unscrupulous players in both the public and private sector that restricts the best that capitalism has from flourishing even more than it has over the last century.

Why does Portugal have so many poor? Why are so many not working? Your benefit is from the disadvantage to others in your own country, as well as from the rest of Europe. It is not quite as simple as you make it sound. You do recognize that, don’t you? If such an acknowledgment is not made, I can only assume that your position is one of irrational self-interest, since you only spoke of what it did as a benefit for your family, and you had no suggestions as to how to alleviate the hardships for 10% or more of your fellow citizens. No system is perfect. And yet you continue to complain about internet providers and supermarkets not responding to even more demands.

You thank socialism for everything that you are happy with and criticize capitalism for everything you don’t. Your ‘government’ seems to have no culpability in your mind, and you only look for more regulation and more authoritarianism. History shows us how that inevitably ends. You need to take a comprehensive and in-depth look at everything that you have presented to us.

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

Luke Villarreal

@Ricardo Maza You need to think before you write anything ...where do you think Bone Marrow Transplant technology came from? The middle of the desert? No ...it came from a society where capitalism advances ....the fact is ..if you relied on the ingenuity of a society that was socialists ...then you would really be "F-ed" it is silly to say "I want all the goodies capitalism can give us ....then try to turn that system into a socialist one. That is ridiculous ...my problem is we have too many fat people mooching off the system ...you are one person ..so you are using an anecdote. So that can’t work ...when I say the number one killer of Americans is heart disease. Generally, we have a problem with too many people dying overeating and no exercise. That is the problem.

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

(LCW)   There is a parasitic component that exists in the world. So many hate capitalism, and yet they do not hesitate to use what they can that was the direct result of capitalism, as illustrated in the comment as to bone marrow transplants, and to be honest, those prosthetics as well. I may be wrong, and Portugal may be the world leader in the development of those things, but I have a feeling that would not be true.

As stated, the ingenuity and advances brought to us by capitalism are irrefutable, and many of them ‘trickle-down’ to the world at some point and are enjoyed by those that vilify and condemn the system that brought those very same benefits to them. Do you even understand just how many ‘benefits’ that much of the world enjoy today are the direct result of capitalism, and that they end up a gift to the planet as a by-product of its existence? If you don’t then I can only think it is a result of an ignorance that is incomprehensible.

Personal responsibility is an aspect that is not discussed often enough. It creates costs and hardships that everyone wants the wealth of capitalism to remedy, when ethical, moral actions brought about by people of character and integrity could go a long way to solving those very same issues.

The world is not as simplistic in places like the United States as it may be in Portugal. I know that capitalism has many flaws, mostly from the bad players involved, but more people should be involved and invested in fixing the problems instead of replacing something that has brought so much to so many, with something that has yet to provide evidence it can do better over the long haul. I don’t think that it can, and history, at least at this point, does not disagree.

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

ian marshall

maybe in today’s world both ideologies are flawed, as we know that the world’s climate is changing (man-made or not) the 2nd law of thermodynamics says any closed system will eventually become more random without external input, that tells us as a species if we don’t pull together and work for our mutual benefit then we won’t be able to prolong our use of this system planet earth, as Darwin teaches us we have to be efficient at persevering.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that too many people disagree with that, in principle. I certainly don’t. There are multiple problems that seem evident to me. One is that it may not be particularly valid to say the climate is ‘changing’, and we certainly do not know to what extent this change may encompass and exactly what comes from the actual actions of mankind.

Anyone with even just a cursory knowledge of geologic time knows that the planet is doing little more than fluctuating at the moment. There has been a myriad of times that it has been warmer, as well as cooler. Science should not be used as a weapon in an ideological and political conflict. We need much more data and those that believe this to be man-made need to resist the temptation to ‘cook-the-facts’ as they have done on numerous occasions.

Another issue that is evident to me is that you cannot define the appropriate changes necessary for us all to ‘pull together’ and work for our mutual benefit. I know that some individuals may think that demands the initiation of force to implement policies and legislation to do specific things, but it does not mean that these are viable or legitimate positions.

I see no evidence that socialism is efficient at all, or even that a majority of individuals are in agreement, and I can’t repeat often enough that what is required is an overwhelming degree of this ‘mutual agreement’, and not just 50.1%, which I don’t even believe we have at this point for any particular set of actions.

One of the primary tenets of Objectivism is a mutual benefit through mutual agreement, so how does one respond to this undeniable fact? That is what these debates are supposed to be about, not just the arbitrary dissemination of one group's philosophical desires, but a concerted effort to investigate and determine exactly what the problems are, to identify and define them, where they came from, empirically and definitively, and develop a program of action that can respond to the issues in a completely rational and focused way.

This is not what I see in the behaviour of the protests and politics across the planet. Until such a time, we will continue to have this animosity and confrontation about things that have little credibility and legitimacy, and even less to do with the issues as stated.

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

The longer length of life, better education of people, the waning of war, the growth in living standards across the world have come from the benefits of the enlightenment, it’s time to have a more fair system of economics and governance, one that isn’t rooted in emotion or greed but on rational and scientific thought. I have to say I’m a bricklayer, not an academic and this is just a thought.

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

(LCW)   To some degree this is true. Length of life gives us more time to develop strategies and obtain that education you reference, although we are more educated at this point in time than at any other in the history of the planet, and yet we continue to have those wars, continue to refuse to even listen to those with opposing views, resist trying alternatives that are not of our own ideological making, and have yet to make a concerted effort to introduce philosophical concepts into our lives from our first breath.

There will be no progress without the presence of substantial critical thinkers, and that will not come from ideological indoctrination in our schools. I think this is inarguable. Revolution possibly, and probably, but progress, I think not.

But talking of Utopian desires, looking for a fair system of economics and governance that is ‘not’ rooted in greed but rational thought and scientific principles is more a fantasy than an actual or realistic alternative. Don’t get me wrong, this is exactly what I want as well, and yet we very well may not agree on how to get there from here.

I personally think that Objectivism is the closest thing to a viable option, and acknowledge there are many that will immediately and passionately disagree. Is that not the problem? Capitalism is, and has been, a direct source for these benefits that you list, and yet it is not recognized as such by many, especially those liberals and collectivists that, ironically, selfishly think that they have the only answer to the problems, and yet exist as one of the most formidable of obstacles to that cooperation that you reference.

The fact that you are a bricklayer, for me, is irrelevant. I have just finished listening to an acclaimed speaker in the person of Mr. Hitchens and was overwhelmingly disappointed with his presentation. All of them to some degree. I think we need more regular people involved in the conversation. Some of the most insightful individuals I have encountered in my life were not academics, scientists, or those with all those annoying letters after their names, somehow insinuating that they have some knowledge that is not available to virtually anyone and everyone.

It is the critical thinker that is needed here, and not some academic parasite that never belonged in a scholastic environment to begin with. And let’s not even speak of politicians. Most of these individuals are actually the essence of the problem and the obstacle to true reformation and resolution. Common sense is just as important as critical thinking.

We need those that do not just ‘look’ at a situation, but ‘see’ the essence of the problems, and at times, the answers as well. We need those that have insight and the ability to see what is known as the ‘big-picture’ and how one action can influence seemingly unrelated issues. We have to stop dealing with specifics, out of context and only related to personal and political, and ideological agendas, and get involved in the development of comprehensive objectives that just might make a difference.

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

Ben Berzai

@Andrew Kyrouac I'm agnostic. I had Christopher Hitchens as a professor in college and heard every|best possible argument for atheism and realized none of them discuss god, to say nothing of negating Him. They undermine organized religion very. They undermine those that believe in a professed relationship with god.

But when the certainty of your argument against God is created by the same verb to negate it — the verb is "to believe" — a rational man should not think much longer about the matter because what can only be understood through belief is not a fact.

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

(LCW)   This is, of course, quite off-topic, but I am so fascinated by the subject that I can never resist the opportunity to throw out my ‘two-cents’. One of the reasons that I was looking forward to the perspective of Mr. Hitchens was much of what I have heard from him in relation to god and religion in the past.

He is outspoken, which is something I respect, but with an undercurrent of an animosity that is certainly self-destructive. I find his positions somewhat pedantic and pedestrian, but since I am also what may be termed an atheist, more specifically an ignostic, I was interested in what he had to say since so many considered him one of the eminent speakers on the subject, which, it turns out, he was not.

I wish I could have been one of his students. I would have relished the opportunity to engage in many specifics that I have yet, to this day, heard him discuss. I also realized early on that he does not really speak to the issues. He is someone that tears things down, deconstructing them arbitrarily, by standards that only he seems to be privy to, and I did not appreciate that. The irony was that I did agree, in principle, with many of the issues that he tried to cover.

I also found that he did not talk all that much of ‘god’ but indeed did condemn the concept. I find his positions in this debate to be very similar. He does not ‘build-up’ socialism or his revered communism but spends all his time demeaning and deconstructing the target of his ire, in this instance, capitalism. I really don’t even know after all of this what he is for or against. I think he finds his pleasure in the destruction and contrariness of conflict. The vagueness of many of his positions makes me think that he could argue either side and still feel very fond of himself.

One of the major distinctions between his views and my own is that I have no real interest in negating any gods, since, at this point in time, it simply can’t be done. There is no evidence one way or the other, so putting all that effort into delegitimizing god does not reflect well on his own views.

I have always thought that the theist, who claims god exists, has the full obligation to defend and explain his claim. So too, the atheist who proclaims that god does 'not' exist has the same obligation to give evidence to his position. If one does not claim either to be the reality, then they have no responsibility to prove anything, it is a matter of choice and belief, and I passionately believe in freedoms, among them the right to worship whatever god or entity that you so wish, as long as no force is used in trying to change my own positions. Take note that the issue of the initiation of force exists in both of these conversations. Mr. Hitchens goes well beyond that, and at times it makes him look a bit silly.

Organized religion, on the other hand, is a different flavor of god. It is an instructional and normally dogmatic philosophy normally related to a single concept of god, and history has shown us that it has been used and abused to an obscene degree. But even so, until force is used in some fashion, I feel that any group has the right to follow their own course in life, even when dictated by some structured set of directives, and again, only criticize their actions when directly related to any use of force that may be employed to enlist or retain members. As long as I have the ability and opportunity to dismiss and ignore their philosophy, I grant them the freedom to do whatever it is that they do. Some, like Mr. Hitchens, are not quite so magnanimous.

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

"God" is unknowable, so to say he either doesn't exist or that He never existed is just a factually false and unprovable saying. Additionally, negating atheism does not require proving God's existence, only the fallibility of the certainty of the atheist belief system and its methodology to track the unknowable with certainty. That's stupid and, quite frankly, more stupid than believing in God.

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

(LCW)   Two sides to the same coin, so to speak. While I find the subject riveting and obsessive at times, it has a certain irrelevance as well. If you believe, but cannot prove god exists, I feel free to believe the opposite, in lieu of legitimate evidence one way or the other. I am not sure one can ‘negate’ atheism, since it is not an entity in the sense most think of god, but simply the absence of belief, and therefore there is no need to negate anything since nothing actually exists.

I am also not sure, like religion itself, that there is any particular or concrete belief system, for the same reasons. I don’t like to characterize either as ‘stupid’, but I think I see your point. We spend too much time competing with conflicting ideas, when they both have no real substance, although the fundamental question of our place in the universe, and if there is some essence of creation out there, is probably one of the first and primal questions that mankind was compelled to ask. It may well be the benchmark question of philosophy itself and has invited investigation throughout history.

To say "there is no god" or "there's no proof of god" is just as wrong and naive and untestable and unknowable as saying the counter. You don't know. No one does.

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

Andrew Kyrouac

@Ben Berzai Understandable, however, I’m curious as to whether you think one is more likely than the other. To me, the further religious people stray from making sort of “deist” arguments for gods’ existence, the weaker and less likely their belief system is to be true. Once they branch out and speak of their religion's true beliefs, it becomes apparent that it’s not the work of omniscience and the ideas of man. Would you say it’s more likely a god doesn’t exist than one does exist?

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

(LCW)   I think this query is fairer than most. Since there is no evidence one way or the other as to the validity, I think both are moot. Having said that, I am not sure it matters anyway. This is not to abdicate any responsibility for a response. It is an intricate and comprehensive position that has come about through decades of consideration.

I find it more meaningful to be involved with the concepts that are revealed through philosophy than religion and god. They are very similar to the implications that exist within belief and religion. I believe in self, and those who believe in god direct their attentions towards whatever man-made construct holds relevance for them.

I guess you could say that philosophy is both my god and my religion. It places an imperative on my 'self' to investigate and discover the truths evident to me with whatever abilities I possess to interpret and comprehend that information that I discover in my search. It gives me an imperative to know right from wrong, and evil from good, and to implement those conclusions into my own personal actions. My objective in life is to be the best person that I can be, based on what I have learned. I find religion, fundamentally, to be almost identical in nature, except that you follow someone else’s philosophical structure instead of your own. One of my favourite sayings is that:

Philosophy without religion IS; Religion without philosophy IS NOT

This simply means that religion cannot exist without an integral philosophy, while philosophy can exist independently from the need for any religion since it has no loyalty to any other concept except what has been adopted by the philosopher as true. Religion, on the other hand, relies on the teachings and findings of their god, or a group that professes to know the answers to the very same questions, and claim to represent those beliefs and that particular God.

The problem with religion, from my perspective, is that I have little or no input into the philosophy, it is a virtual one-size-fits-all kind of deal, which inevitably fits none. You may in time come to agree in principle with the religion, and accept it as valid, but I find it impossible, with my own paradigm, to believe that it would be without exception, which puts a pressure on me if I decide to continue as a member, somewhat dishonestly since I do not believe in ‘all’ of the principles, or to leave for that same reason.

If those same principles are divine in nature, there can be no rational need or reason to disagree or even question a single instance. I find it more reasonable to adopt what I can accept, and move on, therefore, religion, like god, has a certain incompatibility quotient that does not allow my participation.

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

As an agnostic atheist, I don’t think my position requires certainty or is even a belief system. Rather I agree with you that it’s unknowable, but because it’s unknowable I choose to stay on the side that’s focusing on figuring it out, not the side that claims to already have it figured out without evidence. I’m confused as to what you’re referring to when you say the atheist belief system and its methodology cannot track the unknowable because I wouldn’t refer to atheism as a belief system, just the lack of one and science being the methodology we use to study the world around us. It seems to be a good one, no? Sure we haven’t got certainty on these metaphysical questions yet, but at least it's making a more honest/likely go of figuring it out wouldn’t you agree?

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

(LCW)   It is probably more a semantic issue more than anything else, but I do believe that atheism is a belief system, but not in the traditional sense. I ‘believe’, not that god does not exist, but if he does, he has not given me a rational reason, no evidence, to believe he does, at least at this point in time.

I, therefore, reserve my opinion as undetermined and a matter of continued investigation. I simply cannot believe in the absence of some legitimate evidence, but the possibility exists that I can be swayed with credible information at some point in the future, although I have long ago decided that the probability of that eventuality in my lifetime seems something of a stretch.

I hold no ill-will or condescension towards those that believe otherwise. My position remains open to discussion, awaiting further data. The atheist ‘believes’, just not in connection with any cosmic entity. He has ‘faith’ as well, faith in self, faith in science, which holds few absolutes, which inarguable demands faith on some level, and possibly faith in mankind, in the macro. Many atheists argue the fact, but it seems fairly self-evident to me.

I do not confuse my opinion with truth. While I am confident that I am on the correct track as far as understanding goes, knowing full well that my perspective is rational and consistent, it is in my best interests to keep an open mind for unforeseen circumstances. It is the task of the philosopher to perpetually ask questions, again and again, even about his own deeply held beliefs, and to continue to search for that same truth. I see no conflict in this position.

So, in that sense, I would agree with you that it would seem to suggest that it is indeed a more honest and consistent perspective that we are employing to uncover that unknowable.

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

Andrew Kyrouac

@Ben Berzai I understand your drawing from Wittgenstein with the lion quote, but I’m a little confused as to how it undermines atheism.

To me, that quote reflects on our use of language and our understanding outside of our experience. It doesn't really argue for the existence or nonexistence of something, rather acknowledges that there could always be a different level of understanding. My issue with it is why bother presupposing something beyond our understanding? I'll acknowledge that it's possible but that's where the conversation ends. In this case, a deist god would just be a blanket idea that doesn't mean anything, just sorta unnecessary IMO.

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

(LCW)   Difficult to argue with that.

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

And I wouldn't equate science and religion under the assumption that they are both just ways to explain the world around us, one is clearly more "truth" based, for lack of better word, than the other. But you are right, science as it currently is could not explain outside of our human understanding if that something outside our understanding even exists. Perhaps someday we will find a way to do that as well and transcend how we understand.

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

(LCW)   Pragmatic and sensible for the time being, yes.

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

Ben Berzai

@Andrew Kyrouac If god was talking, giving the proof of life that a Hitchens or Harris deny, how would you know? At least you’ve isolated a lion to hear a roar. How does one isolate God and listen for what? Hitchens famously insults human intellect based on our biology because it came up with religion, I’m insulting him for denying God - our erratic, underdeveloped brains - on the same logical and listening grounds.

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

(LCW)   Making an undeniable determination that God is actually speaking is going to be difficult. How does one do that if he is not willing to ‘play along’? In most cases, it will again remain a matter of faith or belief. My own perspective tells me that if I hold a belief, then for all intents and purpose, it is true and will be considered as such. I have to grant to others the same right or expectations. I may disagree, but that has little relevance. If this belief helps you to be a better person, since that is one of my primary goals, then it is a ‘good’ thing, even if an illusion.

Mr. Hitchens makes many assumptions that don’t hold up well at all. he may, or may not, be correct in much of what he says, but ‘sans’ evidence, it is nothing more than an opinion, no more valid than any other if he cannot make a compelling argument or produce some of that credible evidence.

He does seem to condescend quite often towards those that don’t ascribe to his own interpretation of the world. I think that only diminishes his own personal credibility. He should spend more time prosecuting his ideas to a resolution that is difficult to refute, instead of simply moving on to another subject.

I think it was an inevitable option for mankind to come up with something very similar to religion. Until philosophy can take a more prominent role in the education of our population, there will remain a compelling need to make sense out of the unknown, and religion is one of many alternatives.

It also contains the component of community, while philosophy is normally concerned with the self and the individual, although not exclusively. Philosophy is a more lonely path, and many consider mankind to be more socially minded, and while true, is also not an absolute, and I find neither to be.

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

Wittgenstein also said something like “only metaphysical things can understand metaphysical things” to crystallize the point.

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

(LCW)   A is A. The law of identity. A thing will always be itself. A bit redundant and more than a bit unnecessary.

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

To assert “there is no god” is more naive than asserting there is one for this reason. You’ve seen idiots make fact-less claims, then returned the argument with factless claims. About god, literally, no one has authority to speak and all of it should be viewed as power moves of the speaker than ascension to truth.

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

(LCW)   I find a certain amount of equality in the two. They both have no point to make, except perhaps a wish for one over the other. Irrelevant. It would seem if they were not ‘factless’ claims, would that not infer that there was indeed evidence to some end? The assumed perception that one can win an argument without substance is rather irrational, don’t you think?

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

Ben Berzai

@Andrew Kyrouac TLDR; Yes, but not exactly.

We cannot know what we cannot know, even if we can name what we cannot know. Take “infinity” - the naming confers existence, even if the full form of the existing remains unknown by definition. This unknown quality of “infinity” obtains meaning even if you cannot know the limits of infinity, by definition. You don’t have the receptors. Neither do I. How would we know when we’ve found the end of infinity?

And like you know infinity starts but not where it ends, humans are here at the end of time with no idea how it started. Time stretches back to infinity.

My point: propositions that confer gods’ existence are just as preposterous as propositions that refute it because neither of us can find something just because we’ve named it.

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

(LCW)   But we do have the ability to define something and discuss it without the need for evidentiary proof? We cannot make a statement as to even its existence, whether it is god or infinity, but we can articulate the theory of either, and investigate in detail forever, which could be considered yet another example of what we are discussing.

That is the directive of philosophy, to question, to try and answer, but answers are not a prerequisite to thinking. Truth is also not necessarily required either. Science deals in truth when available, but uses theories and hypotheses when things sound reasonable but there is an absence of fact. Both God and infinity are concepts, or theories if you will.

While the beginning or end of God or infinity is not something we can measure at this time, it is still a demonstrable concept that can be investigated and as more data is discovered, comprehension, at least to some degree, may be reached. Isn’t that the trajectory that science has taken in almost all of the conclusions that have been reached through their efforts? Does not philosophy do something quite similar?

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

palladin331

Objectivism works perfectly when the human population is exactly one person.

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

(LCW)   Perfectly is a strong word. But it works all the time. Millions of instances. Most of my life is an exemplar of the concept. The fact that most individuals cannot, or will not do so is not indicative of the possibility of it being done. I see others do it all the time as well.

What do you find so difficult in the execution of Objectivism? It is really very easy. All it takes is a little philosophy, a little courage, and a good dose of integrity. Voila, Objectivism. Figure out what exactly is the right thing to do, by your own standards, and then do it. All the time, or as often as possible. That is what an Objectivist does. What do you think an Objectivist does?

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

palladin331

@Katie K. No groups. No collective. Just one John Galt all by himself. Other populations (predatory animals, bacteria, viruses, etc.) would still be there, however, to impose their rights. You will eventually wish you had your own human collective to save your life; if you did, all of you, if you had any sense, would work for the common good and provide for all present and future members of your species and thousands of other species as well. Then there would be no trace of Objectivism. Because Objectivism is a farce.

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

(LCW)   Now you are just being silly and looking uninformed. Most of the world is not Objectivist, and things are working so well. What was your point? I would tend to think that you haven’t a clue.

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

palladin331

@Katie K. Have you studied Objectivism?

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

(LCW)   Have you? It does not seem that you have. I've not only studied it, I have lived it for the better part of 50 years.

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

Katie K.

@palladin331 it’s a pretty simple concept. You are creating your own definition. You are most definitely not using the definition given by Rand. Your last comment proves this. It’s not John Galt by himself at all. It’s a whole community that agrees to work for themselves as individuals.

I have a farm. I could be stupid and short-sighted and trash my land and get everything I could from it which would leave my children with a wasteland. Or I could use rational selfishness and take care of my land and use regenerative methods in order to feed myself and my family for decades to come. I would be leaving my children land they could use to do the same or sell at a high value.

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

(LCW)   As for John Galt, you (palladin331) once again display your weakness for the vindictive. Galt never promoted or endorsed anything implying him against the world. In fact, he went to individuals all across the nation, and talked to them, for hours upon hours if you read the book until he persuaded them to join him in a ‘strike’ of the mind.

Socialists and collectivists and liberals could learn something from his motivation and incentive. They simply love labour unions and ‘collective’ bargaining, so they should appreciate what he did. He took the situation into his own hands, and with the ‘voluntary’ and ‘mutual’ agreement of others, they stepped back and let those who demanded their innovation and creativity, and wealth to have their way with their products, their means of productions, even their natural resources and anything they could possibly want, and gave them the opportunity to produce and confiscate from themselves, which they could not do. Much like the Russian revolution, where they confiscated the means of production and ran the resources into the ground which resulted in utter failure.

I think Katie made an excellent point in defining collectivism as a whole community that agrees to work for themselves as individuals. That is the real and true collective. One where no one is coerced, and they all agree to support and strengthen one another in a common goal. What is so difficult to understand? Why is there always a need for total control, burdensome regulation, and physical force if any opposition is present? It seems to be the case. Give us an example of when socialism works.

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

palladin331

@Katie K. That's great. But Rand opposed all collective efforts except for the police and the military, which must be paid for by everyone to protect everyone (although she preferred that it be paid for voluntarily). So she admitted at least that effort for the common good, itself a concept she claimed did not exist.

All else is radical selfishness, not rational selfishness. She opposed all other taxation, including public roads and Social Security, even though in the end she collected her Social Security benefits. She also opposed farm subsidies and public utilities. She opposed regulation of all kinds, especially financial regulation which her disciple, Alan Greenspan, specialized in. I could go on, and on, and on.

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

(LCW)   You would be wrong on so many counts. Rand was ‘not’ opposed to all collective efforts except for police and military. Those are things that she specifically enumerated that would be acceptable to use the initiation of force for the protection of society under very limited circumstances, but she never said any collective was verboten in any way. With Rand, it always came down to the inclusion of the use of force, at which time she would make her opposition known. One of the primary tenets of Objectivism is that these decisions are made by the individual. Always. The decision is a personal one, and your opinion plays no part in that determination. Ironically, neither does Rands'.

You seem to equate the political, ideological example of the collective as an absolute, and of course, it is nothing of the sort. Rand recognized that the collective when implemented and demanded that the self be sacrificed to the greater good, that this took away all of the attributes that are positive to the individual. If not controlled and under the direction of some collective authority, and allowed to have the freedom and liberty to achieve one’s own objectives, then it is not only allowable to have collectives, but imperative that we do so, but only when the target of those actions result in some mutually beneficial way.

Everything we do, especially in capitalism, is a collective effort, but in no manner, a socialistic collective directive. Individuals join together in uncountable ways, in a collective manner, to support and advance individual goals. We build buildings by working together, run all types of commercial enterprises by shared effort. I really have no idea what you think you are saying.

We join forces to do hobbies, play sports, protect our mutual interests, fight fires, and do research in thousands of scientific and academic ways. In fact, there is little that we do as a society that is 'not' done in some kind of collective environment. What is rejected is the collective imperative telling us what to do, how to do it, and when to do it. Objectivism suggests only that it be done by nothing but voluntary action between consenting adults, without the insertion of force at any juncture of the endeavor. Do you understand what I am trying to portray?

The socialist tries to insinuate that capitalists, Objectivists, and Ayn Rand are against collective participation in shared interests but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the socialists are clueless about what Objectivism represents only illustrates the frustration that we experience making the attempt to bring clarity to their interpretations.

Unfortunately, we have no control over their ability to think and to reason, and therefore, it is a difficult road to travel, but we persist anyway, because it has value and substance, and needs to be explained, over and over again, until comprehension occurs. If not, then it needs to be done once again.

The common good is a corollary to this collective of which you think has only one definition. If she claimed that it did not exist, it should be easy enough for you to cite some interview, some of her works of fiction or non-fiction, some debate, where she made such a statement to show us the context of a comment such as this. I don’t think you can.

How could she even write a book without the ‘collective’ collaboration of man and machine to produce a product that could be sold to other individuals? Did she profess to the making of her own books by her own hand? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. I find those that are opposed to Rand and Objectivism always talking about the individual that stands alone against the world, and perhaps she does take some literary liberties at times in her fiction to portray such a concept, but one needs to read her serious portfolio to understand the fundamentals of her philosophy. Do not take the easy road to understanding, it only makes one look woefully underinformed, and their comments lack credibility.

You continue to make my point by trying to equate rational self-interest with ‘radical’ selfishness, a claim that you are unable to articulate. And, of course, we at some point have to throw in her experience with Social Security, which I am sorry to say, shows a real ignorance of the reality of the situation. It is such an immature and superficial comment.

Yes, she did oppose taxation and Social Security was a part of that opposition, but she made it clear that she was ‘forced’ to ‘donate’ into the ‘insurance’, so was irrefutably eligible for the benefits and took them, if only to recoup some of the monies that were confiscated from her, at the point of a proverbial gun, over decades.

If the country gave her the option to opt-out, and she did not, and then pulled benefits, I would be hard-pressed to refute your baseless claims, but they did not, and she did not. Thousands of dollars were taken from her, with an expressed promise to pay out benefits at a specific time.

She did what anyone in their right mind would do, and she got back what she could. There is no hypocrisy in her actions, in fact, she would have been an idiot to do anything else. It was a bona fide entitlement. She was under no personal, ideological or moral imperative to act any other way than she did, and that is notwithstanding any opinions that someone such as yourself may hold.

And by all means, please go on, and on, and on. Anyone who is informed on the facts has already moved on to something else.

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

Katie K.

@palladin331 first of all people that use phrases like the common good are absolutely terrifying and usually using it as an excuse to do something terrible. You seriously don’t know anything about this topic. You are too busy twisting everything with your bias. You like most leftists lack faith in humanity. You clearly don’t think people can take care of themselves.

I don’t care about your stupid I gotcha comments like she used social security. I hate socials security. I’m planning for retirement on my own because I actually want to live with dignity in retirement but I’m not going to refuse social security if it’s still around. I’ve been paying a social security tax my whole working life. We need to drastically change the way we tax citizens.

The federal government is unnecessarily huge. The federal budget should consist of a small payroll for politicians. All political conversations and debates should be taking place on a state level where accountability would be easier to maintain. I could go on and on but it would most likely be a waste.

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

(LCW)   I’ve never heard a legitimate justification for the common or greater ‘good’. It is simply a device used when incapable of making a reasoned argument to any particular end. If the good is valid, and an overwhelming percentage of the members of whatever group or society are in intellectual consensus about an issue, then it should still be considered and debated, and perhaps tested. If this ‘good’ cannot be verified in some way, again, for an overwhelming segment of the community, then it should neither be presented by some elite group nor validated by same. Persuasion and debate should be the only path to create change. Anything else is simply a form of coercion and makes the effort illegitimate.

I too, am not a fan of Social Security, but they have created an environment that did not allow me to make my own preparations, so I am forced to collect what little they have arbitrarily decided to allow to ‘trickle-down’ to me. FYI, the program was tentatively written into the draft documents as a trust fund, only later to be adjusted so the money would be available through general funding, which has been a detriment to the fund, being wasted on ideological agendas and personal interests.

I have no real first-hand knowledge to this point, only that it happened. Perhaps there were other reasons, but I cannot find out what they are. I have attempted to figure out what the fund would be worth at this point if it actually was implemented as a trust, but whatever research I have been able to do suggests that the amount could be substantial, with no real possibility of it ever being insolvent, possibly tripling what the normal recipient now receives with thirty or forty years in the workforce, with the average payment today being approximately $1500.

I think I see both sides of the issue to some extent, and it is reasonable to admit that most people cannot or would not make efficient or practical arrangements on their own, so maybe the necessity for some form of program is prudent, but it should be a trust, to ensure the investments, and since it is an ‘insurance’, it should be only for those that actually require it.

I had a rather heated argument with my own sister over this issue, and she said she paid into it and deserves whatever benefit was promised, but I pointed out that I pay, or have paid, over $20,000 dollars for home insurance over the last 24 years, and have never filed a claim or received any benefit, and will not unless something catastrophic occurs. The same for my health insurance, over $10,000 a year, and the possibility exists that you may never receive any benefit.

This seems to make a case for these programs, and I am not sure that our society has the will to let people opt-out, only to die on the streets helpless and destitute. I am ambivalent to the issue since it has positive aspects, and yet I abhor the component of force that is a part and parcel of every regulation that gets adopted by the society. At the very least, it should be as reasonable as possible, and the incidence of fraud and corruption simply has to be taken out of the equation, or it loses significance, and the benefits are diminished, and the value is reduced.

I think the best point made by Katie is that we need to have a focus on the ability of the greatest number of individuals within the society to be able to take care of themselves, and then the issue becomes minimalized. That only comes through education, and by extension, the philosophy that I keep harping on, that is not a part of that focus and needs to be. It is perhaps the most important aspect of our society that is not being addressed as we speak. More than anything that was discussed in this debate today, it is the singlemost attribute necessary to resolve the issues that plague us as individuals, and therefore, as a community or ‘collective’.

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

palladin331

@Katie K. Then we mustn't let those leftists at Youtube get away with censorship! Let's see if this gets through. I find it ironic that you would denigrate the common good and praise faith in humanity, a collective term if there ever was one.

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

(LCW)   It is interesting that you immediately go on the attack as to her phrasing, but do not acknowledge and explore what she actually said. If there is a commonality in the concepts then do we not have the opportunity to find something to agree on here? Of course, there is an aspect of collectivism in what she says, but I see no attribute of inevitable coercion and authoritarianism.

I don’t see her ‘denigrating’ the common good as much as I see someone who is ‘terrified’ that this banner of common good will be used and has been used, almost without exception, as a weapon of coercion in the past, and she has an expectation that it will be used again, as such, in the future. Why don’t you explain how that will be avoided, and perhaps we can actually agree on something that is truly for the common good, with only voluntary agreement as the basis for cooperation? Would that not be a superior and welcome alternative? It would seem so to me.

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

Rand used to excommunicate her followers for using the word faith, excommunication itself having an odd religious ring that contradicts Rand's views on collective enterprises. But the truth is, many people can't take care of themselves. Even you might have been less lucky. Then what would you do? Accept the help of others, or not? The proper alternative, according to Rand, was suicide, or if one is really incapacitated, murder, preferably the humane kind. Darn, I did it again. She didn't believe in 'humanity'.

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

(LCW)   As all liberals and collectivists often do, you devolve into ad-hominem attacks on Ayn Rand. This is not about Rand, at all really. I consider her a genius, and I think there is more than enough evidence to back that up, but she is only the messenger, and Objectivism is the message.

We are talking about socialism in comparison to capitalism. I would rather it be a debate between socialism and Objectivism since it is the underlying philosophies that define the legitimacy of the resultant economic and political paradigms.

While I identify as an Objectivist, I am confident that Rand might excommunicate myself, as well, since I am not a mindless acolyte or sycophant that cannot come to their own conclusions. I disagree with many of her thoughts and actions. She is not infallible, but an imperfect human being who makes mistakes, and does not necessarily have all the answers, but she has an insight well advanced to many, and the ability to articulate and develop a comprehensive philosophy that makes more sense, at least to me, than anything else I have discovered in my 68 years. I am willing to discuss these things, with you, or her, if she finds a way to return to us, but any conclusions will irrefutably be my own.

She has weaknesses in many of her positions; on relationships, on the substance of the beginning of life, even on her basic beliefs on the concept of objective perception, among others. She has every right to ‘excommunicate’ me if she so wishes, but I never requested membership in her own ‘collective’, and I see no need to do so, meaning I could care less about an ex-communication.

I have looked closely at her words. I have studied and contemplated their value and reasonableness. I have adopted those that appeal to me and ring with truth, and I have dismissed those that did not. I have placed many to the side for further investigation and consideration. Is this not what 'you' do? Why does it seem to collectivists and liberals that if Rand said it, it must be wrong? That is a very immature and childish perspective. It diminishes any respect that I might have for the speaker.

I am glad to say that we agree on some things. I have already said that many people will not be able to take care of themselves, so we agree. But do we dismiss and reject a system that is inarguably the greatest wealth generator to ever exist in deference to a system that does not create anything except possibly emotional responses? How do we pay for all of these socials programs without wealth? When has socialism ever created or produced anything of consequence on its own?

It can only exist as a parasite to the ideal of capitalism, and it can only do that by enslaving one to the other. There is that concept of the initiation of force once again. Socialism cannot exist without it, and must be the master, with capitalism as its servant. That is something I reject unequivocally.

As for your comments on suicide and murder as a response to those that cannot take care of themselves, I cannot find anything she said that would give me context so as to craft a response, so I will request that you, or anyone that may read this, provide us with something of more substance to be able to give this subject a credible presentation. I know that she believed that charity is an acceptable response to seeing those that have difficulties. What I normally see when she is asked these kinds of questions is that what she abhors is the coercion of one individual to help another, which has come up multiple times throughout this debate.

Objectivism wants activity to be voluntary and through individual agreement, and no other environment is acceptable. I think I remember some comments about suicide, but do not remember the context. I find it hard to believe that murder was ever a serious response. It would not be rational. Even if she said such a thing, it would make no real difference. I don’t believe it, no one I know thinks so, so she would be mistaken. I don’t believe that she ever uttered such a thing, but by all means, cite some credible source for us, and perhaps we can discuss it. At this point, it is less than an opinion.

You did what yet again? Misinterpret and misinform? That may or may not be the case. I would welcome your input. Feel free to present your evidence.

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

Katie K.

@palladin331 now we can continue if you can avoid insults and carry a civil discussion. I see you think because I’m about the individual and freedom that I follow blindly to some leader. I don’t have a leader. Here’s where I part. I believe in God and I have faith.

This nonsense about not being able to take care of yourself is a bs argument. I can say the same about the left. Eugenics is a leftist idea. Euthanasia is also a leftist idea. Abortion is also a leftist idea. The majority of people can take care of themselves. This idea that we need a nanny state to take care of us is nothing but a ploy to obtain power and control over others.

What I know about Rand and agree with is portrayed in Atlas Shrugged. And as I said before it’s not that I disagree with some social policy it just doesn’t belong in our federal government. The proof is in their actions over the last 50 years. These people take our tax dollars and do whatever they want. Mostly what they do is figure out ways to funnel that money into their own pockets. I have plenty of examples of great programs my state used to have that have been stopped or replaced by inferior federal programs.

And this nonsense about leaving the handicapped behind is false. Our country is filled with a generous citizenry. This generosity has been drastically declining as the federal government gains power and destroys the working class. And I’m sorry the reality is there is nothing good about the “common good”.

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

(LCW)   I tend to think that Kate is the one with a more consistent and comprehensive perspective. I addressed the following of some personality or ideology blindly. It is not a part of my paradigm. I do not personally believe in any God, and yet do not find it the obstacle that Rand herself thought it to be. I understand her concern with the mindset of many of our religious to follow blindly, but that is unfortunate on many levels and does nothing to improve self or community.

Eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion are all leftist and socialist ideas. Rand’s acceptance of abortion was somewhat misguided and shows an extremely faulty line of reasoning that is inconsistent with the body of Objectivism. She has the right to her own opinion, which is all that Objectivism is, and she has the right to be wrong. So what? We disagree.

It does nothing to prevent me from having the integrity to stay true to my own belief system, so I have no real issues with such a disagreement. Even yourself and our disagreements cause me no harm if we are able to keep that coercion out of it. I grant all individuals the right to their own philosophy and perspective, and I expect them to grant me the same freedom. Otherwise, we have a real problem.

I agree with Kate about the largesse and the great heart of the American people. If left to earn wealth and have the freedom to make their own decisions, I believe that those in need will be taken care of, at least to their minimum requirements. Is it more than that which the socialist expects in their vision for the future? Do they promote that Utopian existence where there is no want at any level? Do they understand how irrational and detached from reality that really is?

I feel compelled to disagree with the comment that there is nothing good about the common good. I find that a bit simplistic. There is always room for the common good. Philosophy would suggest many things that are good for all of us, and if embraced and implemented, would indeed contribute to the common good.

All the freedoms that we enjoy in America are indeed a part of our common good. All the rational actions taken by individuals and groups in this country that result in positive results are a part of that common good. It is never that ‘good’ that is the issue, but always those that wish to impose oppression and coercion to achieve their ends, which is neither in the ‘common’ best interests of all nor ‘good’ in any substantive way.

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

palladin331

@Katie K. OK. At least I can breathe a sigh of relief that you are not an Objectivist. I will point out two of your misconceptions, and then I think it best to say 'so long'. 1. Eugenics is a very right-wing idea. Not only was it favored by Hitler, today it is linked with scientific racism and white supremacy, hardly leftist values. I'M NOT MAKING THAT UP, SEE WIKIPEDIA. 2. Abortion, while opposed by religious right-wingers, is a valid right according to Ayn Rand, which is about as right-wing as you can get. I've enjoyed this discussion, but regret to say that I find too many errors in your beliefs to make a fruitful dialogue possible. Best of luck, and if you qualify for Federal assistance of any kind, I'll be happy to chip in.

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

(LCW)   Did I miss something? I didn’t see where Katie said she was or wasn’t an Objectivist. I fail to see why this would bring you any ‘relief’. It does not mean that she has changed any of her opposition to your questionable comments.

Your incongruous connection between right-wing and eugenics is disturbing, and Hitler was indeed a socialist. If you see the reforms that were introduced by ‘his’ party after the election, there is a long laundry list that could easily have come out of the liberal platform or socialist philosophy. Free health-care, free housing, and free education. The list is actually quite long. It is a stretch to equate that with the right. While Hitler was undeniably a racist, and while the left has been trying to distance themselves from the racism of their own roots, they are biased and bigoted on any number of levels, and in any case, this is not defined by the ideology of either camp, but by perverse, damaged and inferior individuals.

I mentioned this a while back. When you condemn and demean your opposition in such a vile and ignorant way, it becomes impossible to even agree on those things that have commonality between us. These things that you accuse ‘the right’ of, which is not even our discussion today, it would serve you well to focus on the prize and realize that you undermine your own credibility and respectability when you lump all of these diverse individuals into one undefinable strawman.

People just change the channel, which I am sure many have done at this point. If I was not trying to accomplish something specific, I would have done so long ago. As you group almost anyone that you do not agree with in any way, you need to revisit the definition of ‘bigotry’, which just so happens to be that lumping of unknown individuals into a single entity. Maybe ‘Wikipedia’ has your definition. As we all know, Wikipedia must be right, since it is on the internet.

And you continue by referencing ‘religious’ right-wingers. Do you even know where you are anymore? I see this incessantly, the need to refocus on another subject, anything, when confronted and refuted, and invariably losing. No time or effort put into presenting a stronger position, let’s just call them names, and we can talk about abortion, throw in some vitriol against ‘religious’, criticize Rand for taking SSI. It never fails. It never wavers. Don’t continue to make an effort to prove your point. Go find another point. Wear them down until they leave in disgust, and then proclaim to the world, ‘they forfeit, I win’. It’s actually quite pathetic.

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

Katie K.

@palladin331 agreed because you keep insisting the SOCIALIST German party is right-wing. This is false and simply a distancing tactic from reality. Eugenics was pushed by leftists in the US just as it was done by Nazis also leftist. Abortion is largely credited to the founder of The Women of the KKK Margaret Sanger a devout leftist. Abortion is not a right I don’t care who says it. You base all of your information on progressive rewritten history. I’m so sorry that you refuse to see the truth.

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

(LCW)   We might disagree on some minor points, but all in all, quite correct and to the point.

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

basspole

@Katie K. 1. Does anyone have the right to use another person's body without their consent?
2. Does anyone have the right to force someone to be pregnant?

If you answer "No," to either of those questions, you’re not as against abortion as you think. Let me be clear, this isn't meant to be insulting or condescending or even a "gotcha." It’s meant to illustrate that a person's bodily autonomy is not subject to the will of any other person except the owner of their own person.
One's body is inviolable, subject to one's will alone.

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

(LCW)   Conventional wisdom seems to support you, but, unfortunately, I have to disagree with the legitimacy of either question determining anything at all. Does someone have the right to force someone to be pregnant? The answer is incontrovertible and obvious. Of course not. But I fail to see what that means as to the question of abortion. Rape constitutes less than 1% of the eventual abortions so is almost negligible. I would like them to think of the death of an innocent individual before making a decision but can understand the revulsion of going through the pregnancy. A terrible situation and a difficult judgment, but not to be taken lightly in any respect.

The real question is can I shoot a completely innocent bystander if it means that I save the life of another? There are people who might say yes, but I would not be one of them. What if that other is a criminal? Perhaps they don’t ‘deserve’ to exist. The problem is that the innocent bystander irrefutable deserves to exist. The only exception to taking the life of another is if that specific individual is threatening your existence, and you see no other option. Simplistically, if you fear for your life. If we are talking about the life of the mother in some medical paradigm, then again, it is a difficult decision, but I am not a socialist and do not believe in the concept of sacrificing oneself for another, in any instance, unless it is a voluntary choice, which many mothers have heroically decided.

Let’s change the paradigm just a bit. Do you have the right to destroy, to eliminate, to terminate, the life of a completely innocent individual, in any way you wish to characterize it, for a matter of convenience? Is that not what abortion ultimately is? It is not a threat to you, in any way, except in possibly one percent of pregnancies, as mentioned. It did not ask for the circumstances that happened, but then again, neither did you, but you ‘were’ a primary player in the event. Does the fact that you hold no personal culpability mean that this other life is forfeit? What do your ethics and morality have to say about that? Are you proud of your decision to take that life, are you troubled in any way? Does not your integrity compel you to save that life? I am confused as to your philosophy and your ideology. Are you saying that ‘all’ pregnancies are the result of rape? I am at a loss as to exactly what it is that you are trying to present to us.

One of the questions in the case of abortion, in addition to what you have offered, is do you have the right to kill another human being, that is not a threat to you in any way? I think that is more to the point. I would be interested in your take on the ability of a slave-owner down south in the 1850’s having not only the ability but the ‘right’ to kill one of their own slaves, for no other reason than their own personal wish to do so. Maybe they tried to run away, or stole something, whatever.

I would emphatically denounce and condemn not only the termination of that life but the keeping of another human being as a slave. As you walk around with another human being within you, do you have the right, much as that slave-owner, to terminate that life? Is that innocent individual a threat to you? Is it your property, much the same as a slave? Do you 'own' that other person? Do you have the right to kill it on a whim? I find that very difficult to accept.

Is it your decision only to make that determination and destroy a completely innocent human being, not because it is a threat, but simply because it is an inconvenience? I find it very hard to rationalize such a decision, and I see no intrinsic difference between the two scenarios. I am willing to accept taking the life of someone who deserves such an end but find no evidence in the example of abortion. I have yet to hear a reasonable refutation, and that includes Ayn Rand herself, sorry to say.

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

basspole

@Katie K. You specifically said, "Abortion is not a right."
Of course it is. Bodily autonomy IS a right and before you go spouting off about the rights of a fetus, a fetus HAS NO RIGHTS as it is not a person and cannot survive without a parasitic relationship.

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

(LCW)   The burden of ignorance is undeniably evident. You may certainly choose to hold that opinion, no matter how faulty it is. Of course a fetus has rights, the same as any other living creature. What is your source that says it is not a person? Define person. What does a parasitic relationship have to do with anything? A newborn cannot exist on its own. Many elderly cannot either. And it is obvious that many of our disabled would not be able to continue to exist without the parasitic relationship with someone who can do for them what they cannot do for themselves.

The position is so disingenuous. I know it sounds pretty compelling, but only when in a room with like-minded people, who in the context of tonight’s debate, believe that we should all sacrifice ourselves to the ‘greater good’, if some nameless bureaucrat deems it necessary.

To even begin to discuss such an issue, a definitive conclusion needs to be drawn as to the meaning of life, and when it begins, and science. I know that the socialist loves to use the term when it suits them, but science has conclusively shown that the beginning of human life begins at conception. There can be no other conclusion to the process but another version of the species. It will not be a cat or a dog, or even a Honda or a tree. The procedure of abortion is a matter of convenience, and the claim that a fetus is ‘not’ human is a matter of convenience as well.

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

Andrew Lindner

Suzaann, I don't think anyone disagrees that that is a situation that is heartbreaking and needs to be fixed, it's more about the best way to do it. Capitalists might say the more money you have as an individual the more you are enabled to help out those in need. Nothing about capitalism states we can't help each other, it's just putting the onus on the individual to act not the state.

Personally I lean towards capitalism but not the extreme kind these guys were suggesting.

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

(LCW)   A reasonable interpretation of events. It is a point that needs to be reiterated often. Nothing about capitalism denies the individual the opportunity to help others in any way they choose. The case can be made that this would circumvent much of the corruption and incompetence and waste that exists in government today. The state, to the best of my knowledge, does not have a good record in its ability to deliver workable and efficient programs. The corruption and incompetence may have quite a lot to do with that.

I am not sure what is extreme in the presentation of the capitalists. I would welcome some other, in-depth comments, with specificity and clarity, to investigate further.

I think this is a good time to make a distinction that I have been considering. In all my years of ‘discussing’ issues, we all tend to use ‘extreme’ examples to make a point. If we don’t, it gets difficult to cut through the nuances of a reasonable and middle of the road illustration. It does not mean that the extreme is the intended result, only that it is being used to make a clean comparison to whatever is being discussed.

This is true especially in writing articles and, in this case, novels, about circumstances and ideologies. Most of those that criticize Objectivism and Ayn Rand, rarely speak directly to what she has said in her non-fiction work, but invariably point to personalities and scenarios presented in her novels, especially Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, that are, in the end, not really legitimate.

It is something that must be accepted, but to be fair, it is dishonest to do so, since these examples are not realistic in any true sense, but used to create a clear and distinct comparison between ideologies or concepts. Those that do so are being lazy, taking the easy path, not being specific, and not addressing the issues as presented in a realistic venue, such as a debate or interview. Just something to think about. You get less credibility and legitimacy than speaking of actual quotes and academic works.

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

Mike Pastor. K

@Mark Allen they have less restrictions and regulations than the U.S. Ikea for instance is lauded over there and Sweden does everything in their power to keep him a multi-billionaire and one of the world's best success stories. It’s just that all those European countries are mostly homogenous and can afford to allot more taxes to services and welfare of their much smaller nations.

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

(LCW)   All good points and absolutely relevant, in addition to some of my own comments. The capitalists tonight continually rail against the size and extent of government, and the over-regulation, which I recognize is a complex issue. Socialism does not take over Ikea because they have learned at least one thing from history, and that is that they do not have the capabilities or creativity that the original innovators possess, so the best of both worlds for them is to allow them to produce wealth, and just take more of it, probably until there is nothing left. Does socialism not preach that the means of production belong to the people? Is anyone paying attention? That is not as important anymore.

The size of these countries is absolutely a legitimate point. A company that I worked for decades ago sent me to s-Hertogenbosch in Holland, and my wife and I wanted to go and see the dikes after work one day. The people that we were staying with thought we were absolutely bonkers. We wanted to drive 60 miles to see them, and thought we could get some dinner along the way. They said that no one would ever do such a thing. It was so far. That is what they did on vacation.

I said that at times in my life I had that distance as a one way commute in America. They were dumbfounded. When you talk of the great success of these Nordic countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark, the distinction needs to be made that if you combine all five countries, it is 42 million people, but on only 490,000 square miles, as compared to the U.S., which is over 3.7 million square miles. The infrastructure alone is a daunting challenge. They constitute 13% of our land mass and almost the same as to population. Any direct comparisons are really not legitimate.

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

Mark Allen

@Mike Pastor. K what you're saying isn't wrong here, but that doesn't make them more capitalist. The US is more capitalist. More influenced by and designed for the accumulation of capital, whereas the democratic socialist states of Northern Europe are more balanced by state services, redistribution, price controls on medical goods, free access to higher Ed etc. They use these non-capitalist elements to justify a capitalist parallel system that is very open and needs few regulations.

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

(LCW)   I didn’t interpret his comments as saying it was capitalist, and from research, many of the citizens would take umbrage at being called socialist. Many consider themselves capitalists with a socialist component. It is understandable that the socialist wishes to characterize them as socialist, otherwise there would be no example to use at all.

Designed for the accumulation of capital? I think some expansion would be in order. Not to mention the fact that the socialistic reality would not be viable without that capital. Socialism does not exist in a vacuum, and from the comments from the socialist camp tonight, it seems that they are embracing capitalism as the only path to any hope of success for the socialist ideology in the future.

While I don’t deny that the socialist experiments give away more goodies than the U.S., who says that is the way any of us desire it to work? All of the things that you mention can exist in a capitalistic system, if the government is made smaller, people are allowed to produce more wealth, and then to pay directly for those things that they want or decide they need for themselves and their family.

None of these things are free, even though you try to portray them as such. The burdensome bureaucracy is the major source of the impractical scenarios that now exist in America. With more reasonable leadership, all of these things can still be achieved.

The problem is that many individuals, and no offense, you seem to be one of them, have given up on the American experience and don’t believe that the changes necessary can be made. Even if I was to agree with you, it will not be possible to get rid of the inappropriate players that we have now. Those career politicians will not go away, unless we vote them out, and if we could do that, why don’t we do that tomorrow and fix the system we have?

I see no fundamental reason to throw out the babies with the bathwater. It is the corruption, cronyism, favor-politics and power structure that exists here today that needs the revolution, including economics and politics. If this is not done, we will simply accept the same players in the new game, and nothing will change to any great degree. It will only get worse.

I have another anecdote to offer to the issue of ‘higher’ education. It was also from my experience in Holland and Finland, which was in the early eighties, so not far removed from tonight’s debate. The country was debating free educations for all, with a modest stipend, something in the vicinity of what we offer through unemployment. Anyone, at any time, could go to college and university for as long as they wished, without restriction. With this stipend, it was quite tempting, and turned out to be the downfall of the program.

I talked with this individual over the next few years, usually asking how the program was working out. It was not long before a huge number of people realized that they could do quite well just going to school and collecting the stipend. There was no time limit to either. The concept was to give them the freedom to learn at their own pace, without burdensome restrictions, allow them to come to their own conclusions as to the efficacy of their paradigm, and eventually go back to work, earning more, helping self, family and community by their actions.

Didn’t work out that way, much like our welfare system here at home. They had to scrap the program a few years later. Without ethical and moral players, even with educations, there is no incentive to do the right thing, calling once again, as I have done many times, for the specific inclusion of philosophy, including those concepts of ethics, morality, character, and integrity, from birth, to ensure not only an educated citizenry, which is rather vague, to one that has a moral base as well.

Socialism seems to insinuate that this is the very nature of man, and they will help one another if only given the chance. I see no evidence of that. I tend to think that it will only come with hard work and motivation. We need to focus and work towards goals. Nothing else will work, especially not some fantasy of a socialistic Utopian existence.

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

You can find the continuation of this conversation in page B of audience comments