1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Reader - Online Commentary - C

 
 
 

Defining rational self-interest, the relationship between Marx, socialism and exploitation. Difficulties understanding the concept of capitalism. Personal vs. Private vs. Public property. Inappropriate players within economics

 
 
 
 

READER - VIEWER - COMMENTARY - C

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

Katie K.

Not at all. Rational selfishness was literally proven mathematically by John Nash. He even won a Noble Prize. You do what’s good for you. I do what’s good for me. While at the same time we think everything forward enough to also do what’s best for both of us.

I’ll give you another example from my real life. This spring I will be starting horses for my first client. I’m going to train two horses for free as an audition. I will then begin training foals for the same client upon success. I’m being selfish but rational by doing this. The client is also being selfish by agreeing. She has already seen the horses that I trained myself and knows I will provide the service she wants. She is insisting on the audition because she wants to see the process firsthand.

I’m willing to audition because it will provide me the opportunity to train her foals which will increase their price significantly and in return increase my commission when they sell. I could be irrational and require a training fee per horse but she would probably only have me train 2-3. I would make more per horse. If I think rationally and accept a commission I will make less per horse but more overall. Not to mention I will be using one of the audition horses to compete and make her and I even more money. This is rational selfishness.

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

Patrick Flanagan

@Katie K. I applaud your explanation and respect your approach to doing business, but I believe we differ on the definition of what "selfish" means. In two different dictionaries, it begins with "Lack of consideration for others..." which I totally agree with. It's not just doing what's best for you, but being actively inconsiderate, which you clearly aren't doing. (that is a compliment, of course)

Coming up with a win-win in a business situation that in the long run you may benefit even more from isn't actually selfish. It shows consideration. "Self-interest", and "mutually-beneficial" are more traditional terms that one could apply. Describing your strategy as "selfish" seems misleading to me and in the long run may justify other types of truly selfish behaviour.

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

(LCW)   No, no, no. You don’t understand. This is not about a dictionary definition to win some kind of argument, and while it may be, for you, what ‘you’ think is true, it is not determinant at all. If someone takes the time to explain in detail what they think a term or concept actually means, then, at that point, that is what it means, unless it is completely irrational and unreasonable.

Having said that, Rand has repeatedly spelled out, in great detail, what is meant by rational self-interest. Did you google that, or just selfishness? We are not talking about that, and yet, just for the sake of the argument, secondary definitions exist on those dictionary sites that define doing what is in an individual’s best interests. At times, they include that selfishness is done at the expense of others, but again, Objectivism has been making an attempt to create the distinction, so if you are not searching for rational self-interest, you are not making an honest attempt at understanding the concept at all.

You don’t get to define anything for me, but you can accept or deny my definition, but if you deny something that is reasonable, then you are the one with the issue. Dictionaries are not absolutes, but simply information, which may at times give the ‘accepted’ definition, but by no means does that mean it is the ‘only’ definition. Your inability to accept that fact makes it difficult to believe that you are truly interested in having a rational argument about pretty much anything at all.

What you agree with is disingenuous. If you are having any kind of a rational argument with another, it is imperative that you get clarification as to the meaning of any word, phrase, or concept that may be misunderstood. Rand knew that most would not easily accept her version, so she adjusted and defined what it is that she uses in her explanations. You have every right to profess ignorance when the term is used and you are not aware of the concept, but there is no intellectual reason that you cannot find the proper definition and use it when dealing with Objectivists. Otherwise, why would anyone have any interest in engaging with a dishonest individual?

The problem here, and with others, is that, even if the capitalist/Objectivist uses the term selfish, it is a misnomer, and the responsibility and the mistake lies with them as the culprit. I rarely use the term, and if called out, will immediately redefine my terms as rational and irrational self-interest to distinguish them. If you refuse, you reflect a position of unwillingness and a lack of open-mindedness, you show a level of disrespect for me, and I find it difficult to have an interest in interacting with you on any level.

Remember, mutual benefit through mutual agreement. If you disrespect, then I ‘voluntarily’ remove myself from the proceedings, and leave you to your own musings. If you wish to talk with me, it will be on those terms of mutual benefit through mutual agreement. If you wish to try and characterize me as taking my ball and going home, as I did to another poster not long ago, you may of course do so, but I don’t find it equivalent, and if you read the passage you should easily distinguish the difference. I demand nothing that I do not agree to grant my opponent. Nothing more, and nothing less.

You propose that I use other phrases like ‘self-interest’ or ‘mutually beneficial’, but that is not for you to decide, and I have already made it clear that I use rational self-interest almost without exception. My words reflect my definitions if you are interested. If you have been paying attention, I have always been using ‘rational self-interest’ and ‘not’ selfishness, so there should be no conflict with my use of the phrase, am I right?

Your comments show that you understand quite well that you, in fact, do understand what we are attempting to present. I am unclear as to why you continue to prosecute an aggressive stance then. Why do we not engage in the discussion at hand? The morality of socialism.

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

C Cole

It's hard to imagine a civilized debate of good-faith arguments well-articulated and open to self-examination and respectful engagement with the other side even being possible today.

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

(LCW)   So you noticed that? Where has that ability retreated to? Why is it such a rarity? It has been my experience for most of the last 50 years. It is a disturbingly small segment of my conversations over the years that I have had with well-articulated and open to self-examination individuals who provide respectful engagement.

If only that were not the case. It is all that I ever wanted. It is what we need if we ever expect to live in peace in the future. Did someone speak of idealism and unrealistic expectations? I readily admit I am such an idealist. I don’t see how anything gets accomplished without idealism. If none exists, what exactly are we fighting for?

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

charonel

There are loads of good debates like this today still, it's just that the YouTube algorithm promotes a lot of gutter trash debating instead of this type. Go and find the Intelligence Squared and Munk Debates channels etc., and enjoy.

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

Curt Bressler

Debate is not an exercise in maturity. It is an exercise in extreme bias and purposeful ignorance. No debater actually listens to the opposition's points as it would allow room for consideration and create moments for introspection.....which is actually a mature exercise.

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

(LCW)   I am not particularly an optimist but I find your position rather defeatist and extreme. Whether it results in clarity or not, a debate is, in reality, a true exercise in maturity. The extreme bias and ignorance you cite are from damaged and uninformed individuals that lack a quality education and have never made an exploration into the world of philosophy.

It is not a criticism, simply an observation that is verified time and again. It takes motivation and some very hard effort as well as extended periods of self-introspection and contemplation to create and develop a comprehensive and personal philosophy. Some debaters listen and engage appropriately, but not enough, I guess, to make an appreciable difference. We can only determine what is right and do it. Nothing more, and nothing less.

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

Funky Grow

Well, the issue is that Stalin objectively didn’t practice the fundamentals of socialism whereas fascism objectively is a form of nationalist capitalism. I won’t accuse libcaps of being fascists. But it’s definitely not an attribute of the left.

As a matter of fact, socialists decry any form of state capitalism. While the only argument capitalists can make is that we don’t actually know our own views and that we are in fact are statists.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that you have been paying attention, at least to the socialists on the dais tonight. They have embraced capitalism and many of its attributes. They have extolled the successes but believe that it needs to be subservient to socialism. The problem is that they have failed miserably in explaining exactly what that socialism actually consists of.

The capitalist decries state capitalism and wants the state to be completely out of it. The socialists have been consistent in their desire for capitalism to exist, and be pliable to the will of the socialist state, which by definition seems to infer something along the lines of a state capitalism.

I fully agree that the socialists tend to be unaware, at least on a deep level, exactly what it is that they actually believe. They need to spend time and focus on that, and come and enlighten the rest of us when they figure it out. If you hear my mistaken characterizations of what socialism is, then please, I implore you, explain to me where I am wrong, and tell me what you actually believe. It is the only thing that I wanted to know tonight, and it seems that I will be disappointed yet once again.

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

Curt Bressler

@Funky Grow well said. This whole debate was an exercise in 'straw-manning'. In fact, both sides want the same thing; freedom to live/exchange without tyranny or under threats of force.

Where the two sides get lost is in how they misunderstand and mischaracterize each other. The capitalists just went one step further and mischaracterized themselves. They had no introspective lens into the literal behavior of capitalism and thereby could ignore the literal results of capitalism as "it's not the capitalism we're arguing for!"

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

(LCW)   I realize that I use the term incessantly, but your comments, at least the last paragraph, are simply irrefutably disingenuous. I agree with your previous points. The capitalists have not mischaracterized themselves, you have simply refused to listen and accept what they present as their positions since it will be difficult indeed to refute what they say they believe, perhaps more difficult to refute what you tell them they believe, especially when they don’t.

It is irrational, and verges on the insane, to promote the socialists on the platform that proclaim that the version of their socialism has ‘never’ existed, although socialism has indeed existed for thousands of years, and immediately refuse the right of the capitalist to say the same. I fail to understand why. Ask a specific question about a specific issue and let us see where that leads.

Creating scenarios that never existed or if they did, it was 200 years ago and we have no one who can say definitively what the players thought and the motivations behind their actions, and in any case, our capitalists today, and especially our Objectivists, simply have no inclination to make the attempt to accomplish whatever those individuals desired in a paradigm lost to history. We need to talk of today. The capitalists tried to do this, but the socialists were hopelessly lost in the past.

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

Jack Smith

@Juro Chovan I would hold any accusations of embarrassment, as I have indeed read a great deal of Lenin, and am VERY familiar with the distinctions between socialist factions/ideologies, etc. I believe in reading your enemies, getting familiar with their ideas, and trying to see things how they did. When one reads Lenin, one is struck by how specific his observations were to Russia of the time, and how they are specifically tailored against the imperialism of the day.

One finds it exceedingly difficult to infer any real relevance in modern-day politics... most socialists are bourgeoisie today (as the socialist intellectuals were then - including Lenin). Bolshevik fantasies do not resonate with the working class as they may once have. They resonate with university-educated, bourgeoisie, pampered children - the kinds of people Lenin would have had strung up from a tree. If you want a more flexible, perhaps, more fitting socialist take of the same time period, Trotsky is your man. At least he noticed that the Marxist cycle wouldn’t recreate itself in the same rigid way from nation to nation... however, I digress.

With respect to comments about religion; Marxism is a religion - just not a supernatural one. It shares all the same fundamentals as any functioning faith; especially the same preponderance toward seemingly infallible statements, which upon further analysis, tend to balance on wildly reckless and subjective assumptions.

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

(LCW)   I appreciate your perspective. I find a fundamental lack of relevance of what Lenin and Trotsky and even Marx said in their time to our modern reality. I do not say there is nothing to learn from some of their observations, but to use examples from that time to diminish or even deconstruct what is being envisioned today is somewhat irrational and illegitimate. Childish actually. Let us talk today, about today, and leave history to the historians.

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

palladin331

@Mark Greg Sputnik The point of the American Revolution (in theory) was to end political authoritarianism and social abuses of all kinds. That, of course, includes slavery (an issue on which the Founders punted). But the argument that the slavery resulting from colonialism is 'better' than the slavery that might have existed in the society before, is a vacuous argument without any moral high ground. The same can be said for Objectivism in its entirety; in fact, it's worse.

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

(LCW)   While we may very well agree that the American Revolution was in theory an attempt to end political authoritarianism, your comment to the matter of ending social abuses is more than a little vague. We have been arguing for centuries about abuses, but the interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, and your abuse may well not be mine. I would also welcome citations and specifics on what you deem to be the intent of the revolution.

Slavery is an issue that, I find, very few people to actually understand, or put into a historical perspective, that explains the progression to the freeing of those very same individuals held in captivity. The founders were quite aware of the exigencies as to the question of slavery at the time. Notwithstanding people who look at historical perspectives with a very limited knowledge of the realities then, and find it easy to criticize the actions of those founders, but they knew that it would be next to impossible to institute, from the beginning, the emancipation that was to come, albeit almost a century in the future.

The American experience with slavery was somewhat benign and pragmatic. Slavery was a global institution at the time, and well-accepted as one option, among many, in respect to labour and production. It was a horrendous paradigm, created by those who had no intellectual or philosophical base for their actions, which, ironically, I have presented as an imperative in our narrative on socialism and capitalism.

They were ruthless individuals who dealt in the slave trade, and while America had no culpability in the initiation of the practice, they have to accept some responsibility for participation, if nothing else. The industry was begun by Arab slavers centuries before America even became the genesis of the idea. The individuals that enslaved and sold those Africans, and others, from around the world, were more often than not Africans themselves.

America neither hunted, gathered, nor put these people into bondage. They carry the responsibility for participation, but we must insert context into the actions. It was an acceptable practice at the time, but can never be, and never was, philosophically appropriate at any time. It was reprehensible and immoral in every respect.

The socialists should remember this as they promote a ‘democratic’ socialism. Democracy, no matter the form, can never legitimize something that is fundamentally illegitimate under any circumstance. Democracy is often the justification used by the mob of unthinking individuals in the pursuit of their own personal self-interests, and especially in the context of the collective who allow the concept of force in the process of achieving their goals.

One can certainly interpret the Founders' actions as ‘punting’ but there are many that say it was a calculated attempt to get the concept into the societal narrative on the subject, and would eventually result in positive changes. History shows that this was, in fact, the case. This is irrefutable. The reality may not have been realized as quickly as desired or even expected, but it was inevitable, since the majority of individuals in the country, as well as the world, were never supporters of the practice or the reality.

I find that many individuals judge them quite harshly, but in a historical context, it was a brilliant move on their part. There is another distinction to be made. They were in the midst of building a nation, one based upon a diversity that does not exist today, with a myriad of conflicting and confrontational ideologies and perspectives. If the push were made with the immediacy that many individuals desire today with their behaviour, the very existence of the infant nation may have been in jeopardy, as well as the eventual abolition of the practice of slavery itself.

America was never meant to evolve at a pace related to a tsunami, which wreaks havoc with everything in its path. It was meant to be deliberative and focused, and time has shown that to be pure genius, and inevitably consistently successful. All the rights we enjoy today, came about through this slow, deliberative process, not dependent on a single instance in time, but on a prolonged and intentional focus on an issue resulting in meaningful change.

I am continually disappointed in the inability of our citizenry to recognize and accept this basic truth about the fundamental goal of the concept of America. This is disturbing in the presence of the push for something like socialism, that will ultimately erase many of the advantages and successes we have realized, contrary to their expectations, and replace a system, replete with a list of real and actual progressive societal resolutions, in lieu of an unrealized dream that has never been able to demonstrate at any sustainable level the ability to achieve anything of substance.

I see no one making any comparisons with ‘slavery’ before and after, what I assume is your opinion of India? And I certainly saw no mention of one being ‘better’ than another. Those that may have argued this point are certainly not vacuous, but I would agree with you that the argument could not be made from any moral high ground.

But, …. Your attempt to conflate the morality of slavery, in any form, with the precepts of Objectivism is completely unfounded, as exemplified by your lack of evidence, as usual, and if anything could be termed as ‘vacuous’, it would be such a comparison. Your ignorance in relation to Objectivism is undeniable.

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

palladin331

While Capitalism is generally understood, Socialism is generally misunderstood. Think of it this way: Socialism is like an insurance policy - a mutual protection scheme whereby each gives up a small amount to protect all members against catastrophic loss. We must discard the old notion of State ownership of the means of production (except in certain situations: war, pandemic, essential regulation, etc.).

What the State owns is the right to tax, or collect those insurance premiums for the protection of all. Of course, this includes value creation: roads, schools, military, health care, and so on. When properly understood, the system produces net profits. Those profits are the property of all because everyone contributed to their creation (labor and consumption). The wealth of the nation belongs to the nation, not to a few oligarchs.

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

(LCW)   Your biggest problem with this observation is that you have completely disowned socialism. What you speak of is something else completely, so you need to come up with a new label and begin a new movement from scratch. This will involve persuading many individuals to your perspective, and since socialism is having issues with their own paradigm, you may actually have a chance. The ironic part is that I like what you have to say more than the socialists.

The new ideology that you present has its own set of difficulties. Socialism, as it exists at the moment, although, after this debate, it seems that it is evolving before our eyes, especially in the sense that they wish to hijack the concept of capitalism and assimilate it into some new socialistic hybrid version, subservient to the socialistic hierarchy, which by definition, I think will quickly become something of an obstacle.

Socialism is not misunderstood. I think the issue is that it is understood all too well. It is acceptable to the dreamers who envision the opportunity to tell people what is good for them, but unacceptable to those that may like what they hear, but many simply do not want that component of force that has come up in the discussion.

Socialism is not like an insurance policy. Normally, the purchase of insurance is a matter of choice, it is a matter of security to protect property, and there is a choice not only in the purchase but at all different levels as to amount, extent, etc. Socialism, as normally presented, is, once we are past the initial agreement phase, something that will be imposed, and the issue of choice at some point, will quickly disappear.

You speak of giving up a ‘small’ amount to protect all members from catastrophic loss. In essence, this is true, and I will accept that, at least in theory, it could even work, but life experience tells us that costs never go down, taxes being a prime example. Social programs always grow, usually exponentially, and rarely deliver what they promise, like any promise that emanates from some vague and nameless entity we term the ‘state’. It may be a bit trite, but Benjamin Franklin was known to have said:

“those who would give up essential liberty
to purchase a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety”

While the intent of the quote was for something quite different, this quote has been used extensively in the context of actual freedoms. I use it in such a manner. It should always be a concern when someone such as yourself is promoting the abdication of responsibility for their own actions.

The call for the ‘discarding’ the notion of the state ownership of the means of production is a wholesale deconstruction of the traditional socialism paradigm. I don’t even know how you can continue on as a socialist with such an assertion. This is like saying you are a Christian, and yet deny the existence of Christ. This is why I suggested the initiation of a new movement that would be in competition and conflict with the current socialistic mindset. But I must admit, it addresses one of the fundamental aspects and disagreements that I have with socialism.

Like Judis, you sound like a reformed socialist that invites much of what capitalism offers. America is based on the notion of no taxes. We seem to have gotten well away from the concept, but originally, the only taxes that were acceptable to the colonies were taxes on imports. You are expanding that to the ‘insurance’ policies that you referenced, but keep in mind, the government need only create a hundred ‘insurance’ policies to implement totalitarianism over the population. The aspect of ‘force’ remains with your new paradigm, and that will continue to be a huge obstacle to the acceptance of the majority of individuals out there, at least while they remain ‘individuals’.

Actually, I find it difficult to find any true differences between our government today and your new one of tomorrow with their insurance taxes. The end result is virtually identical. A new insurance for health care, housing, infrastructure, roads, military, all the things that you mentioned. I don’t see any fundamental difference. New insurance, new tax, new burden, no choice, a new form of ‘force’ with each new insurance. I don’t think so.

You lost me with this net ‘profit’ of yours. I realize that you have some kind of esoteric and mystical profit in mind. Possibly emotional, certainly not physical. Arguably irrational. Profit is normally something that we would term objective. You sell products and have a hundred dollars afterward. This is a profit. I fail to understand what is leftover from those things that we all ‘own’, collectively, after the payment of these insurances and the loss of wealth and choice on my part. Are these insurances directly voted on by the population? Can one opt-out? Or is it simply through compulsion and imperative?

I am not sure I can agree on any base level, but I will grant you a single caveat. I don’t want any oligarchs to be in control of the wealth of the country either, but that is an issue completely independent from the issue of capitalism or socialism. In fact, if anything, socialism has an embedded oligarch structured into the fabric of the ideology, since the decisions invariably are taken out of the hands of the ‘membership’, and controlled by some central committee, a politburo, or undefined group that is the only efficient way of controlling the ‘many’. It has happened in every instance of every experiment with socialism. If you disagree, then please offer us some information on exactly how that will not happen with either variant of your socialism.

I am uncomfortable with the wealth of a ‘nation’ belonging to everyone when the ‘nation’ did not produce it on its own, in any case, but by the efforts of the individuals that comprise it. But then again, isn’t that what this debate is about? I find it difficult to not continually keep bringing it up. This discussion is about the ‘morality’ of the ideologies, and that certainly pertains to the ownership of the wealth of the nation.

I find it interesting that someone who is against the concept of slavery is for the concept of taking whatever production is made by an individual, confiscation is not an unfair term, without their consent, which is stealing, and doing with it whatever they please, much like Robin Hood. From my perspective, I see no intrinsic difference between that and slavery. Do you promote and condone slavery, or, like the Founding Fathers, have you just ‘punted’?

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

Casey Burkhart

1:33:30 Here we see a capitalist confirm Marx's argument that capitalism can only thrive through exploitation and expropriation. Binswanger literally justified colonialism, both old and new.

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

(LCW)   I think that you oversimplify, and seem to hear only what you wish to hear. Nowhere did he state that exploitation or expropriation is a component of capitalism. If he was indeed attempting to ‘justify’ colonialism, then I would have to oppose his position. I think it was more an issue of observing that colonization was in effect an advantage to the progress within the environment.

If he said otherwise, let me know his exact words. I am not particularly a fan of Binswanger and have many fundamental issues with colonialism. The real issue is the morality of socialism, and with all the condemnation and criticisms of capitalism, many fraudulent and unsubstantiated, we seem to never get to the crux of the debate itself. I question whether this is by chance, or by design. To be honest, I don’t even know why Marx is even a part of the conversations. Without Mr. Hitchen's obsession with the man, I am not sure anyone else would have acknowledged his existence.

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

King Hassy

If you read the last chapter of Das Kapital volume 1 where Marx talks about colonialism, you’d realize that capitalist production actually struggled to function in these conditions. The system inherently requires a mass of people who have no other choice but to sell their labour, the capitalists can then take advantage of this inherent societal condition to offer the worker wages that are less than the value their labour actually produces.

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

(LCW)   I think that you need to go into more detail about the choices open to the people. What were the choices before the presence of the colonialism reality? What were they doing then? How were they existing? Why did they not continue as they were? Were there truly no other alternatives? What ‘choices’ did the state have in relation to all of this? I am certainly no expert in the historical colonization of India. My presence is to learn about socialism. I fail to see any mention of the concept.

I would question this concept that often is a part of this kind of debate as to “this inherent societal condition to offer the worker wages that are less than the value their labour actually produces”. Over decades I have yet to hear a good explanation as to how one comes to determine the ‘value’ of some individuals ‘labour’. The value has absolutely nothing to do with the price of the final product since there are a thousand different costs involved in getting to that final point. I would welcome some expansion on the relationship between these concepts. Fifty years and I am still waiting for a reasonable argument. Perhaps you can be the first.

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

Anyways in the colonies, settlers were given land and all the necessary tools to work for themselves. Capitalists would bring in immigrant workers who would quickly earn enough to work for themselves and soon become competitor suppliers. So they made laws that would expropriate the private property of the immigrants so they remained workers much longer, artificially creating the conditions of capitalism. My memory might be off but it's a really interesting chapter.

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

(LCW)   Again, where is the state in all of this? Capitalism does not exist in a vacuum. Capitalism does not create legislation, at least not any version of legitimate capitalism. Any true capitalism does not act in this way, but only when those opportunists take advantage of the environment, normally produced by impotent or corrupt and incompetent representation through the existence of some ‘state’. Socialism promotes the ultimate state, so is therefore suspect. Capitalism, and especially Objectivism, promotes the most minimalist state possible.

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

Ben Berzai

Colonialism is a state-sanctioned agenda. Colonialist leaders would sell a single license to a single slave trader, for instance, creating a protection racket through government.

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

(LCW)   Finally, someone that defines the issue appropriately. You will notice that the concept of capitalism is not included. Capitalism is an independent, but a subservient system, which, yes, can be abused and perverted, and history shows that repeatedly.

That does not denote an integral shortcoming, only a vulnerability that many unscrupulous individuals will use to their advantage, and the states that support and condone some perverted version of capitalism. I still see no direct reference to anything capitalistic that suggests that it is an actual prerequisite to the system. Which is what many socialists would like to have you believe. Hence, the lack of credibility and legitimacy for their positions.

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

This is not capitalism.

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

(LCW)   Absolutely not.

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

You’ve got to stop conflating capitalism with opportunism. Opportunity existed in Mansa Musa’s kingdom where he took slaves and colonized tribes. Neither of those things is capitalism. The Soviet Union colonized other people. So did the Incas and Aztecs.

Next time, just say “I don’t understand economics” instead of trying to get away with your drivel of a comment, OK? Make honesty a policy.

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

(LCW)   It is impossible for me to refute this position. It is completely viable in every instance. All of these things are true. The opportunist predates any and all systems of economics as well as politics. It predates philosophy as well. It is an aspect of humanity that is embarrassing, and if we cannot change it, we are doomed to repeat the same reality over and over and over again.

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

King Hassy

@Ben Berzai you lack reading comprehension because the OP never said colonialism is capitalism, but rather capitalism thrives on exploitation. And it's true, capitalist love profiting through imperialism and colonialism even though these things don’t represent capitalism. And since their capitalist morality tells them to only worry about their own self-interest to maximize goodness, they justify colonialism using the same exploitive morals.

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

(LCW)   Unfortunately, the OP never said otherwise either. You are wrong in the assertion that capitalism thrives on exploitation. This is a false interpretation. Exploitation is the weapon of the opportunist, who is a thief and not a capitalist. You might do the same, but that would reflect on your own philosophy and morality, and not the one of the systems you debase and pervert. There is a very real distinction between the two. I find it highly disingenuous for you not to recognize or acknowledge it.

The capitalist does not love profiting through imperialism and colonization, only that same opportunist and charlatan. The true capitalist believes in voluntary trade, which admittedly can be harsh at times, but especially value for value, and what you attribute to capitalists is nothing of the sort, so therefore invalid in context. Your opinion notwithstanding, your position is simply a faulty interpretation, nothing more.

There is no such thing as a capitalist ‘morality’. That is reserved to the concept of philosophy, and each unique capitalist has a unique, personal philosophy that determines the legitimacy of each of their actions. It is ludicrous to think that an economic system demands some specific set of moral and ethical behaviours. Socialism and collectivism may demand some specific responses from the faithful, but that is the fault of the essence of the ideology itself. I have no alternative but to think that your complete basis for comment is inarguably without merit.

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

Ben Berzai

@King Hassy LOL.

When Stalin killed the Kulaks and took their farms, was that exploitation? What about when Mao did that same thing? When they marched into foreign lands and forced the people there to work, was that capitalism? No, stupid. Capitalism DOES NOT equal seizing opportunity. Both Stalin and Mao also did that.

And objectively stupid phrases like "their capitalist morality" is why no one takes you seriously. Capitalism is NOT a system, stupid, it's the lack of one. And among its principal features is its amorality.

Advice: Next time, just say "I don't understand economics." It’s shorter, actually honest, and it spares us all the cringe of seeing in real-time how little you know.

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

King Hassy

@Ben Berzai you don't even know what the definition of a system is, go look up a definition before your embarrass yourself. I also like the deflection away from capitalist exploitation because for every person exploited by Stalin or Mao there are hundreds of capitalist regimes that were more imperialist, colonialist or brutal throughout history. Yet you're forced to make these arguments because you cannot argue that communism is exploitive just as I can argue that capitalism is FUNDAMENTALLY exploitive.

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

(LCW)   You seem to be just digging a deeper hole with each new comment. You have the audacity to say that collectivism is ‘not’ exploitive? What nonsense. As is the comment that capitalism is fundamentally exploitive. Just speaking of America, there are over 30 million businesses that exist, and the vast majority of them are small businesses, which comprise over 90% of the total. Again, almost without exception, there is no expropriation or exploitation.

Every supermarket and local storefront is a capitalistic venture. Do they all take advantage of their employees and customers? Every pizzeria and coffee shop, every garage and home improvement store. Are any of them characterized by your depiction of capitalism? It is beyond ignorant to even suggest it. The example that the liberals and socialists, all collectivists for that matter, portray as capitalism is such an outlier to be almost non-existent. It is past dishonest.

Your hatred for capitalism and individualism clouds your judgment and reflects that you are in need of deep introspection, not to mention the realization and recognition that your positions are of no legitimacy whatsoever. Whatever exists as a failure within capitalism is able to be fixed, and the case could be made that it is individuals such as yourself that are the prime reason that it does not happen. You divide and manipulate to gain your own objectives, and that displays an irrational self-interest that equals the worst example of selfishness that you attempt to portray as evil and destructive. I see that, as many others do.

The growth of Objectivism and the perspective of Ayn Rand has been exponential over the last 40 years. This only illustrates the fact that others see this as well. I can’t stop those that believe in totalitarianism and hate individualism, but I can act in a way that does not support it, and I do, and I will continue to do so. The position of the collectivist is a dead one, but like the proverbial chicken without a head, it continues to run around in circles, not even aware that it is already dead. Or at least we can only hope.

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

It requires a mass of people who are impoverish and have no other choice but to sell their labour at a discount. And in return it gives them the bare minimum so that they're required to make the same choice tomorrow. Creating unprecedented inequality.

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

(LCW)   Once again, there is a refusal to see the truth. The plight of the poor, admittedly not gone from the paradigm, but absolutely superior to any ever experienced in the history of this planet will only increase if those that foment revolt, but offer no alternatives of consequence, do not come to the realization that their way is a path to self-destruction.

It is always a choice between poverty and totalitarianism. There never seems to be an option to create an environment where each is allowed to reach the apex of their abilities, and have the opportunity to help others. There is no shame in asking for help, or in helping. There is more than just shame in forcing that help.

The collective offers no voluntary participation in anything they promote. It is a very select few, the ruling class in a society of no classes, that get to make the decisions, and the oppressed are supposed to accept, acquiesce, and subjugate themselves to whatever their betters decide. I can only hope that this will never be the final paradigm, for final it will be.

Actually, it is the thinking of the collective that creates inequality, allowing people to think that they can obtain something for nothing, simply because the majority wishes it to be so. It is a false reality, a fake existence, and doomed to failure. It flies in the face of reason, and an impractical response to a real challenge. Irrational and disrespectful to each and every member of the community.

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

Sean Ryno

@Christophe Lalonde Lavergne Ben is right. You are all confused.
If it ain't voluntary, then it ain't capitalism.

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

(LCW)   It is so refreshing when someone offers an absolute, especially when it rings with the sound of reason, and I rarely accept an absolute.

And once again, we are talking about force. The conflict between individualism and collectivism is force versus voluntary action. It doesn’t need to be any more complicated or nuanced than that. Freedom versus totalitarianism. Call it authoritarianism if you wish. Or even socialism. It’s all the same. Control, coercion, capitulation, slavery.

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

You don't get to choose when other people are being exploited. If someone continues to show up for work, then that is an explicit declaration that they have determined that doing so is in their best interest. That it is the preferred thing for them to do, and they are therefore NOT being "exploited".

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

(LCW)   And this is true whether it is a ‘good’ deal for them or not. We can talk about the forced environment, and I accept that many ‘feel’ like they are being exploited, and many others ‘believe’ it to be so, and I will even agree in certain circumstances, but in a vast majority of the cases, it is indeed an agreement.

To be true exploitation, you have to show that the individuals had absolutely no other alternatives instead of hoping upon hope, even if somewhat delusionally, that their lot in life was going to be better than before. What did they do ‘before’ this exploitation made its ‘debut’? They must have been doing something since they were alive if they were available to be ‘exploited’. Why did they not continue in whatever environment was their reality? This is a question that needs to be addressed.

I worked for over 50 years before retiring and was never able to find that job that I loved so much that I never had to work a day in my life. Every position I ever ‘enjoyed’ had shortcomings and inequalities. I ‘chose’ to remain in the position, and was able to turn that into a life that brought me whatever was necessary. I was not able to purchase those things I could not afford, and went without.

I had many obligations placed upon me that I did not want, and would not have chosen for myself. But life is a choice, and I had the opportunity to make many choices, voluntarily, if reluctantly. When not happy with a company, I did not strike or burn it down. I did not complain, well, maybe here and there, but I did not sabotage the company. I left the company and found a marginally better position somewhere else. If I did not like what the company represented, I never dealt with them again, under any circumstances. Some of those companies actually went belly-up, not as a result of my actions alone, but apparently, others felt the way I did, and that, at least in capitalism, often results in failure.

No company I ever worked for, ever lost money on having me as an employee, so the loss was theirs. Possibly it didn’t impact their bottom line, but they did not have my participation, and therefore my support. Like John Galt, I denied them my abilities, my insight, and my perspective. In the end, there is not much else I can do. I found no need for violence. I did not hate them, although the relationships were strained in some instances. I simply removed myself from their paradigm and searched for another one. There was no mutual benefit, and eventually no mutual agreement, so there was no transaction. Under the circumstances, a reasonable conclusion.

For me, that was, and is, capitalism, with a very heavy dose of Objectivism. Voluntary interaction and engagement. There was an attempt to use force in varying degrees. I rejected that and moved on. End of story. Multiple times. What is it that the collectivist does not understand? The need to coerce companies or individuals to their interests is illegitimate. The need to coerce members of their own ideology in any way is reprehensible. And yet, that is what they ultimately do.

You could replace "exploit" with "use" and it works everywhere without the moral baggage commies love to inject into it.

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

King Hassy

@Sean Ryno When the alternative of not working results in your whole family starving - that is not a voluntary choice. If people had the tools necessary to reap their own labour and they STILL willingly chose to work for the capitalists then it would be voluntary. The conditions necessary for Capitalist products are simply not through voluntary actions.

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

(LCW)   The observation is so simplistic as to be ignorant. Why is the business even there? Why not you, or someone like you, there to create a competitive entity? What would these people do if the capitalist did not even exist? What did they do before the capitalist made his presence known? Every example seems to suggest that everything was working according to plan before the presence of the evil capitalist.

I think it more legitimate to say that the workers could exist without them, but their vision for the future was one where they wished to possess more ‘capital’ and ‘wealth’ and they saw the capitalist as someone they could use to their own interests, which was often a bad bet.

I am not saying it is a simple process, but you present it, once again, as an either/or choice, a black or white option, when there are many variations and alternatives, and you are not willing to investigate the ability and opportunity to do other things. If you wish to refute, start by offering a concrete and well-documented example. You place all of the responsibility on the capitalist, and none whatsoever on the worker. I find that more than a little naïve. Individuals often put themselves into positions where they give themselves no options.

If you can show that the ‘capitalist’ manipulates circumstances to bring ‘force’ to bear on these workers, you might have a point, but it would not be a real capitalist, but an unscrupulous opportunist that you describe. There is a difference, even if you are not capable of recognizing one.

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

Sean Ryno

@King Hassy 'Work or starve.' Has been the mantra of humanity and all life, since the beginning.

No one owes you a job. Your ancestors did not need factories they could work at, to buy things making everything luxuriously easy in comparison to their lives.

March off into the jungle and survive. As they did.

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

King Hassy

@Sean Ryno So you can't argue that capitalism is a voluntary transaction. Capitalism is only voluntary when you're the capitalist.

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

(LCW)   Not true in any sense, and you have provided no credible evidence to that end. Present something reasonable. Please stop presenting dictums that are less than an opinion. They sound good when in a liberal or collectivist environment but seem less than legitimate at the moment.

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

Also, of course, work is always necessary, no one is arguing for a labourless society. The point is: capitalism is a system of "be exploited or starved." If you don't make a capitalist profit (aren't exploited) you're simply fired and have to starve anyways. A society in which labour own the tools necessary to perform their own work and thus get the full benefits of their own labour.

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

(LCW)   Their, their, their. If everything is about them, then they, with your help, should do what is necessary for themselves to be independent of the big, bad capitalist. It is not the responsibility of the capitalist, in any way, to provide anything at all to the worker. He supplies the job, the tools ‘necessary’ to complete the task he is hiring you for, and for the wage that is a contract.

If there is anything that you do not like, then it is in your power to walk away. Not to say it will be easy, but no one is holding a gun to your head. If they are, then we are having a vastly different discussion. That would be slavery, by the way. Your family is going to starve? What did you do yesterday when the capitalist did not exist? When there was no bad job, no bad pay, and no bad paradigm? What did you do then? This is a question that simply has to be answered.

I dislike and disavow many of the same capitalists that you speak of, but, of course, in my reality, they are not considered true capitalists, being more parasitic and devoid of philosophy and morality than anything else, but they either exist, or they don’t, and the powers that allow that existence is the sole reason for the reality of that perverted capitalistic version, to begin with. Go somewhere else and create a new paradigm.

Start a revolution. Compete with the capitalist. Kill yourself. Stop complaining. Who is supposed to do this for you? God? Gaia? Black magic? Some knight on a white horse? Where does reality fit into your narrative? You don’t identify the causes, and you have no alternatives except some vague collective that has never existed in any real way that was successful in any valid respect.

Is this all just a dream for you? You seem to embrace a fantasy world. That is why many people exist only for the afterlife, where some religious entity also promises them an environment where all will be taken care of, again, with no input or effort or responsibility or obligation on your part. It is an irrational paradigm that continues to resurface in different forms throughout history.

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

King Hassy

Not only would this eliminate the immense concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. Such concentrated power controls almost every part of our lives, it is dangerous to individual liberties and corrupts almost every democratic system around the world. If you want to make a libertarian argument of "voluntary exchange" (which is actually false), this is a much better argument for a more liberated society.

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

(LCW)   What is this obsession with the accumulation of wealth? If there is an illegitimate reason for said wealth, then the overriding system of authority is to blame, not the system of capitalism or even the capitalist themselves or any individual or group. Their intentions may not be appropriate, but nothing is done without the knowledge and consent of those in political power.

Are you trying to insinuate that the accumulation of wealth is not a ‘danger’ to individuals in collectivist, authoritarian, totalitarian, and dictatorial environments? It’s a fairly self-evident reality. What does the collective do to prevent the same danger within their ideologies? Please don’t insult my intelligence. What you say has no value, no substance, no validity. Individuals ‘collect’ wealth within the competing paradigms, but there is no legitimacy involved in the action, while capitalism allows a valid and credible path, albeit a difficult one, to ‘earned’ and ‘legitimate’ wealth.

Corruption has no morality, no ideology, and only a highly damaged philosophy. As always, there is no alternative presented, only the condemnation of something that in reality works better than any of the other choices that have become available throughout history.

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

Sean Ryno

@King Hassy of course it's voluntary. If it's not voluntary, it's not capitalism.

Your ancestors did not need an employer to not starve. You are not entitled to a job. Your ancestors survived off the land without the need for factories or capitalist employers making everything easier for them.

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

(LCW)   Or you died. The price paid for failure in the past was death. Not particularly fair, but certainly equitable. Thus, the belief in might makes right. That way, no morality or philosophy was necessary. What the collectivist argues is false on almost every level, or at least impractical, and, as reiterated incessantly, is a matter of force.

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

You do own the tools to do your own work. The tool is your body. The work is your labor.

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

(LCW)   Your tools are indeed your body, and more importantly, your mind. Your creativity, your intelligence, your insight, your innovation, and especially your philosophy, your ethical actions, your morality, your character, your integrity. All of these things are your tools, and your weapons as well, to fight back against all of those things that you say are being perpetrated against all of these beleaguered victims.

If they have none of these attributes, how can you argue the right to more benefits or better conditions? If the individual has no intrinsic value, of what value in their labour? How do you justify giving them the fruits of their labour when you have no evidence that the labour is anything more than just brute force?

If what they offer is nothing more than what can be found from any other individual or even an animal, just how much ‘value’ can you expect that ‘labour’ to be worth? To be valuable, you must have something that someone else acknowledges and desires, or it is nothing but ‘want’ and ‘need’ dressed up as something that sounds more legitimate, but is not.

I understand the concept of need that is bandied about, but there is an insinuation of ‘deserve’ when promoting the ownership of the individual to the fruits of their labour. A person only deserves what they earn, and in a capitalistic environment, you have to, first of all, earn what you actually, physically produce and if no more, there should be no expectation that there is additional value. Even if you do create an excess of value, it must be defined and quantified, none of this mystical collectivist mumbo-jumbo. There must be an agreement at some point if there are to be any additional compensations given. If not, then the only decision is to remain in the position, or not.

I, for example, worked in many positions where my activities saved the company or the customer mucho dinero, and yet there was never any ‘tip’ or compensation, as exists in much of the service industries. I had a salary, and there was no suggestion that there would be anything else, and there never was. I certainly felt that I ‘deserved’ something in that vein, but never really expected it. It was not a part of my agreement. Under certain circumstances, there were bonuses, such as at Christmas, or an increase in salary, but it was not of my making, and I never expected it to be thus. There was no agreement to that end. Where does this desire, no, this demand for more come from? I find it to be irrational.

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

No one who wants to be taken seriously uses the ill-defined word "exploit". Such a stupid word. I could replace it with "use" and it makes more sense without the moral buzzword BS.

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

(LCW)   The use of the word exploit is simply a device to gain the upper hand in an argument, and the need to feel superior when you have little else with which to prove your point. It really has little bearing in the environment of a reasoned argument, since it is difficult to define, in context, and almost impossible to prove.

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

Sean Ryno

@King Hassy if you don't like capitalists controlling your life then stop buying their s*** and stop working for them. That's all it takes. No capitalist has or could threaten individual liberties more than the state.

Democracy is immoral. It's the tyranny of the majority. I am absolutely not "pro-democracy".
I don't think you have the first clue as to what libertarianism is.

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

(LCW)   We could put any commercial entity, such as Apple, out of business in a matter of days. Can I make an inconvenient point here? Apple is demonstrably an exploiter on a global level, and an integral part of that infamous ‘1%’, and yet all of these collectivists, with few exceptions, fill their lives with their products.

In any case, if we made the ‘sacrifice’ (socialist jargon) to not work for them, and refused to buy their product, they would be frantic in a couple of days, be having huge sales in a week, and out of business soon after. But they won’t do that, even with the label of hypocrisy around their necks, so the status quo will remain, possibly forever, until the level of moral and ethical thought, in conjunction with actions of integrity bring about the changes that we seek.

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

King Hassy

@Sean Ryno I like how you frame democracy as a "tyranny of the majority", you know what's much worse? The Tyranny of a hand full of people. That is the ultimate result of Capitalism. As a libertarian, you should at least be anti-capitalist. Think of the immoral atrocities committed in eras of unregulated capitalism in the 1800s and early 1900. How can you support such concentrated wealth in the name of libertarianism? Do you think the only form of power imposed on an individual is governmental?

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

(LCW)   I can’t say that I agree it’s ‘much’ worse, but I certainly agree that it’s not a good thing. What’s your point? So you are in full agreement of a tyranny of the majority, but draw the line at a tyranny of the few? That dog don’t hunt.

And just for the record, that is not the result of capitalism, what an ignorant and irrational statement. It is the result of corruption, opportunism, statism, liberalism, and way too many individuals and especially collectivists that are devoid of philosophy, ethics, morality, and integrity.

I don’t want to make this an aggressive conflict. I actually agree with you but recognize that the problems you present are not representative of capitalism at all. The immoral atrocities did indeed happen, and I condemn every last one of them if done without regard for the principles outlined in Objectivism. This was not the fault of capitalism.

Concentrated wealth may have facilitated it, but it was, and always is, reprehensible individuals that have no connection to capitalism. They used the system as a weapon, and could not have done so without the full agreement and cooperation of corrupt political representation. We need, together, to do something to change that paradigm, but socialism, from my perspective, does not have the chance of that proverbial snowball in hell, of making any appreciable difference in any way. If anything, I see an exponentially worse eventuality.

The atrocities, while perhaps legitimate historical events, as stated, had nothing to do with capitalism, and you will not be able to prove anything of the sort, no matter how long you make the attempt. There is simply no connection between events and the system, but an overwhelming amount of evidence exists for connections between corporate and political influences and parasites of corruption and of the worst examples of self-serving intent and action. Please feel free to show different.

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

Sean Ryno

@King Hassy the state has committed far worse atrocities.

I think that corporations aren't taking any of my income. They aren't threatening me with prison for smoking marijuana. And unlike the state, no corporation or capitalist is forcing me with threats of violence to be its "customer".
Unregulated capitalism is capitalism. Regulated capitalism is NOT capitalism.

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

(LCW)   I am afraid that no amount of repetition will attract their attention. Their whole lives lived to this point are predicated on the tired and demonstrably false positions they hold. Whatever would they do if they had to start over?

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

King Hassy

@Sean Ryno of course the state can commit atrocities, that's not an argument and has nothing to do with whether unregulated capitalism also commits atrocities. As a libertarian you should ultimately be against concentrated power because of how it can be used, you should worry less about if capitalism is regulated or not and instead worry about whether it is centralized or decentralized. And the problem with capitalist accumulation is that it ultimately prefers to be centralized in order to maximize exploitation.

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

(LCW)   We can see that your interpretations are not going to be resolved without more therapy. The problem is that while you are right in most of your assessments, it still is irrational and false to point to capitalism as the culprit. It is simply lazy reasoning that allows you to continue to make capitalism the scapegoat.

So you admit that the state is capable of atrocities, as are individuals. You then speak of unregulated capitalism, but that leaves the question of who directs the dance. It ultimately reverts to the state. If they were not getting their appreciable ‘cut’, the ‘unregulated’ environment would cease to exist. Do you not understand that?

This deregulation is not a natural occurrence within a state structure, especially since the state is tasked with the protection of the population, and if the state players get nothing, why would they not do what they swore to do upon election? You could say that they are incompetent idiots, and you will get no argument from me, but not so incompetent, and probably not complete idiots. They have shown themselves resourceful at fulfilling their own personal ‘selfish’ interests repeatedly, over time, even with the turnover that occurs.

You’ll notice that I did not say ‘rational self-interest’? These atrocities are not happening in a vacuum either. It is a direct, and fully consensual relationship between people devoid of philosophy and integrity. It has nothing to do with the system. The system does not promote or require any of these atrocities for it to work. In fact, the system works irrefutably better without them, but not to the extent that these ‘few’ are able to enjoy.

Capitalist accumulation does not ‘ultimately prefer’ to be centralized to maximize exploitation. It’s amazing that you anthropomorphize an economic system to your own ends. If it prefers centralization, it is only through the efforts of the corrupt individuals that direct it through the efforts of the state. Your paradigm is so faulty that it ceases to hold any validity whatsoever. Some of what you see exists, but as it gets more theoretical, you seem to lose control completely. You don’t see the big picture, so you paint a fabricated reality with your own finger-paints.

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

Joyful Savage

@Ben Berzai Thanks for your insights. It's always sad when people make comments conflating laissez-faire capitalism with criminal activity and then say "See, it doesn't work!!". Sadly, most peoples’ economic IQs are nonexistent.

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

(LCW)   That’s one way of putting it. It’s called creating a strawman, and if only their critical thinking was on the same level, it might be possible to address some of these issues. They keep blaming capitalism when it is not the source of the problem, thereby never addressing or resolving the actual source of the issue.

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

antrim

@King Hassy There is no point arguing with them, they define capitalism as some vague “voluntary” exchange system and fail to see how economic systems developed throughout the course of history. By their definition capitalism is the natural order of things, the Neanderthals were capitalists and their stone tools were their capital.

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

(LCW)   Not surprisingly, I disagree heartily. This is not a matter of an economic system developing through the course of history, it is rather the continuation of a perverted and destructive segment of society that is not releasing the system to work properly, due in large part to those very same individuals that condemn capitalism, wrongly, for the problem in the first place.

These ‘humanistic’ problems existed long before capitalism was even conceptualized, and will remain as long as not addressed properly. Blaming capitalism and fantasizing about the replacement with socialism as some magical cure will only result in a system even easier to manipulate with even more oppressive power structures than the last.

No one is even considering thinking outside the box, except perhaps those that look to Objectivism. Not looking for any support from our collectivist friends, they are hopelessly mired in some modern version of the swamp. They may at some point realize their folly, but it will not be until after the rest of us have paid the price. That’s too bad.

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

antrim

@Sean Ryno A socio-economic system with generalized commodity production, privately-owned property, and a class of labourers who sell their own labour for a wage. Private property has existed since the Neolithic Revolution so I don't think those people had what we call today "capitalism". If I stop selling myself for a wage "voluntarily" I will soon find myself on welfare checks or had I lived during the Gilded Age I would starve to death.

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

(LCW)   Why do all of these comments have to reference events of hundreds or even thousands of years ago to try and bring legitimacy to their positions? Can we not talk about the realities we live with today, right now?

So your interpretation of history is that we have all been virtual slaves since the beginning of time, with no free will, and no capabilities whatsoever besides what can be exploited by the …. who, if at one time there were not even any capitalists? My question would be, as it so often is, what then is your alternative? I simply cannot accept your position. Overly simplistic and vague.

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

Antrim

@Sean Ryno My car isn’t private property, it’s my personal property. You realize you still own things under socialism you’re just not trying to extract a profit from them. The US has one of the lowest rates of relative upward mobility in the West and incomes have been stagnating ever since the 80s, there is such a thing as class and we’re living in a class society. If you think everyone should become a subsistence farmer and live off the land then that’s great, but the economy collapses.

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

(LCW)   Couple of points here, but I am confident you are not going to like them. There is no real distinction between private and personal property. Your car has value whether you are trying to produce one, or sell one, or use it for your own interests. There is no intrinsic difference. Profit comes in many guises. That car you point to saves you time, effort, and money if you are going to work, or shopping, or taking a vacation. If no car, then you have to pay someone else to accomplish the same task. In this case, you are virtually working for yourself. Do not fool yourself, intrinsic value exists in everything. If not, we call it ‘garbage’.

It is interesting that you point to the stagnating incomes since the ’80s. I’ve been here, and I’ve been watching. That stagnation and even lowering of income, value, jobs, and opportunity, ironically enough, started with the ascension of the collectivist paradigm in our society’s political and economic systems. It is so easy, and lazy, to once again blame something on capitalism that is arguably coming from another source.

It is not capitalism, but those same disreputable opportunists that I often reference, that see this and are doing what they can to address and make the changes to continue to ‘exploit’ and create an environment where they can continue to ‘rape’ the system for as long as possible. You don’t even recognize that your own actions are a primary component of their ‘need’ to do so. If it were not so tragic, I would think it amusing. If it was not impacting me in such a negative way, I would be of the opinion that you deserve it, but the rest of us don’t.

Not sure what your point is, but property is property. The socialist gets to keep their property because nobody wants it, and most of it is necessary to get you to go to work for your master. The U.S. has one of the lowest rates of upward mobility because of the very existence of the liberal and collective mindset that is preventing the ability of capitalism to work and has done nothing to repair and revolutionize the concept of capitalism itself.

There has never been any effort but to deconstruct capitalism, and never any intent to try and fix a system that was designed to evolve, as opposed to something like socialism that is rooted in dogma and total regulation of the system. Just look at the liberal aspects of our own political reality. Thousands of programs that simply do not work, do not produce the desired results, result in skyrocketing costs, and are creating a completely unsustainable burden for the future. The irony is that all of this wasted ‘wealth’ could have gone to helping those same people that you declare ‘need’ our compassion and empathy. Do you really think that this is going to change under a paradigm that will look only for more of the same, as it diminishes the capabilities and resources available to a capitalistic environment? Pure insanity.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the main reason that we are not all subsistence farmers as we speak is because of the existence of capitalism, no other reason. Who suggested that we all become farmers, besides you? At one time, farming was almost the only thing you could do. You present no comprehensive position in your remarks.

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

dcgregorya

While I agree "any system is corrupted by a corrupt state" we cannot discuss economics in a vacuum without the existence of government. Capitalism lends itself to some problems just as socialism lends itself to some problems and with capitalism, it usually takes the form of government-sanctioned exploitation. With socialism, it takes the form of state-led civil liberties violations. When implementing any system careful thought needs to be given on how to control the state.

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

(LCW)   This is true, we cannot discuss economics without the existence of government, but we can talk of what the capitalists and Objectivists speak of, which is a greatly diminished presence of that part of government that is preoccupied with getting votes which are not in the best interests of the people that they swore to serve and protect, but to further personal and ideological objectives.

They have involved themselves, at this point in time, with more that is not their purview than what ‘is’ their responsibility and obligation. It’s as simple as that. No one is looking to abolish the state. We need it, but in moderation, and as a servant to the people and not a master, as it is within socialism. This is a fundamental premise of the Libertarian, the Capitalist, and the Objectivist. The collectivist cannot say the same.

I’m sorry to correct you but capitalism is ‘not’, and will never be state-sanctioned exploitation. That exploitation only happens in the presence of completely illegitimate players that ‘allow’ this exploitation to happen with their complete knowledge and willing cooperation. It is treasonous in nature and should be considered as such. Perhaps if we stood some of these vermin up against the wall it just might put an end to said corruption.

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

Patrick Flanagan

"Systems" are only ever as moral as the individuals within them who have a certain power of decision. The best "system" is therefore that which offers the most transparent and diverse decision-making process, so as to minimize potential individual tyranny and exploitation.

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

(LCW)   Thank you, thank you, and thank you. This needs to be repeated till it hurts. It is never the system, but the inappropriate players. If the individuals are good, the system and the results are usually good as well. With the reverse being irrefutably true as well. Unintended mistakes possibly, but at least not strategic and intentional undermining of the system and the philosophy.

The system may in fact be a facilitator as well, but that can be rectified with appropriate actions. Instead, we have this incessant rant from those that want to go a radical route, irrespective if the result is self-destruction. One has to ask, as I do at times if this is not the ultimate goal, to begin with? Many have said it is, a number of them being well ensconced in the communist mindset, which has been successful in history, not in producing benefit, but in the complete takeover of societies, to their detriment. Something to think about.

This discussion with the socialists today provided no transparency, and it certainly does not champion any diverse decision-making process, which is why I continue to have concerns as to the viability and legitimacy of the philosophy.

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

Van Zyl Kevin

Ok but now I disagree with Binswanger, welfare is a strong motivational factor in who people vote for, at least in South Africa. I think he overestimates the general population's understanding of welfare and economics. You give a family welfare money and they vote for you, it's that simple until the money runs out of course.

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

(LCW)   I found his comment to be quite illogical and impractical as well, and I have supported much of what he had to say. While it might be an optimum outcome, to have people vote for a system that gives them freedom and opportunity, I fear that whatever zeitgeist existed at the time of our founding, the expectations of our populace today are in no way similar to that of the 18th century.

I find it almost incomprehensible for someone to suggest that any significant number of individuals would vote, today, to abolish or diminish the welfare system. We see this today, as a result of pandemic mandates just in the unemployment benefits with the result that millions of people found it advantageous to them alone, selfishly, to remain on the dole because they made the same or only relatively less, which made the decision difficult to pass up.

This is not to say that many were indeed impacted to an extreme degree and needed assistance. It would have been political suicide not to do something to alleviate the problem short-term, but, as usual, it was handled as if by mindless bureaucrats, which in truth is all they really are. It was not the right thing for the country, and that did not seem to sway the recipients. I don’t blame them. They will never do so without some ‘guarantee’ to future benefits and environment, which probably could never be done, therefore negating any chance for that rational vote. He was way off base with that comment.

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

Donde Merlin

51:00 This guy makes some very valid and rock-solid points...about the need for govt. to not use force of any kind against the people, unless unlawful.

But....he is the same guy who mounted this position throughout the world in virtually all of the twentieth century and they really did not stop govt. intruding into the lives of others at all.

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

(LCW)   The problem is that this guy is a scholar and a philosopher, a single voice in an ocean of thunderous silence. What power do you believe he has in making anyone, even if they agree with him, to do anything other than what they want to do? Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't remember him being the President at any point, or even hold any office whatsoever. He mounted this position throughout the world? I think you may have taken a step over the line with that comment.

Perhaps we need more academics in politics, but my experience is that doesn’t work very well either. I don’t have an answer. Government does what it wants, responding only to specific pressures brought about, sometimes from outside of government, but moreso from within. Notwithstanding the corruptive and perverted symbiosis between the state and corporate America.

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

Capitalism seems to be a bunch (small percentage throughout) of selfish people who use politics and money to attempt to persuade all the rest of us that they have it down.

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

(LCW)   That, I think, is an appropriate way of interpreting history. The problem is that we let them, either because we agree with them, feel completely impotent, which we probably are, or are incapable of critical thought, which seems to be a prevailing reality, even though we are superficially the most educated and literate society of all time.

I appreciate that you at least acknowledge that this results from the actions and intentions of a very small percentage of individuals. The only solace I have is that it is indeed a very small group of players, but the power they wield is overwhelming, so it may be somewhat unrealistic to think that we will eventually figure out a way to confront this. Don’t waste too much time speaking of the systems involved. This small group is the essence of the problem, and if not addressed, will continue to dictate our futures. They are the problem and it must be resolved before any evolution is possible.

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

Socialism is another small group of people promising they will make things well and then implement something else. Both in their present state fail us.

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

Curt Bressler

1:41:13 - note that during his rebuttal, Binswanger brings up people in hospitals - 1:42:30 - and that people are suffering where qualified people could help them.

Capitalism has created a HEALTH INSURANCE scam where those people who could save are hindered by the INSURANCE COMPANIES that have a stranglehold on the ability to perform their duties.

This capitalization of skills and resources has placed the profit motive over the health of the patient.

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

(LCW)   You seem to recognize one of the problems but at the same time exhibit an absence of understanding of what causes it. I just disagree with Binswanger, even though throughout this experience I tend to agree with him more than not. I am not confident that I understand what he meant by that comment, but I would disagree that he is an advocate of the healthcare system as it stands. I may be wrong, but his comments on getting government out of our lives to an extreme extent, I would believe that he sees these people not getting care specifically because of the intrusion of government in not allowing appropriate competition between companies that would inevitably bring down costs, not to mention allowing competition with pharmaceuticals from other countries, etc.

I completely agree with you that insurance companies are a huge obstacle to a redefinition of our objectives within the healthcare paradigm, but we also live in a hugely litigious society, and that competition could reasonably result in death and complications within the industry. Would you be open to reducing the culpability for companies that sell these under-regulated products to produce lower costs?

As I have repeatedly said, we need to look at the ‘big-picture’ and make hard decisions. Those that wish to keep the status quo legally have to realize that would be the beginning of the end for all healthcare. I have no idea the extent, but malpractice is a considerable component of the costs of almost everything in America. It would be interesting if someone had some objective comparisons on the subject. Nothing is as simple as it seems. Nothing.

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

Darko Vignjevic

I enjoyed this exchange and I did my best to take it all in while keeping in mind the zeitgeist of the time this exchange took place. As someone well pointed out in the comments, things like morality, ethics, etc. should not be dictated or preached by any single entity no matter what form it takes but be allowed to evolve and develop naturally, organically and in parallel with our societal and technological development.

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

(LCW)   The problem being that this is virtually impossible due to the diversity of thought and ability that exists in the society. People are only marginally informed, and much of that is not legitimate. It sounds wonderful, to develop naturally and organically, but the number of pressures, real and manufactured are simply too much for most to assimilate and comprehend.

I don’t think that it is the preaching of morality by any specific source, but the fact that morality has to be a studied response, and not just some knee-jerk reaction to some out of context information or propaganda, and the ability to differentiate these things is becoming more and more complex and difficult to parse.

To evolve naturally is a vague concept, as is societal development, with an infinite number of interpretations and assertions. I think something more specific is required, and that invites a number of other challenges. How do we teach philosophy when neither state nor private education can be relied on to do the appropriate thing, which begs the question as to ask what is it that we believe as a nation, as a people. If there is no identity, there can be no focus on the education required to reach a level of competence in the realm of comprehension of the philosophy.

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

The government and the way it is structured and operates is no more than a tool. As such its purpose, authority and legitimacy are defined and given by the society that shapes it.

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that is a valid statement anymore. Perhaps it was at some point, but I am not even sure of that. You’ll notice that the main impediment to there being some consensus in this society are the actions of the government itself. They are directly responsible for the divisions and diversions that we experience, and the probability is that this will not change any time soon.

This is good for the political realities of those political players but does nothing for the individual on the street. Again, is this by chance, and incompetence, or by strategic design? I think we fool ourselves if we think these ‘parties’ compete with one another to help our interests. It may be more a competition or even a cooperative effort to control us. Evil, and hatred, and power, are mindless compulsions and obsessions that very few can resist.

I realize that many say that we vote for and deserve the government that we support. I tend to be skeptical that this is true. If we are being allowed rational and objective information upon which to make decisions that may or may not be possible we have to ask just who defines rational and again, who defines objective?

We have a national constituency that is woefully undereducated about almost everything about the founding and running of the country itself, we have incompetent representation, when not outright corrupt, and to make a reasonable decision under these circumstances, it would seem irrational to think we can do better. I like to think it was at some point possible, but I find myself without confidence in my own words.

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

I am of the opinion that the government (in the present day) should be modified as to simply serve as a regulatory body with the mandate to maintain equilibrium by enforcing, removing, adding, modifying and updating laws and regulations which are created and agreed upon by society as a whole through consensus.

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

(LCW)   I completely concur, with the problem being that those in power will never acquiesce and ‘voluntarily’ do what you suggest. A catch twenty-two if ever there was one. We need to fix the system. Only the system can fix itself. The system refuses to fix itself. The system remains in need of fixing. Good luck with that.

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

It seems to me that in these types of debates there is this constant need to somehow justify one economic or governance system by trying to define "human nature" by splitting a whole into 2. I will be so bold as to say all humans are aware by default that we are both all individuals with our own hopes, dreams, goals, thought's, etc. but at the same time a social animal with a deep need to form relationships with others for various reasons.

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

(LCW)   If I may, while I fully agree with the comment, the fact is that socialism seems to suggest that we are not individuals, and collectivism states that we must exist for the state, or the greater good, whichever you prefer. They do not believe or accept the concept of the individual. It is anathema to their ideology and their philosophy. How does that play out in your position? They only allow one way to have that relationship that you speak of.

Capitalism, or at least Objectivism, believes in such a paradigm. Acknowledges the need for relationships and encourages them, but in an environment devoid of coercion, using only rational self-interest and mutual agreement to achieve mutual benefit. And fully promotes a different kind of collective, a community, where cooperation is an amalgam of individuals of like-mind that work towards, dare I say, mutual benefit through mutual agreement. I find that calming and reasonable. Our collectivist and liberal friends do not.

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

Apologies if I sound like captain obvious or a preachy prick, but that is not my intent. What I am ultimately getting at is that in order for us to achieve or overcome anything both as individuals and as a society as parts of a whole it is imperative to embrace and facilitate change and not resist it. Lastly, how come nobody ever seems to point out the difference between private and personal property?

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

(LCW)   I see nothing of the sort. I find your comments reasonable and desirable. Maybe a bit impractical under the current political climate in our society, but admirable just the same. It gives me hope as to the number that agrees, as opposed to those that just want to destroy and build something new from the ashes, like the proverbial phoenix, but I fear that they have no real direction, no template, and this will end in utter devastation for even more of us than are disadvantaged today, not just in America but around the globe.

We cannot embrace change for changes’ sake. That is simply another road to self-destruction. Who gets to decide? The tyranny of the democracy is inarguable, as is the tyranny of the dictator, in whatever form. Who then decides?

No one points out the differences between private and personal property because there is none. There certainly is between public and private property, but I find it difficult to find a definitive difference between the two. I think the distinction that is wanted between private and personal is so as to have an opportunity to make the case, which I have not seen to date, that private property can be owned by the ‘state’ or the ‘greater good’ while reserving personal property for the individual. I have commented on the two previously. Personal property ends up as what no other person would be interested in possessing.

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

palladin331

I think you mean private and public property. All property is both. One wants a system that protects private property. One also wants a system that openly and democratically distributes massive accumulations of wealth and uses it for the good of the whole society. Ayn Rand viciously attacked the latter. She considered a dollar of tax going toward maintaining a public road as theft and coercion. Sociopath? No, she was a psychopath.

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

(LCW)   The comment was almost worth a response, even though there is little agreement. Notwithstanding the ad-hominem attacks, the incentive just doesn’t exist. You just look silly. What an interesting combination of ignorance and intellect.

I have seen no one to this point, make any reasonable argument that massive ‘accumulations’ of wealth are in any way inappropriate, or why. Rand never attacked, viciously or otherwise, anything remotely related to the good of the whole society. I would argue that everything she suggested would result in nothing ‘but’ good for that society. She believed that confiscation and coercion were ‘not’ good for society, and opposed anything that resulted in harm to any individual, which also infers the society as a whole, which is the paradigm in which the individual exists.

Any tax is perhaps not a theft, but the argument can certainly be made. Do you deny other individuals the right to their own opinions, or does that concept even exist in the socialist mindset? But taxes are certainly a coercion, and since the socialists believe in, not a democratic republic, but ‘direct’ democracy, does that not demand that every single tax imposed will be through that direct vote of the people? When this Utopian paradigm exists, and there are no ‘wealthy’ left to point to, who is going to pay for these things? Will we have to sacrifice something we already receive to make the payments, or will everything simply be from a land of milk and honey?

Calling someone that has actually accomplished creating a comprehensive philosophical ideology a psychopath is more than a little ignorant and illegitimate. Since we are not in the need to prove our points, perhaps we could characterize you in the same vein? At least she was more than articulate in her observations.

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

Max D

Someone needs to claim the surface mineral rights located where this capitalist clown lives. After all, per his own thinking, just because it's his land doesn't mean he owns the resources within it. Rubbish.

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

(LCW)   Certainly you could have made the same point in a more mature manner, and called him out, considering his own comments. I would have been interested to hear what he might have to say since there is an argument to be made. Your choice of words and delivery negates much of the validity of your statement.

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

Bleep Bloop

@Max D I was going to say, I wonder what his opinion would be if China started opening mines and fracking sites wherever they could locate them on U.S. soil. Should be completely fair game by his reasoning.

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

(LCW)   I think we all know that is not what he meant. He made a statement that begs to be defended, but your example is a complete absurdity.

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

Molly Walts

Capitalists, in the context of this debate, claim no right to use force yet those making that claim believe it is perfectly reasonable to force an entire society to give up the oil “they only walk on but never utilize”. Certainly a basic hypocrisy of their system.

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

(LCW)   I do not agree with their assertion either, but no one proposed the use of force in any case which is only a figment of your imagination. His failure to create a more substantial and coherent observation is obvious, but you still offer nothing of value or substance in relation to the debate itself.

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

There was no answer to the question of what becomes of those unable to earn capital for their own survival, either. The attempt to turn this question into a negative practice of socialistic ideals was low and untrue.

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

(LCW)   The question was inappropriate since the same kind of questions have been asked repeatedly with no response from the socialist camp. I have yet to hear, at any time, and in any venue, what the socialists will do for the same people. The response is invariably some vague reference to simply giving them free health-care. This is a dishonest answer.

Everything is so simple and condescending. All will pay for all. No specifics, no examples, no defense of the coercion, no explanation of the loss of liberty and choice, no response as to how this democracy is going to work, no specificity as to the morality of the whole ideology. Nothing but innuendo and condemnation of capitalism when the answer should be defining and explaining their own Utopian vision of socialism. I see only an attempt at destruction, not even a feeble attempt at building on whatever is their great vision for the future.

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

Bill Scannell

The best society will leave people alone to live their lives unless they request help, or harm someone else. There will be no state-sponsored religion. Little to no emphasis will be put on patriotism, given our understanding, from science, of our world's place in the cosmos, and the similarity and common origin of all people. Citizens will be encouraged to think of themselves, and everyone else (including animals), as "Earthians."

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

(LCW)   It was sounding fairly reasonable until you inserted the ‘Earthians’ label. You speak of the cosmos and then change the perspective to our little planet. Philosophy should if properly understood, direct us to act appropriately. Not to put it in religious terms, but to treat others as you would wish to be treated. It’s really that simple. Investigate and discover ethical and moral concepts. Live them through your own integrity. Try to understand others through empathy. Respect everyone that respects you. Be the best person that you can be. Or not.

As long as you continue to make groups, there will be a patriotism on one flavor or another. I find it interesting that there will be no state-sponsored religion, which just happens to be the impetus behind our own Constitution since England demanded that every citizen be a dues-paying member of the Church of England. There should also be no state-sponsored economy, educational system, or healthcare system, and yet here we are.

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

Doug Spray

Capitalism traditionally has been based on greed, exploitation, and racism in colonial countries. If people who had wealth behaved morally the system would have a better profile - normally wealthy people indulge themselves. With the current inequality of wealth, surely a corrective socialist tax system is necessary.

Multi-Nationals act in the best interests of their shareholders, is this in the best interest of the planet and the appalling poverty which still exists on the planet? Also, they don't pay tax with tax havens. Come on Capitalism needs reigning in with more regulations.

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

(LCW)   It’s a bit frustrating, but let’s try this once again. Capitalism has nothing to do with greed. It is not specified in any writings about the concept, not promoted, and not wanted. Greed is an aspect of human nature that needs to be controlled, like so many other components of your personality. Actually, greed is something that is not even a problem if you are not ‘hurting’ another in any way to achieve it.

Whether you would target and pursue such an end is a personal matter. If you obsess on money, it is your right to do so, and if you do not hurt another in that pursuit, I fail to see the problem. I would neither promote nor even suggest that it is a ‘preferred’ life goal, but I don’t make those kinds of decisions for others. I do not judge, and I do not condemn based on my own perspective, but on the actions taken, and if inappropriate, I will judge accordingly. I don’t understand why anyone would do anything else.

You say that ‘surely a corrective socialist tax system is necessary’. Why the imperative of a ‘socialist’ one? Is there anything besides what ‘you’ envision? We already have half the population not paying any taxes at all, and the top 10% pay almost 90% of the taxes. What exactly is it that you seek, besides some sugar daddy that will accept all of the responsibilities of life that you refuse? Is anything less than 100% amenable to you? Or do you wish even more than that 100%? That is pure, unadulterated insanity.

In any case, the greed of which you speak is not an integral part of capitalism, but the damaged and possibly irrational actions of an individual that possibly ‘deserves’ your compassion and empathy and concern more than your condemnation and derision.

It is much the same with exploitation. Nowhere will you find any proponent of capitalism, and in no text will it be offered as an expectation, for any that may study capitalism, to exploit workers or resources. This is another personal affliction of the human condition, and difficult to explain why anyone would do something so irrational. Objectivism addresses issues such as these on a continuous basis. I have yet to hear anything responsible or specific from our collectivist and socialistic colleagues. Not to mention our liberal segment of society. It is important not only to recognize and identify these things but to contemplate and comprehend how they can be circumvented without the initiation of that ‘force’ that we keep referencing. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Capitalism encompasses every race that has ever existed. Capitalism does not embrace racism in any form. The system is not a reasoned entity. It cannot think, and it does not act of its own volition. Anyone who thinks so has bigger problems than capitalism. Any racism that may exist in connection with capitalism, again, comes from the individual that is damaged and does not understand the ‘rational’ demands of being human or using capitalism. This seems so self-evident to me, that those that might disagree are relevant only in the fact that they hurt others with their insane thoughts and actions.

I appreciate that you acknowledge that ‘If people who had wealth behaved morally the system would have a better profile’. Truer words were never spoken, but you do so only in relation to capitalism when it is a universal observation and loses any legitimacy when in the context of capitalism only. I guess you do not accept or even understand what it is I am trying to present. None of this has any real connection to capitalism at all, but it does, in every instance, connect directly with the study and comprehension of philosophy.

You continue with a comment about the overindulgence of the wealthy. Have you ever overindulged in anything at all in ‘your’ life? A drink perhaps, or a pile of fries? Do you just simply die for cake or pie, and I am sure you know that many people who are not poor simply cannot control themselves if you are talking ‘chocolate’. Eating, sex, exercise, control, money, these are all things that anyone can take to a level that is unhealthy. But do not let your envy and irrational hatred of these people cloud your perspective. People who overindulge have a problem, and the wealthy are no different, although it certainly seems that we find it easy to condemn and even hate those individuals.

What about those that overindulge in alcohol and drugs. Are they as evil as those wealthy? Or are they only the victim of some disease? Is not greed and wealth a symptom of a disease? The disease of ego, and envy, of overindulgence and irrational behaviour? Do you have no compassion for these ‘victims’, no empathy, no wish to help them to become more normal, more like you, and what you believe is the right way to act? Do you understand what I am saying? You are throwing the first stones, and have no shame or even recognize what that means.

There is no ‘inequality of wealth’ in the same way there is no inequality of height or weight or intelligence or ‘luck’. Inequality exists, and you will never find a way to change the reality, short of a totalitarian or dictatorial environment, and even then, it will never be equal, just oppressive. The inequalities will still exist, but they will not be acknowledged or realized. To think otherwise is not just irrational, it is the epitome of insanity.

Ill-gotten wealth is another matter altogether. This should be investigated and addressed. I think that may be what really concerns you. If you really want to redistribute wealth, be careful what you wish for, since that demands that anyone that does not have what you have, no matter what it is, from dollars to apples, will have a claim on your life simply because you possess them and they do not. Nothing will be off the table, and nor should it be, with your paradigm. If inequality is the measure, total chaos will be the result.

Ah, corrective measures. Who makes these decisions? This is why I have always embraced freedom, and liberty, which I might add, the collective and the socialists do not ascribe to. We need state, and we need laws, but not to tell us what to do, but only in the sense that people need to know, within society, what we can ‘not’ do. The rest is left up to our own beliefs and philosophy.

The state, and the laws, should be as minimal as we can achieve, with reality as our guide, and with the ability to help others in direct relation to our abilities and philosophy to determine and implement, which gives the obligation to that same state, and to you, to participate in an environment where we teach every member of our society how to increase and develop those abilities, and how to investigate and discover those philosophical fundamentals that will ensure the future that we envision, free from intrusion and oppression, and that pesky ‘initiation of force’ we continually reference.

The Multi-Nationals, as you call them, will continue to act in the best interests of their shareholders, but that really is none of your business, and on some level, I believe that you know that. They are just another entity, like all the others, that make their own decisions, to their own ends. Our only task is to make sure they do not harm another in any tangible way. Otherwise, we have no responsibility, nor authority, to do anything at all.

Even suggesting that we can determine the ‘best interests’ of a planet of almost 8 billion souls is staggering and an impossible mission. Doing the right thing, being the best person we can be, exhibiting the behaviour that best represents that, and bringing up our children to do the same is the only thing we can do.

Hiring competent representation that is honest, and ethical, and moral is the challenge placed before us. To search out individuals of character and integrity to lead us into the future. We need to stop whining and placing blame on impersonal and nonexistent threats such as capitalism. Capitalism, and whatever faults exist, can be fixed if you really want, if you do those things I suggest, and find people with the abilities to confront and accomplish those tasks.

Poverty is a problem, no question, but cannot be legislated. It must be lived, from both perspectives. They need to try, and you need to help, in whatever way you can, in whatever way you decide is in your best interests, as well as theirs. There is no imperative, no need to die for that, but there is an incentive to live to experience the culmination of your efforts.

Tax havens are anathema to equality and to capitalism. Not crony-capitalism perhaps, but the voluntary and rational trade between individuals. Not to corruption by any stretch, but certainly to freedom and liberty and the ability to live by our own decisions. Not to power and oppression by any means, but without a doubt to those that search for peace and harmony. What exactly is it that you wish for? You have not really addressed that point. What are your positions on these things? What would you do, ‘without’ the use of force and coercion, to fix things? Name one person that you would put in charge. How do we get ‘there’ from ‘here’?

I think you are looking for all the right things, or at least some of the right things, in all the wrong places.

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

northstar10

Laissez-faire capitalism is hugely dependant on socialism -----even UBI IS A CORPORATE SUBSIDY WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT ---a man with zero income contributes zero to corporate revenues ---give him 30,000 UBI and he buys goods and services from the corporate sector and all the UBI MONEY ENDS UP IN CORPORATE BANK ACCOUNTS ---lousy politicians like Pelosi and McConnell skip the middle man and just give the money directly to the 1%ers

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

(LCW)   Not a fan of UBI. I understand what you are trying to say, and there is some truth in it. The issue is not the 1%, although they do in fact end up with the money, but they will in any case. The money is going to support those that don’t work. The beauty of the program, for the democrats, is that they get the votes from those that receive the UBI, and then from those 1%ers that you mention who profit from the exchange. I am glad you recognize that most of them are working with the democratic segment of the government, and not the conservative, which seems to be conventional ‘un-wisdom’. But this is not capitalism, it is not socialism, it is not Objectivism, and it is not moral imperatives, so it is not relevant.

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

Julian I

So, I hear the capitalists speak a lot about not having to be forced to sacrifice anything, as that is tyranny over the individual. But your life IS sacrifice, and humans are social beings. Everything relating to the meaning and the values social beings have relates to one single concept - responsibility. Responsibility means personal sacrifice for ideals that we find worthwhile, which are almost always very pro-social.

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

(LCW)   Interesting to hear your opinion, but there is no evidence to what you say. None. And once again, it is not even the concept of sacrifice that is really being discussed, but the issue of forced compliance to the will of an overriding force, rarely accountable for its failures, with little or no ability to be a part of the conversation or the decisions made. And, if you think about it, that is not ‘sacrifice’ either, since you have no say in the matter. It is basically a form of slavery-lite.

I adamantly refuse to accept that life is sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice when I do something that I ‘want’ to do, and it is not a sacrifice when I do something for someone I care about. There is no sacrifice when I return a favour, or when I help someone in need, or when someone asks for assistance. Because I have made a rational decision, one of free will if it can be said, to refute that such a thing as free will is even possible.

I really don’t even recognize the concept of sacrifice, since I do what I decide is appropriate, and resist anything that is not. It is not even a ‘sacrifice’ when I am forced into doing something that I do not wish to do. That is by definition criminality and at its worst, slavery.

Yes, humans are social beings, at least when necessary. They can be when they wish to be, but it is not an imperative, although it seems that mankind does tend to be sociable. How else can you explain all the wars, the pain, and suffering, the total devastation of millions of individuals, except to say that they just want to be sociable? The problem is that they do ‘not’ want to be social with everyone, everywhere, and certainly not ‘all’ the time. So the onus is on you to define what you even mean by the terms.

When the Amish wish to build a barn, they all get together and have a barn-raising party, and the work is irrefutably done more efficiently and quickly. It is a great example of men working together for a common goal, even though it is only a single barn. The expectation exists, that when someone else needs similar assistance, the same group will ‘pitch in’ and work together for that end as well.

But in between, they pretty much like to be left alone, for the most part, and they don’t particularly advertise to help just anyone, except those with like mind and common goals, not to mention religious beliefs. Just how ‘social’ is that? The Right of Association is a fundamental aspect of America. The rest of the world is pretty much in line with that example. The Jews certainly don’t invite the Palestinians over to build a new settlement. It is a false statement to proclaim how social mankind is. It is true, but with so many caveats and exceptions to almost make the statement a farce.

Responsibility is indeed a fundamental aspect of societal interaction, and personal responsibility is without argument of even more significance, although the concept of sacrifice is not intrinsically linked in any verifiable way. The claim that it is in some way a social aspect of our species is also unsubstantiated. What you state is simply an opinion and an indistinct one at that.

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

Also, the capitalists seem to be under the radically inaccurate notion that we are almost totally free from all kinds of conditions of life. That we can just choose to be winners. I can't believe anyone can even think that. EVERY condition of your life has shaped your entire perception, motivations, beliefs, and abilities.

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

(LCW)   I don’t recall that any of the participants said any such a thing. I think, to protect your credibility, some citation as to who said this, and in context when, is necessary. The capitalists, and Objectivism, if truth be told, claim the exact opposite. We are intimately involved with the conditions of life. If you were paying attention during any of the presentations from Mr. Ridpath, for instance, he incessantly talked of the demands of survival of man as a species, and the adjustments that need to be made to realize that survival, which only comes from the actual, existing conditions of life, and not what we wish those conditions to be, but the objective recognition of what they ‘are’, and the use of our reason to deal with those same conditions.

It is not a matter of ‘choosing’ to be winners, but the motivation and effort to apply ourselves to such an achievement. It seems that you hear only what you want to hear, and believe only what you wish to believe, which is your right, but it gives no validity to your opinion. You seem to be regurgitating this deterministic misinformation and imply that we are only these conditions of life, and we have no ability to direct or shape what we do with those conditions. Are you in agreement with Mr. Hitchens that we, in fact, have no free will or choice in our own actions? If so, I would find it hard to believe anyone could put any legitimacy to such a belief.

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

Capitalism holds the power - and has now realized it - of creating the ultimate authority, and one without responsibility.

Capitalism has developed the ultimate big brother spyware that punishes and rewards behaviour. And not only that - the animal industry which is the ultimate capitalist monstrosity is now the worlds’ most pressing global threat.
The problem is - lack of responsibility to others than oneself. That stuff ruins worlds.

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

(LCW)   It really is quite disturbing. Is there anything that is not the fault of capitalism, even though I have repeatedly tried to explain why that simply cannot be? Capitalism makes no decisions, has no ego, no morality, no ethics, no integrity. Only those who use it as a weapon instead of a tool can direct and pervert capitalism, and the extent of the ignorance to consider otherwise is really beyond comprehension at times. Reason is blinded by animosity and a total lack of understanding as to these obvious ‘conditions of life’.

You do not, as our socialists do not, explain where this responsibility to others comes from. That was supposed to be the focus of this debate tonight. The ‘morality’ behind the ideology. You miss no chance to proclaim this responsibility to others, but fail to verify why this exists, in what relation to others, to what extent, and even if others agree with you, and to what extent of that as well. I know that you ‘want’ it, and perhaps even ‘need’ it, but you fail to give a single legitimate reason why. This is not what constitutes a ‘reasoned’ argument by any definition. Care to give it a try?

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

Small Might

So the statement isn't a moral statement. It's a normative one if you break down the sentence. He didn’t say it was the best thing to happen to the aborigines, or that was a moral system for the colonialists. But it was a system that served to take the colonists and push them to a higher social and economic status than they'd ever been in before, with new land, domination, and a growing world economy. Colonialism WAS good for the colonies.

I’d be interesting to hear the rebuttal for how colonialism wasn't great for colonists?

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

(LCW)   I am sure that you understand, but for those that do not, these statements that refute your position are not reasoned arguments, but superficial and emotional ones, pretty much across the board. You will not see a rebuttal, as you don’t see any evidence from anyone to their claims, including the socialist speakers tonight.

I am not really sure why they are even here, but it seems obvious that it is not to debate, teach, or to learn. It is to obfuscate, misinform, misdirect and put forward an ideology that has no real justification. They had the opportunity to supply one but chose instead to spend, basically, ‘all’ their time talking of Marx, and instances of capitalism that had nothing to do with capitalism, and condemn a system that they have yet to exhibit even a superficial understanding of the fundamentals of the system, or attempt to listen to those given by individuals that actually do.

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

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