1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Rebuttal: Mr. John Ridpath

 
 
 

Dr. Ridpath questions the issue of socialist liberty and requests clarification on the ideological values. The concept of self-sacrifice eludes him greatly and especially in the context of the state versus the individual

 
 
 
 

Rebuttal Statements of Dr. John Ridpath

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

Dr. John Ridpath

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

Well, these, I've debated socialism this is my tenth time, these are definitely the nicest socialists I ever debated. However, I think I'll take off the gloves a little bit here because in fact there is fundamental difference on the stage and I want to make it explicit what it is. Before I do that I would like to say that the socialists have been putting forward the values that they say socialism embraces. I don't really think they have made an argument for those values. It's one thing to state your values, it's another thing to try and show why those values serve man's life and I really don't believe that they did that. I thought that the idea of Liberty that they put forward, which meant that we were to be born free of inherited duties and obligations as a very small component of what it really means to a man to be free so that I really am not convinced that the Socialists have got into the ethics of the case for socialism let alone the view of man that might underlie the ethics that they would have had to have argued for.

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

(LCW)   I readily admit my bias and yet find that these words are focused and relevant. I have to disagree to some extent with Mr. Ridpaths’ perspective that the socialists have been putting forward the ‘values’ that represent their version of socialism. I found little besides anecdotes as to what they actually believe personally, and little else as to what embodies the concept of socialism in their own context. They spoke of things like equality and liberty, but only in the vaguest terms.

I can only conclude that the inclusion of these terms was to try and attract individuals that are interested in freedom when socialism and collectivism offer nothing of the sort. They did not deal with concrete concepts that could be expanded and discussed. I saw most of the effort invested in the degradation of capitalism when extolling the virtues of socialism would have better served the intent of the debate itself.

From my perspective, the ethics and morality that were supposed to be the focus of their presentations were all but lost in the fervor to dismantle capitalism, which, in any case, was not done either. We seem to be in disagreement with the socialists as to what constitutes a debate. If we cannot even agree upon that, what chance is there to come to terms with a new economic paradigm for the future of over 300 million people?

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

(JR)   The principle from each according to his ability to each according to his need is really an endorsement of the morality of altruism the morality that some people to live the virtuous life should voluntarily give up some of their wealth so that others who have less can benefit. It is the morality of self-sacrifice and they should argue for that morality. That is the morality that socialism attempts to institutionalize in society.

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

(LCW)   This ‘from each, to each’ is not a simple conceptual construct. The complexity of the ramifications is immense. I find it hard to believe that this is something that most people would want, not for the fact that it talks of helping those in need, which can be construed as noble, if one does not delve too deeply into the restrictions and diktats that are placed upon those with ability, invariably by those who do not possess any themselves.

I really wanted to hear someone defend and expand what the concept means to them, within the context of their own personal reality as well as within the construct of a societal community. The thunderous silence from the socialists on this issue was compelling. Why the resistance to talking of such a central tenet of the philosophy? Or is it? I find myself often wondering if it is something of a bait and switch, getting an individual emotionally involved, and never wanting to actually get to a point where explanations have to be made, since the argument can never truly be made that one be forced to ‘voluntarily’ donate, at the point of some metaphorical gun, much or most, or in some cases all, of what they produce, by way of their unique and innate abilities, to those unnamed individuals in ‘need’, all in the name of … what?

I would love to find out an answer to that question. I see little or no ‘voluntary’ action while we are still allowed to voluntarily disagree. I do not wish to find out we do not agree after it is too late and that aspect is institutionalized in our societal fabric and cannot be walked back to what we have today. The freedom of choice is vastly superior to coercion.

If they believe these things, they should be willing, energetically and passionately, to bring clarity to such a fundamental aspect of the philosophy. I relish the thought of speaking of the concept of rational self-interest because I know that it actually accomplishes everything that socialism claims but does not accomplish. Why are they not more involved in spreading the essence of altruism if it is so important to the success of their ideology? It is incomprehensible to me that this is not so.

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

(JR)   They have not acknowledged the role of force in a socialist culture. They have said a few things which hint at that, professor Hitchens for example, I guess it isn't professor is it, referred to civilization throughout history as a matter of cooperation and he said as an aside, coerced or otherwise. It's a big difference. He also quoted Marx where he said that Marx had said that private interest was alright but it must be made to mesh with the general interest. Now, what does this mean?

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

(LCW)   Good questions. Not as complex as selfishness or altruism. Do you believe in ‘forcing’ others to do what you think is right? This is not a matter of this concept of ‘democracy’ that they throw out occasionally. Democracy also denotes the ability to disagree and ‘vote’ against an issue. Socialism seems to leave out that option.

They say that the populace agrees, but if that is so, then why is any legislation necessary to begin with? Why not embrace the slave-based Nike mission statement and ‘just do it’? Why is the initiation of force a primary component of a system that is simply implementing what the majority, again I ask how you define ‘majority’, wishes to do anyway? It is all about numbers, and you have to know, somewhere inside, that at some point you will be on the short side of this ‘democracy’ and will have to not only do what is expected of you but will, at least in theory, be forced to ‘like’ it.

I find it interesting that the socialist ideology uses the verbiage of ‘must’ quite a bit, and those they reference in history had an almost reverence or obsession with the necessity of others to accept their vision through force, what is good for the whole, even though, as is clearly shown by the socialist presentation tonight, there is no obligation on the part of the representation of the philosophy, to explain the what or why of pretty much anything.

It will be, it should be, it ‘must’ be. And the state is the vehicle by which this will be accomplished. The individual will not be expected to hold the gun to the individuals that disagree. It will be the state that creates the environment that will ensure capitulation. Not to mention the fact that we don’t want regular individuals to be walking around with guns. Some of them may, at some time, decide that they don’t want to do something, and where would we be then? Don’t think about these things in too much detail.

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

(JR)   This means that the Socialists in fact are advocates of what we can properly call a statist society, a society where the state has a big function to play, in essence where the state is going to take over by expropriation the private property of the producers of a country and run that private property according to what they think is in the best interests of everyone. Socialism rests on an enormous act of the expropriation of property which is a violent act and so consequently the Socialists have really not addressed the questions to the role of the state in their ideal society.

It is no accident that every society in history, whether there has been yet achieved a perfect social Society or not, every attempt has ended up, of course, with a very, very large role for the state to play which is a denial of the rights of man and if man's need for freedom in a social context and is exactly the opposite of what we are talking about.

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

(LCW)   It is very curious. These capitalists present scenarios that they hope the socialist will engage and answer to, with little satisfaction. Either they believe in the use of force or they don’t. Either way, is it not incumbent upon them to let us know where they stand? At least, if they are honest, we have some information upon which to base our own conclusions, but we are left to postulate exactly what their positions are.

It would be nice to hear it from their own lips. If there are only a couple of primaries in this discussion, this would without a doubt be one of them. Why is it not being addressed by the socialist camp? It cannot be denied that the capitalists have made the concept available for debate. Why no interest? Actually, all the primaries seem to be held in low regard, and for the life of me, I cannot fathom why that is.

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

(JR)   It turns out as Mr. Judis said that we notice he claims that the anarchy of capitalism caused depressions which set up a stage for the need for government. Well, in fact, there is a very good debate which I think is conclusive, that in fact, it was not the market that caused depressions, it was interference with the market that caused depressions and it was early statism which then turned and used the depressions excuse for more statism. But the fact of the matter is they are advocates of statism.

They in essence say, you know, it turns out that if we leave people free there are unfortunately problems which develop and so consequently we have to bring the state to bear in order to create the beautiful world. So the essence of what the socialists are talking about in my judgment gives me the power of government, give me the gun because I want to build a beautiful world according to my blueprint and I have plans through which I will coerce everybody who would not voluntarily cooperate with these plans, into living into the beautiful future which they apparently do not understand.

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

(LCW)   Another primary, another diversion. Another reluctant issue. We have been over it a number of times. I await a response from the opposition.

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

(JR)   Now, we're opposed to that, we are standing up for freedom in a serious way, we are standing up for the principles this country was founded on, we are standing up with the principle of man's inalienable rights, and we are taking them seriously and not willing to compromise them, that's all.

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

(LCW)   It is also my position that these issues are what this country was founded upon. Just my opinion, but if not, then, once again, is it not reasonable to expect the socialist camp to explain exactly what was the fundamental positions of the founders if Mr. Ridpath is in error? If their interpretation of America is somewhat different, we would welcome the opportunity to hear what that might be.

Unfortunately, nothing but more diversion, digression, and silence is offered. If it is the overthrow of the greatest country this planet and this species has ever seen, then so be it. Make your position known. I see no attempt to tweak it and fix it. It seems to be a wholesale overthrow of everything that America is based upon, and that seems like overkill to me. I ask them repeatedly to make their point and not the singular position of just how bad they think America actually is because the words fall on deaf ears.

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

(JR)   Now, I want to conclude by saying, that Mr. Judis started, he said that he referred to laissez-faire capitalism as a fleeting ideal. It is not a fleeting ideal, despite their claims that capitalism has already existed. It has not, for the reasons I presented. But it can exist, ideas determine human history and that's what this debate is about. About ideas for the future of this culture and hopefully, if the ideas we're putting forward eventually hold sway in this culture we will be fortunate enough to see a true laissez-faire ideal, it will be not a fleeting ideal by any means at all. Thank you.

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

(LCW)   I don’t have a problem with a perspective that capitalism is a fleeting ideal. It is not unreasonable for him to think that capitalism has already existed, or that it may incorporate many unwanted and self-destructive tendencies within itself. This would be something similar to the existence and failure of any and all instances of socialism from my own perspective.

What discourages me is the intent, and there is an intent, to ‘not’ engage in what we are here for, and that is a debate, where both sides make reasoned arguments, and not simply present rhetorical and unfounded observations. Those kinds of mindless characterizations are fine in some argument at some bar or party between those that are less than informed on the issues. This is not what this was supposed to be. It was supposed to be a real and true debate, by ‘scholars’ and thinkers, men and women that are not only capable of stringing a couple of sentences together but those that make sense and investigate meaningful and insightful concepts.

In this instance, I find much of the conversation lacking in the qualities that I was expecting, and information that could have helped me in my own discovery of truth and perspectives of individuals that I do not comprehend, but wish to. I found little of what I was looking for today. We are all the worse for that. It could have, and should have been exhilarating.

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