1986 - Capitalism versus Socialism

Reader - Online Commentary - G

 
 
 

Freedoms and responsibility. Is socialism moral? Individuality and community are not exclusive. Objectivism and anarchy. What are life advantages? Can money buy a good education? Has socialism ever fixed anything? What is fair?      

 
 
 
 

READER - VIEWER - COMMENTARY - G

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

Syncopator

The objectivist's remark about "if the government owns all the printing presses" has nearly come to pass in the US under "capitalism."

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

(LCW)   But you do understand that the comment has nothing to do with actual capitalism, don’t you. He did specifically point out it was ‘government’ and not capitalism. That was your own personal editorial interpretation. And arguably wrong. The media outlets that are ‘illegally’ suppressing freedom of speech and the ability to restrict points of view are being done outside the Constitutional protections we thought were ‘guaranteed’.

Nowhere in our founding documents have I ever seen any mention of having to be factual or appropriate to any community rules. It is for the individual to make that decision for themselves. Others may ‘opine’ with their own interpretations and theories, and even, dare I say, some factual evidence. This obsession with the nanny state and protecting everyone whether it is appropriate or not needs to be put in perspective.

If any attempt is made to put restrictions on these platforms, I will go so far as to probably have to support their right to control their own business format, but it should continue without the support, emotional, political, and especially financial, in any form from the government itself under any circumstances. Their platform, their rules. But ‘any’ and ‘all’ protections granted them by the government as to legal ability to sue, etc., should be removed, without exception. I would think that live by the sword, die by the sword would be an appropriate reaction.

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

Or at least, all the "printing presses" (and media corporations) of any consequence. Government is not the problem, unaccountable government in the form of corporate manipulated and moneyed control over government is the problem.

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

(LCW)   Indeed, this is the real problem with censorship in this country, but who is actually controlling whom? It would seem that it is business that drives the bus, but the influence, wealth, and power that is accumulated by the political industry is without equal in the world. It is a reprehensible symbiosis between the two in any case. The corruption within the heart of this system that is supposedly for and by the people is out of control. With all the comments on this debate today, any and all suggestions and positions are moot without addressing this issue of corruption.

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

And it was the rollback of regulations over the media corporations that got us here to where all "printing presses" of any consequence is under that system of control. And Binswanger's comments on colonialism being the best thing that ever happened to colonies, still seem to be the mythology of today. "Freedom" cannot be protected without coercion, and not every individual can exert sufficient coercion to protect his own freedom-- thus such coercion sufficient to protect everyone's freedom is necessarily statist.

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

(LCW)   One of the very few legitimate reasons for the state, and they can’t even do that properly. I haven’t heard many promote the abolition of the state. it is not a matter of force, and freedom irrefutably requires coercion, but with freedom, it is a coercion about what you should 'not' do to others, while with something like socialism, it s a coercion about what you 'will' have to do at the behest of the state, for your own good, and whether you like it or not. One is in response to the initiation of force against an individual by an independent entity, while the other is the independent initiation of force against the individual by the state itself. The distinction is again, one of morality. Remember morality? This was supposed to be a debate about morality.

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

Even the objectivists imply that it is necessary to only prevent people from interfering with each other's freedom, but what they don't bother to mention, is that is itself coercive.

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

(LCW)   While in essence that is true, the reality is that we cannot exist with no protection, and no security at all. That is an undeniable requirement to being able to co-exist at all. That ‘prevention’, which certainly ‘sounds’ coercive, is like saying that you cannot kill another, without real cause. That is also ‘coercive’ in a primitive definition, and yet, is there anyone that disagrees with the intent?

If I leave you alone to make your own decisions and think your own thoughts, and you do the same for me, there will never be any coercion brought into play. It is when we allow some subjective decisions to be allowed by some unnamed and self-interested individuals who get involved in these decisions, that we experience complications.

The capitalists and Objectivists have not attempted to run away from the concept of coercion being used for protection in the area of the initiation of force, and the need for protection by police and military, and the courts in the case of fraud, etc. against the property and resources of individuals. It is the socialist that has refused to even speak of the issue, and if they believe it, or when, and how they will use or control the use of said force within their own little paradigm. I see that as one of the fundamental arguments today, since, of course, the collectivists do not wish to speak of morality.

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

Bleep Bloop

Virtually no one understands that freedom is something that we manufacture by imposing restrictions. The default idea that people seem to have is that freedom means fewer restrictions. We're free to leave our houses during the day because others are restricted from trespassing and stealing, on pain of imprisonment. We're free to walk down the streets at night because others are not free to assault or murder us. A freedom is something that other people are not allowed to impede us from doing, and the only way to protect them is to restrict the ability of others to violate them.

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

(LCW)   I beg to differ in many respects. Freedom inevitably does mean fewer restrictions. The restrictions placed are not to stop me from an action that is, for the most part, overwhelmingly, something that a vast majority of the society says is ethical, and morally legitimate. We do not say, at least most of the time that you cannot walk down a public street, but that you cannot walk on my property. Not that you cannot buy whatever you want, but you can’t ‘take’ whatever you want.

There are repercussions for everything you do, and even in a land with no laws whatsoever, you will pay the price for actions taken, and by being careful, you will experience fewer repercussions for your actions. Not my preferred environment, but simply an example. But that just goes to the point that you are not restricted if you do not do anything inappropriate, but that is dependent on the philosophy of government and individuals, and when there is little or no confrontation, there is no conflict, no coercion, and no ‘situations’ where it may be necessary.

This is not to say this is not a complex issue, only that coercion has two sides to the concept as well, much the same as making a clear representation of what rational self-interest is, and it is certainly not a matter of taking advantage of others, but only looking for an advantage for self, with no intent to harm another in any way.

So it is with restrictions. If no one passes a certain line, then the level of coercion is almost nil. Some will react badly, and this is when the state, in the guise of courts, etc., will step in as an arbitrator. This can be a privately owned concern in the lower instances of conflict.

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

No One

The real problem is socialism should be about economics, not morality. Approaching it as a moral philosophy will end up with every problem humans have ever had with every socialist country we have ever had.

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

(LCW)   I can’t even think of something that is not in essence a moral choice. It is difficult for me to even imagine anything at all that is not fundamentally impacted by the morality that it is built upon. With no morality, there can be no economic system. By what do we judge transactions, and actions, or even intent? I’m sorry, morality is absolutely indispensable in the engagement, communications, and activities between individuals.

A moral philosophy may create conflict with other countries, but I would submit that is one of the fundamentals that have caused every single conflict or war that has ever existed. But morality will remain an imperative nonetheless. I hear your words but I do not understand what is meant by them. I guess I agree since I find that the inclusion of the use of force as a fundamental aspect of socialism will negate legitimacy in every instance for me. Is that what you are attempting to say? I would find the same with the interpretation of the actions of a murderer, a rapist, or a thief, among others. It is the same way I would react, with an extremely specific set of exceptions, that these things would be inappropriate and worthy of the intrusion of the state in the rejection or acceptability of them in every instance. Is morality a matter of convenience for you? I find that unacceptable. It is a matter of imperative with me.

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

dcgregorya

Not to be critical, obviously, all these people are very well educated...but it seems like an escape hatch that both sides claim that neither capitalism nor socialism has ever existed. If we are debating which is more moral how can we not examine the implications in terms of the type of society which would implement those systems and how they play out in the real world?

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

(LCW)   I think the speakers, and the audience itself, is putting too much emphasis on the examples of socialism or capitalism that they wish to use to score points in this somewhat immature game they play. The issue is not what was done in Argentina or with the feudal lords two hundred years ago. If you want to use these things to illustrate a point, you may try, but it is neither relevant nor really a direct connection to what is being proposed today.

The issues are pretty simple. What do you believe and why do you believe it. Today. In many ways, it does not matter if it ever existed, although some concrete examples lend more credibility to your claims as to efficacy or legitimacy. From my perspective, I wanted to hear what the socialists believe to be the moral underpinnings of their belief system ‘today’. I am not going to hold them responsible for Che, or Castro, or even Stalin and Marx and Lenin. I may certainly point to these instances and ask for their own interpretations and insights as to the what and why of past actions, and it would be pertinent to hear what the socialists think of what was attempted or accomplished, but the focus should be contemporary positions right now.

The issue of force has been referenced more times than I can recount. I want to know if there is an understanding that this use of force that the capitalists accuse them of is valid, and if the socialists endorse its use. Many comments after the fact have fully supported the use of force, and I think it is a reasonable request. If not, then state this clearly and the reasons why. If it is appropriate, I want to know that as well, and even moreso, why. How does one legitimize this use of force and then expect others to believe that they have any conception of liberty, or justice, or any form of freedom? That would be a great place to start.

The flip side could be for the capitalists to enunciate clearly what they believe rational self-interest to be, which I might add, they have done multiple times, and have the socialist refute and question them, not on what their flawed interpretations are, but on what the Objectivists say it is, nothing more. Refute and attack what is said, exactly, and not what is wanted or thought to be the intent from the perspective of someone who does not seem to understand the concept, or is even willing to try. This would be the beginning of a possible conversation between the players, even though they do not seem to agree.

If there is no attempt at understanding, there will be none. I am quite tired of this mindless game of attack and ignore, which does nothing for my edification or education. I am here to learn, and for those that give me nothing of substance, my conclusions will be that they are inept or fundamentally flawed in their positions. If you wish to convince me in any way of the validity of those positions, there is a need that I don’t see much of, to persuade me that what you present is not only possible but desirable.

If not, this would again constitute a loss of my time, which does not impress me, and a lack of respect for those that have wasted that time. If that is what you wish, you will get it. If you wish for something more, you will have to make a concerted effort to project an attitude and ability of competence, knowledge, and willingness to not only share your opinions with me but allow those you disagree with to do the same.
The attacks must be reasonable and respectful. They must be consistent and intriguing. They must inspire and grab my attention, and tonight is a perfect example of both sides having difficulties in doing this. I admit to my bias but think it is an objective observation that the capitalistic and Objectivistic positions presented by both speakers and commenters alike were easily more sophisticated and comprehensive, without a doubt. With many exceptions, and I do not suggest any absolutes.

My real disappointment was that I was hoping for that inspiration from the socialists. While I am not a fan of the philosophy, for many reasons, I am making myself available to allow them to make their case, with someone who is more than willing to listen, if somewhat skeptical, to positions, if eloquently presented. I did not find that, and it brings me no end to my sadness, as I realize that, as a country, and perhaps a planet, we are fast approaching a point of no return, if we have not already reached it.

I want so much to be able to communicate with others, and resolve differences, but without any intent to do so, it will just not happen. If you think that my intent is false, there is not much I can do to alleviate what ails you, because it is simply not true. I am here to engage, and to discuss, with passion and respect, those things that I disagree with, as well as those things that are alien to me, and to present my own perspectives. I am not going to change my perspective simply because you are frustrated and angry and want me to change, but only because I hear something of substance and value. I can only promise to listen and to investigate afterward. I expect nothing else in return.

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

Bobby L

Objectivists side believes truly an individual exists independent of a community and no responsibility for anything...idealism on steroids

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

(LCW)   I am sorry to disagree. Nowhere, in any of the information made available to those that are uninformed, will you find any comments made to that effect. None. Never have I seen one, even from radicals and crazies. They believe in community, but one that is determined by them, individually, to be of mutual benefit through mutual agreement. What is so difficult to understand with that? They may be willing to be a part of a community, but it will absolutely have to be voluntary, or there will be no meeting of the minds. Even if we decide to agree to work together, that lasts only as long as this ‘agreement’ is in effect. As soon as one or the other, or both, are unable to find benefit in the engagement, then we will walk away. Is that not what you do when confronted with something that conflicts with your own interests?

It is so sad that your ignorance of Objectivism is so clearly exhibited with these statements. An Objectivist demands, of himself, to be responsible for everything he does. What he does not allow is for someone else to dictate that for him, and you will find no one that agrees more passionately with that than myself.

I do not exist for you, and I do not expect you to exist for me, but when we can find commonality, I am more than willing to work in tandem to complete mutually beneficial goals. Not those defined by you, or anyone else, or even me for that matter, but only those that we can agree on, without subterfuge and misinformation. No lying, no cheating, no fraud. No harm of any kind, physical or psychological, or economic. Then we can act together for ourselves and our neighbors, our community.

If you think otherwise, you will find your worst enemy before you. If I find you undeserving of respect, you will receive none, no matter what you decide. If you are an individual of impeccable character and integrity, you will find no greater loyalty than what I will offer you. It is for you to decide, not only with your words but more importantly with your actions as well. The choice is yours. I already live by that code, so the only question in my mind to be answered is if you do as well.

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

PermaGlampers

It’s not that the individual doesn’t believe in responsibility to the community - just that they have a responsibility to themselves first.

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

(LCW)   It is difficult to speak of responsibility without the specifics of what is being discussed. We would have to discuss when responsibility may turn into something similar for others. But again, it will ‘never’ be for you to make that determination for me.

I sometimes try to exemplify my position with a little scenario. I tell people that they surely should know how to swim because if my cat, who I have chosen to be responsible for, and love dearly, was in the river drowning right next to you, you would be on your own since I have no responsibility for you. I may help you both, and I may help you after fulfilling my own chosen responsibilities for my pet, but you would never be my primary concern.

I find no intrinsic difference between an animal and a human being. Both have the right to life, as does every living creature. I cannot save them all, people and animals alike, but I can make the decision as to what my actions would be, and my integrity will direct me to my actions. You don’t agree? I don’t really care, this was not a question or a matter for discussion or negotiation. We will both have to live with the ramifications of my actions. I am confident in my philosophy and the reasons for my actions. I don’t believe in any god, but if there is one, I will confidently refute whatever he has to say, but you know, somehow I think he may actually appreciate my perspective.

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

Isidore Aerys

@Reason capitalism creates enormous waste. The Profit motive creates a short-sided negligence of external costs and leads to our collective experience as a whole getting worse. Capitalism depends on continuous growth.

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

(LCW)   I have no reason to believe that you have any evidence to that end. It’s truly kind of silly to put it in those terms. Having a job is based on a profit motive. We need wealth to supply those things that are necessary to our individual survival as well as the family, extended family, friends, and society in general. A profit motive is an incentive, it is not an absolute by any means, and can be handled in a rational and reasonable way.

Please explain the waste that is created by capitalism as an integral part of said system. I see people at every level of society that produces waste. In most cases, it is not necessary and is normally caused by laziness and ignorance. Those kinds of people exist within all aspects of society. It is not an economic fallout, but a human one. A real capitalist, with integrity and good philosophical basic principles, will not waste for the simple reason that the motive for profit, which you referenced, will be enhanced by minimizing wastage.

You will be profitable if using all of your resources to their full potential. Those looking for short-term profit are not true capitalists in any sense. Capitalism is a lifestyle, and sustainability would rationally be an ongoing and long-term goal. Waste is counter-productive, it eats into whatever profit is realized, and a point needs to be made. Almost without exception, those companies that make huge profits are the outliers, and not the norm. Most capitalist business concerns make single-digit profits if any at all.

I actually believe that we could be in agreement to remove those worst offenders who are responsible for all the waste, and exploitation, and obscene profits. But, as you blame the entirety of the paradigm of capitalism, you immediately lose whatever support you might receive due to the irrationality of your positions, in effect, destroying whatever chances you had of accomplishing your goals. That is simply another example of unnecessary wastage.

Many so-called capitalists will burn profits and create waste through incompetence and short-sightedness. These are not capitalists, at least not good ones or successful ones, and possibly not real capitalists at all. Again, to blame this on ‘capitalism’ is totally missing the point and not understanding that capitalists are not a block of like-individuals. This is making a huge mistake in trying to comprehend whatever problems actually exist within the capitalistic paradigm. If you are simply trying to destroy the system, continue your current line of thinking. If you actually want to repair what is not working, you need a better insight into what is the cause, and what is required to remedy the situation.

Anytime you lose profit it is invariably a short-sighted negligence of one kind or another. Those that want a quick buck are opportunists and rarely stay invested for the long haul. They use and abuse and move on to the next conquest. These are once again, parasites, and not businessmen, except in the most base and perverted sense. Many of these comments are continually talking of these kinds of people, when they are not indicative of the system, and not even a real representation of capitalism, but opportunism and the taking advantage of everyone possible, when this is not the true goal of a capitalist, who wants long term ability to produce and a long term relationship with his customers, which ensures that profit motive stays viable for the longest amount of time. Your own views are short-sighted and negligent because you are not looking at the ‘big’ picture. The fact that you think all capitalists are alike shows a real inability to understand the philosophy and its requirements to be successful.

Our ‘collective’ or community experience is not getting worse, by any metrics you wish to present. All data says that capitalism has created benefits and advantages exponentially over the last century. If you cannot see that, you are blinded by your prejudice. It’s not really debatable. Show some evidence to the contrary if you disagree. Not opinion, legitimate information that proves your statements.

Those capitalists that I condemn certainly look for explosive growth, for obvious reasons. They are in for the short kill and move on. Those that want a viable system are sustainable with a minimum of growth, but need innovation, creativity, and new products to create that sustainability, but, depending on the product, it is not necessarily required to have exponential growth, just consistent.

Most products only need to be dependable and have intrinsic value, and the customer will need another one at some point. If you produce inferior products, and many do, then the repeat customer will be an anomaly, and that exponential growth is the only thing that will produce sales. In that scenario, the only thing of importance is the profit motive, because these types of capitalists are not competent and able to remain competitive for very long.

Huge monopolistic companies are another issue entirely. Conglomerates are often too big to kill, and doing so would actually wreak havoc with the society and the economy, but allowing them to continue is not much better. I honestly find it difficult to understand how to control the cancer. They are so insidiously and parasitically and intimately entwined with the political industry that they seem insurmountable. Another discussion for another day.

The point is that they are not representative of capitalism in any way, and if, by some huge mistake in judgment, collectivism does indeed replace capitalism, that monster will remain as a part of the socialist paradigm, probably as the directing and totalitarian master of us all. they are not going to go away.

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

We live in an infinitesimally small habitable part of the known universe and there is no hope in sight for being able to access resources beyond our solar system. A gallon of gasoline can do as much work as a human can in a whole year. It is a precious powerful limited resource and we are squandering it commuting to “bulls***” jobs.

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

(LCW)   No argument, also not relevant. This is not a shortcoming of capitalism, but rather a failure of our representative government that cannot understand why they were even hired. Their lust for personal profit and power, at the expense of the people they are tasked with protecting, is not such a priority. Nor is the consumer that is more wasteful than the capitalist, buying and tossing products long before they are no longer useful, and willing to drive fifty, a hundred miles, ‘wasting’ their time, as well as resources, just so they can attain their own profit motive for their own personal and selfish needs, taking no account into their actions or the ramifications of said actions.

It is so easy to blame the producers of the products when it is the consumer, people just like you, that are the real culprits, every bit as culpable as those unscrupulous capitalistic parasitic businessmen. The straw maker does not throw his own product into the ocean and pollute and waste, as the plastic bag maker does not. It is the consumer, with complete knowledge that the government will allow all that garbage to be dumped into the ocean that is even more responsible than the capitalist. As well as you, doing nothing to reverse such a state of affairs, and make those individuals that actually cause these things responsible for their own actions, or lack thereof.

These bulls*** jobs of which you speak? Why do you grovel to attain them? Why do they hold such a prominent position in your lives? Why don’t you do something about them except bitch and moan? You may not have a lot of power, but much more than you know, or are willing to acknowledge. Stop demonstrating and start making a difference. You can, you know, but it will take insight and effort, and we are all lazy and distracted. We all seem to want that nanny state to take care of us when it is the last thing they intend to do. Ironic, isn’t it?

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

The Golden age of Humanity was the thousands of years of the Neolithic after Agriculture was invented until the point civilizations and states began imperializing every inch of the planet.

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

(LCW)   Right. Working from before sunrise until long after the sun has set. Back-breaking tedious life-shortening existence. That was the life. You have no idea. What’s the name of your farm? Boring.

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

By every measure. Those people had no wants. They didn’t live under the yoke of any bosses or masters. And whose scientific prowess we can thank for Corn, sheep, bananas, horses, and virtually all domesticated livestock and foods.

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

(LCW)   You are basing your comments on some very weak assumptions there. They didn’t live under the yoke of any bosses, but were at the mercy of anyone with a gun or a sword. They did live under the yoke of reality, and whereas many protested when other comments were made about survival and death, they lived hard, and they died easy. They died young, and had little or nothing to pass on to those that came after. It was not a life of leisure or luxury. If that is the life you wish you can still have it, but you will work yourself into an early grave. Have you tried it yet?

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

But there was no healthcare you say? No actually, Diseases are born of urban congestion. People were spread far enough that diseases (and war) were not an issue.

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

(LCW)   While there are crumbs of truth in what you say, crumbs it is. How naïve. While urban congestion may well be a precursor to a larger prevalence of disease in general, they still roamed the land, and, as you say, were not able to spread so easily, but those that encountered them were not able to fight them, so they simply died. A lot less complicated than today, when we can see what it looks like to fight and lose to disease. Oh, we can claim victory at times, but we all succumb anyway. War has always been an issue. If you think otherwise, you must be a product of a liberal education.

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

So if one survived infancy, they were likely to live a long healthy happy peaceful life. Edenic.

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

(LCW)   Are you for real? Edenic? If you worked as hard as they did, today, the paradigm would be truly ‘Edenic’, as you put it. Those people worked from before the sun rose, and worked until well after it had set. You have no idea what life entailed then. The collectivist is not looking for this Edenic reality. They are looking for something quite distinctly different. A life where work is optional as some mystical socialist Utopian nanny cares for their every ‘need’. They intend to create a slave state where every single instance of ‘ability’ will do its bidding until there is none left to ‘produce’ this overabundance of product so there will not even be ‘want’. What happens at that point? There will be no want nor need. There will be nothing. There is no end to the irrationality of what they expect.

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

Compared to today’s world where we are literally in the middle of a pandemic enabled by disgusting levels of population density and spatial deprivation.

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

(LCW)   I agree wholeheartedly. What’s your point? Do you think we can stop humans from breeding like rabbits, or rats? Not going to happen. The people stuck in the worst possible scenarios refuse to stop. I never voted for population density and spatial deprivation, did you? Why did you let it happen? I abhor cities. Where do you live?

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

Where 1 in 402 Americans is homeless and due to the bizarre ideology of private property cannot even erect basic shelter, without it being swept away, in the shining example, the RICHEST nation on earth—Capitalism is a JOKE.

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

(LCW)   Even with your reasonable and legitimate concerns, you then go down the same rabbit hole and blame private property and capitalism when it is you that has allowed this to happen. The joke is actually on you, since you have no conception where any of these things come from, why they came to be, how to use them properly, and why people like you don’t have a clue how to do so. Really sad. Good luck with collectivism, the greatest generator of pain and suffering the world has ever seen.

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

Xain

@Reason
We are living in a golden age. It's killed the most too, but I don't expect an ardent supporter to see it. The problem with golden ages is they end...because capitalism can't sustain itself. Gotta keep expanding until the ecosystem tanks.

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

(LCW)   I don’t find that to be a given at all. Once again, capitalism is only one aspect of many that is causing whatever problems you are recognizing, arbitrarily. It can sustain itself, perhaps not exactly with the current paradigm, but that is what evolution is all about. Not human evolution exactly, but philosophical and economical.

It does not ‘have’ to keep expanding, that is a choice and can be modified, and the ecosystem does not have to ‘tank’ either. These are all choices that have to be made. If we sit back and let others make them, like the repugnant individual players that seem to run things at the moment, then it may well be true, but I don’t see that is has to be that way. Certainly one alternative among many, but far from inevitable.

Socialism has nothing to offer to address these concerns. What are you doing to change it, besides complaining?

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

Every time. Then you get a Chapter 11 and a rebranding. Monarchy to "Capitalism." Same s***, "new" flavor!

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

(LCW)   If we can make such a drastic change, as from a Monarchy to capitalism, then we can adjust or evolve into something else. You are not thinking outside the box, if you are thinking at all. One thing is certain in my mind, socialism, or any form of collectivism, is ‘not’ the answer. Perhaps in some very distant future. But mankind is not ready for any form of a ‘positive’ socialism in its current state. Way too much hatred and hubris, not nearly enough reason, intelligence or philosophy. Not now, and it seems you are illustrative of what I say.

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

Colby Walters

Property rights cannot exist without a social contract, the socialists are right to compare the objectivists’ mindset here to anarchy.

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

(LCW)   What you say is true. Property rights ‘cannot’ exist without a social contract, but there is one that exists today, or there would be no property rights. It is the state that controls the right to buy and sell property, and ultimately to ‘own’ anything.

Your reference to socialists is without merit. There is no ‘mindset’ to anarchy. Anarchy might not reject property rights. I am not sure you understand what it is that an anarchists believes. Like a Marxist, they believe in the abolition of the state completely, and believe that they can do whatever is done in socialism or capitalism in the ‘micro’ and provide rules and structure between individuals. I really don’t see any practical possibility to do so, since gangs, large and small, are inevitable, and with no oversight from some authoritative entity, it will devolve into survival of the strongest and most ruthless.

I thought that was what we were attempting to change with a new paradigm. I find your comment to be somewhat irrational and incomprehensible. I don’t see any connection between your observations and reality.

Capitalism is not anarchy, even if some players wouldn’t mind if it were so, and Objectivism is certainly not anarchy, but I can see how some may interpret it as such, but they have made no effort to understand exactly what it is that the Objectivist promotes. They want minimal structure and authority, with the caveat that the state is under the control of the individual, instead of the other way around.

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

Why are only military and police forces socialized in the capitalist structure? Because in order for property rights to exist in a modern society there can be no private militaries or police forces, otherwise there is no state at all.

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

(LCW)   I have no idea how you transit from one issue to the other. How are military and police forces ‘socialized’? What does that mean exactly? Is this because they are paid for and directed by the state? This seems more than a bit simplistic.

If property rights exist and there is no police or military, then how can you have the environment where any rights whatsoever are even possible? Without them, anyone, at any time, could confiscate that property. Are you suggesting ‘private’ militaries and police? Does that not invite an even greater chance of corruption? Where is the contract between them and the people?

When within a capitalist construct, one has the ability and opportunity to reject and walk away from the product, in this case security, but if it is protecting the ‘entire’ countries’ rights that is not an option. Who watches these security entities if not the state? And what authority do they then have over the private police and military, and how does the state control them if they are inappropriate if all the weapons and power reside in those forces. No, security unfortunately has to be in the hands of a legitimate state. I find it difficult to comprehend the position.

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

So a state with centralized power is necessary, and there are zero protections against the interference by individuals with great capital in the affairs of how the government operates that military.

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

(LCW)   But protections do exist, at least in principle, but any system can fall to corruption and power if due diligence is not taken. The protections are laws that are created by the state, hopefully in conjunction with the members of that state. Great capital can be compelling but if the determining factor in the running of a state, then the state does not truly exist, except in the sense of a propagandist tool, and those individuals are dictatorial in nature, and therefore no protections exist either.

What exactly is your point? The military can also possibly be that dictatorial entity, otherwise, it is just a tool. It can also be the epitome of that protection between the people and that ‘great capital’.

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

This is little more than advocating for the possibility of either feudalism in one case as the military breaks apart, or crony capitalist authoritarian regimes.

The "free market" is one dominated, in due time, by singular forces of capital. If you must admit to any laws and regulations preventing things like true monopolies then you've left the realm of 'If" capitalism.

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

(LCW)   Even if this domination occurs at some point, at times, it is not an absolute. There is no imperative. That is only an opinion that is not particularly valid, in context, at this point. You seem to suggest the existence of pressures as a fact and not simply a possibility.

All of these things you mention are in the realm of possibility but not a given. All economic and political systems are invariably ‘if’ systems, depending on ‘who’ gains control and if the people support them, or not. While a feudalism paradigm or one of crony capitalism or authoritarian control may rule, it also ‘could’ be one of true capitalism, or some system as yet undiscovered or known. I think the determining factor is the will of the people and the level of reason and intelligence that exists as the norm.

Most of those posting comments tend to think that the negatives that exist come from ‘outside’ of the community, when it may well be that the biggest obstacles exist because of the identity of the community itself.

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

Hitchens was right to point out as well the pillaging of wealth from the east into capitalist systems, and the rise of this consumptive process. Capitalism functions purely on the basis of production at any cost, and high production, in this case, is supposed to be a virtue.

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

(LCW)   Not at all, and you have provided nothing to validate the claim. Hitchens is little more than a broken record, presenting the same conclusions, inevitably against capitalism, with each new scenario. No explanations, no evidence, no persuasive or reasoned arguments, just the same narrative about Marx-good, and capitalism-bad, responsible for every mistake that any society that is capable of producing anything of note encounters.

Capitalism does ‘not’ function ‘purely’ on the basis of production at ‘any’ cost. As mentioned in countless instances, it is the result of irresponsible, irrational (in a societal sense), and inappropriate players within economic matters. People with unethical and immoral capabilities that think that they can pursue anything they want. People of poor character and devoid of integrity.

Some think that they represent capitalism, but I reject that without question. They represent chaos and the worst example of irrational selfishness, not rational self-interest, and greed, not value legitimately earned, while using ‘force’ in its many forms, and not the voluntary cooperation of individuals working together to achieve common goals. They are something else, of your own creation, and seemingly your support as well. Not so, from my perspective. You are wrong in your assumptions and your interpretations. I have no recourse but to suggest you continue to search for answers.

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

Production is useless if the cost is the very life 'lf' capitalism is supposed to enable, if the means is literally the theft and destruction of other's property and life.

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

(LCW)   What is this ‘if’ capitalism? Is there no end to the made-up alternatives from the collective mind? We end the day with twenty forms of socialism and ten forms of capitalism, most of which never existed before, and no one can explain or adequately define any of them. Is this a strategy to obfuscate and misdirect? And you always seem to end up in the same rabbit-hole of incomprehension.

None of these things are capitalism, but something actually sinister and much more obvious. Your attentions are focused on issues that may exist, but not for the reasons you have chosen to embrace. Capitalism has no legitimate connection to these things in any rational environment.

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

Jorge Suárez

You have to wonder why, if capitalism is such an evil, today Russia and China have full-blown capitalist economies. Why did they abandon their so desirable socialist policies? If Hitchens bitches so much against capitalism, why did he choose to live and become a citizen of the greatest representative of despicable capitalism? Why do so many people escape from socialist paradises like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua et al. to live in the oppressive exploitative American inferno?

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

(LCW)   Has it ever been any different? And in many cases, you actually have to evade death to ‘escape’ from these paradises. They never stay to persuade others as to their illogical and impractical realities, but come to the lands of plenty they condemn, only to complain and tell us how things should be done, but never show though personal example. They never illustrate the simple actions that should be taken to initiate and maintain a working example of what they profess.

Always this idea that ‘their’ vision of the future simply cannot exist with even the existence of an opposing perspective. And what happens when all opposition is removed from the playing field? Why, they win by default at that point, and there will be no choice, there will be no promises kept, but there ‘will’ be the use of ‘force’ and the future will cease to exist.

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

John Porter

This Libertarian Binswanger - he calls himself an Objectivist - believes that capitalists have a right to the resources in "backward" countries. "Arabs have no right to that oil" etc., around 1:34- 1:35. Is that the libertarian philosophy? Do you believe that if an "advanced" country thinks that the inhabitants of a "backward" country aren't using a natural resource the way they would use it, then they have a claim to it?

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

(LCW)   Absolutely not. Actually, if he cannot clarify his positions on these points, then I would dismiss him as I dismiss the socialist paradigm of mindless cooperation and the integral ability and intent to rule people by totalitarianism force, and violence. I try to be consistent with my interpretations of what others say. I don’t agree with what he had to say about those ‘other’ countries either, but the rest of what he says still remains vastly superior to anything else that I have heard today from socialists, communists, liberals, and the varied collectivists that refuse to think or refute in a reasonable manner.

I do not follow Binswanger in any way. He has the same obligation to make sense as you do. Mr. Binswanger is on his own with this one. One mistaken comment, by one individual, does not negate an entire philosophy that is quite capable of existing on its own merits, as socialism has yet to provide. You don’t like his comments, and neither do I. Go into specifics and continue the conversation or move on. The focus today was supposed to be socialism and the foundational morality of the philosophy. When are we going to address that?

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

Hugh MacDonald

@John Porter And not only a right to it, but the right to take it by force…

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

GreyMatter121

Later in life Hitchens renounced his title as a socialist and said that Marx underestimated how innovative capitalism was. "(2006) Hitchens commented on his political philosophy by stating, "I am no longer a socialist, but I still am a Marxist". In a June 2010 interview with The New York Times, he stated that "I still think like a Marxist in many ways. I think the materialist conception of history is valid. I consider myself a very conservative Marxist".

In 2009, in an article for The Atlantic, Hitchens frames the late-2000s recession in terms of Marx's economic analysis and notes how much Marx admired the capitalist system that he called for the end of, but says that Marx ultimately failed to grasp how revolutionary capitalist innovation was."

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

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

(LCW)   It causes a tremendous amount of pressure on those that put so much stock into a person that eventually changes their mind and makes all those that believed it to begin with look somewhat overconfident and certainly precipitate if not just embarrassingly silly. While it is perfectly appropriate for people to make mistakes and adjust thinking for a myriad of reasons, it also is more reasonable to not be so absolute and hubristic in our positions so as to look foolish when the time comes to admit to some fallacies in our own interpretations. To be confident is admirable, to be so close-minded as to preclude even listening will never, in the end, reflect well on the individual or the philosophy.

Marx actually had many valid points to make, but the radical revolutionary imperatives included in his original thoughts actually made it an imperfect and self-destructive paradigm right from the start. He made an impact on history, but it was not a particularly positive one, but at this point, it does not look like anything of import came of it, except possibly some compelling thought and discussion.

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

fowlintent

The older I've become, the longer I have watched the inequitable economic system we have in the US, the more I now realize that those who advocate the strongest for capitalism are those that have capital.

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

(LCW)   I don’t think that this is a valid comment at all. And yet I am one of ‘those’ who advocate for capitalism, Objectivist style, for the simple reason that there is nothing even in the same neighborhood as to efficacy and morality, but I am one with very little of that ‘capital’. While I sympathize with your frustration and confusion over exactly what it is that we have control over and what actually is a ‘right’ or a ‘wrong’, you seem somewhat blind to the reality of what constitutes capitalism itself, and certainly do not understand why some that you might term ‘advocates’ of capitalism are nothing of the kind.

They advocate a perverted and unscrupulous version of ‘self’, exemplified through a distorted and perverted version of a pseudo-capitalism that is inappropriate and in no way of any real value to the individual and those we think of as society. So, many continuously miss the point.
At 68, I have been watching our inequitable economic system struggle with being able to deliver what many think is a specific potential, with myself being one of them. While I have ‘profited’ by the existence of capitalism, albeit on an extremely minimal level compared to those that everyone vilifies on a perpetual basis, I have come to understand the differences between those that do so in a reasoned and ethical manner, and those that do not.

A lack of comprehension of capitalism is illustrated with the incessant pointing to anyone with money, or ‘capital’, as someone who is exploitive and immoral, while the actuality is that this would probably be a fairly small segment of the greater paradigm. I have no way of empirically determining a real percentage, but my guess would be something in the 10 to 20 percentile range. Could be much smaller, which would be my considered opinion, but it could be much more as well, which is probably yours.

But that leaves a ‘lot’ of those that are fair and equitable players that are playing by the rules. And have integrity and ethics that these others don’t. Those are the individuals that we want to run the game, and that may well never happen. We need more of those appropriate players of character and integrity. The issue that concerns me the most is that you think these bad players ‘define’ the game, while I simply see it for what it is, that they have hijacked and ‘control’ the game.

You may well think this is just a matter of semantics, but I think not. I can play monopoly with you, and you can cheat, and beat me every time. Perhaps poker would be a better example? You win every time because you cheat, but by definition, if you cheat, you did not win, the game was illegitimate, and anything gained is illegitimate as well. It is not ‘earned’, it is not actually yours although it may never be taken away from you. That is my perspective on our system of capitalism, and I would really like to take away those inappropriate players.

What happens if you play, and lose, and ‘know’ that you are being ‘played’ and taken advantage of? If you do, and you continue to play, you are irrational for one thing, fairly stupid as well, and if you let them win so as to gain favor with them, then you are ultimately as corrupt and unethical as they are, with little or nothing to show for it, but possibly an intent to have it work in your favor at some point in the future. This does not reflect well on you.

My point being that the game, be it monopoly or poker or capitalism, is not at fault, is not the reason for the cheating or the ill-gotten gains. It is the player that makes the decision to do the ‘wrong’ thing, invariably with the full knowledge that what they do is unethical in every sense. Nobody cheats by accident. They may be vile, they may be simply weak, or they may make honest mistakes, but that is not ‘cheating’, cheating is when they ‘know’, and if not, they are not responsible for their actions, and should be under a doctor’s care, or incarcerated.

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

Their "free market capitalism", necessarily based upon the human trait of selfishness (as admitted by both advocates of capitalism) simply fails to recognize that the deck is stacked against those who cannot (either by physical or mental disabilities or by restraints put in place by the system by institutional racism, by unequal opportunities in education and entry into job markets) acquire capital (wealth).

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

(LCW)   I am perpetually at a loss as to those that profess they cannot discern the difference between ‘selfishness’, or as I call it, ‘irrational self-interest’, as opposed to the Objectivist paradigm of ‘rational self-interest’ which is fundamentally a distinctive alternative on so many levels. If you are not capable, or completely unwilling to even accept that this alternative even exists, then you are not really looking for a conversation. If you are so closed-minded that the definitions that are offered, time and again, are illegitimate without so much as a question or an exchange of perspectives, then only someone who does not value their own time would invest any time in trying to exchange reasoned positions.

If we do not accept the Objectivist interpretation of rational self-interest as a starting point on this subject, it is easy to get lost in the examples people can introduce, that, out of context, are valid and compelling, but if we do, then we can talk about those instances where we actually agree, as to the inappropriateness of the actions of these ‘other’ individuals.

Isn’t that what we are attempting to do with a debate? Find those issues where we agree, and those where we conflict, based on ‘real’ points of view, and discuss issues, engage and focus on specifics, and hopefully come to conclusions that we can share, as opposed to nothing but conflict and animosity and degradation and condemnation? That is not going to give us any resolutions at all. It is not what I am looking for in any sense.

You do not have to agree with this Objectivist perspective on rational self-interest. You can give a contrary definition if you will, and I will confront that which is presented as your own version, and question your motives and expectations based on your own philosophical determinations, but grant me my own. Be as ruthless as you want as to my own positions, and ask whatever you deem necessary, but don’t tell me what I think, just ask me to explain. Don’t degrade my character and my philosophy until you actually know exactly what it is that I present. Treat me with respect and consideration, and I will attempt to do the same.

I find it incomprehensible that seemingly, half of our audience does not even wish to learn or to teach, to understand or explain in any real way, what it is that they think, and what we can do to reach some kind of compromise, and I comprehend just how difficult that can be, since I am not a big fan of compromise. True compromise is almost as difficult as true understanding or agreement. But it is a goal, no matter how hard it may be to realize. What is the alternative? Nothing but more conflict, and a total disregard for a possible resolution.

While what you say, that many, through no fault of their own, have difficulty in the acquisition of ‘capital’, may in fact be true in a sense, it still begs the question of exactly what, specifically, is preventing that ability to ‘obtain’, and I think your examples are simplistic and illegitimate.

I am not sure what ‘deck’ you are talking about, but this irrational fantasy that you will somehow remove the inadequacies and disadvantages self-created by most individuals on a whim is simply never going to happen. There is not an instance within recorded history that this has been the reality. If I am wrong, please give us some examples.

Human nature, until we can change this, will have the ‘few’ making the attempt to control the ‘many’. While capitalism ‘allows’ this to happen, it is not at all what the system specifically makes an attempt to do, which is fundamentally to ‘allow’ men to trade voluntarily, for mutual benefit through mutual agreement. Is ‘that’ a problem as well with your interpretation of capitalism? I find no reason to think that what you interpret as capitalism is an absolute in any way and cannot be controlled through the actions of other individuals.

But it is not going to go away on its own, and socialism will not be able to restrict it in any sense, and in fact, due to the authoritarian fundamentals that exist in the philosophy, along with the approval of the use of force, combined with the lack of reasoned and definable restrictions to control these things, it will only end up with a paradigm so inferior to our existing one, that for all intents and purposes, those same unsavory individuals that control capitalism at the moment, will inevitably become our masters within socialism as well, which if you are paying attention, would indicate that we would be the slaves. Not a better outcome to capitalism by any means.

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

Sandra Thomsen

Not true, I fall into the low income bracket and I am a capitalist because it is based on individual freedom. Under communism, you are forced to be a government employee or go to jail. The commies usually do what they can to force the dispossessed to stay in their commie country. Try watching Marxism: Kizek and Jordan Peterson

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

(LCW)   A bit strong in her language and intent, and yet I think history gives credibility to her claims. It is that pesky issue of force once again. In capitalism, you pick your own job or at least can try, and you can leave anytime you choose. Collectivism has shown time and again, that they need acquiescence and obedience to get jobs done, and not done well I might add, and on many occasions restrict internal movement, with many instances where leaving for another country is simply not an option, legally or practically. Who kills their own citizens if they want to leave? Which only demands I ask the question, which I often do, what does socialism do when there is disagreement from the ‘peanut gallery’? Is that when the sacrifice starts? Is it always the dissenters that get sacrificed first? It sure seems to be the case.

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

John Smith

@Adam Smasher The problem being pointed out is that capitalism is inherently unfair.

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

(LCW)   I have no choice but to disagree, unequivocally. Capitalism is not unfair, but those inappropriate players and those complicit, corrupt political representatives can certainly be unfair. All of the shortcomings can be rectified. If our representatives are going to intrude into our lives, if they at least did the right things, these inappropriate players would not be in the mix.

Why is the philosophy of capitalism always blamed when it has no volition as to how it will be used since only individuals can do that? There are millions of instances, granted that they are more in the micro than the macro, but they exist nonetheless, that exemplify and validate that capitalism can exist, and does exist, without exploitation, expropriation, and totalitarianism. Can socialism point to its own examples?

In any case, capitalism shows every day that it works. In America, and around the world, small business constitutes a vast majority of the business conducted on this planet and is done in a benign way, bringing jobs, products, convenience, and value to our lives. They give us the opportunity to have so much that we simply would not have produced without the existence of business and capitalism. This is irrefutable to an extreme degree.

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

A number of real-world factors are in play... real-world factors the proponents of capitalism did not mention in this debate. Factors that compound to add up in some cases to a huge unfair advantage for a small percentage. Factors like inherited wealth, which is usually combined with the best schooling, and getting to personally know other rich and powerful people, both of which are huge factors in leading to high-paying jobs. Or they can inherit the family business that is already generating wealth.

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

(LCW)   Are these things non-existent as we speak? If you think these things will disappear with the institution of some collective Utopia, you are more than a bit naïve and ignorant. History shows the opposite, only even more selective. The bourgeoisie created by collectivism has always been more select and more ruthless than anything that capitalism has achieved, and that is faux-capitalism in most cases.

Do you really expect that inherited wealth, influence, and position will disappear in a collective environment? Do you think everyone will receive the same quality education, and that one or two schools will not be superior, and that the children of the authoritarian ‘classless’ ruling class will not just happen to attend those institutions, or go ‘abroad’ to study? Do you think the ‘haves’ will not ‘rub-elbows’ with others of like status and advantage? Are you really that irrational and simple?

We may be able to do something to mitigate these things, but capitalism has shown to be the best, bar none, of economic systems, to offer the opportunity to rise within the society, to experience the advantages and benefits that normally go to a structured and unwelcoming paradigm of privilege and power.

How often do descendants of a segment of a society that at one time held them captive as slaves have the ability to enjoy the opportunity to become anything that they wish to be, without exception, including the highest financial, military, and political offices? How many millions of millionaires have come from this same paradigm?

Can socialism point to any similar events, even suggest the possibility? Does socialism have any examples where those from the very bottom were able to rise to the apex of that society? Only if they direct the revolution, from what I have seen. Otherwise, there are no examples. No, they only offer equality, and that will mean there will be no millionaires at all, at least visible ones, and there will be shared suffering, but no shared success.

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

The inverse of this is true too... very poor people in poor communities with poor quality of schooling and high rates of gang activity lead to poor educational outcomes which make it incredibly difficult for someone with this start in life to excel.

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

(LCW)   But I just made the point that we have millionaires that have come from the families of slaves, and many with educations to match anything any other family can boast. What are you doing to change the paradigm? You’re just waiting for the nanny state to make the changes necessary?

Those that simply shut up and put in the effort have accomplished so much, in a relatively short space of time. Your assertions and assumptions are grossly overstated. There is more ‘good’ than ‘bad’ that has occurred over the last centuries. You acknowledge none of it, while your own position is based on bias and misinformation. Not that it does not exist, just that it is not an honest representation of the faults of our society, and has little if anything to do with capitalism, while capitalism is directly responsible for the successes presented. Others may get a step up in the game, but the game is still open to anyone that is willing to play the game and pay the price.

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

It doesn’t take a genius to notice this. In fact, I would say it takes motivated reasoning to blind oneself to this situation.

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

(LCW)   It shouldn’t, but maybe it does. Your own motivated (un)reasoning seems to be blinding someone as well.

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

To finally bring it back to your point about your current income... you are talking about your current situation. It tells me nothing about the opportunities you were afforded due to the lottery of birth. You could be a young person with a good education working a relatively low-paying job while your parents pay for you to do further education (and also allow you to stay living at home where they are paying your bills). Or you could be born into poverty with poor schooling and little chance of moving beyond your current pay grade. Either way, you are talking about the current outcome of a single instance. But the point being made is about having more equal opportunities for all.

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

(LCW)   The illegitimacy of your comment is fairly obvious, though. You say the speaker’s situation could be dependent on a number of issues, and you would be right, and yet, as I just mentioned, you seem to acknowledge only those things that substantiate your own position, ignoring and avoiding the reality, the factual evidence that calls your own bias into question. Are you not being dishonest in the way that you present your perspective?

Just having parents that love and support their child, according to your own point of view, could be construed as an unfair advantage. It could easily be argued that this is an unequal ‘opportunity’ since all children don’t have parents who are equal in every respect to any other parent. Seems obvious, and yet you make the distinction between a child with poor parents, which is, of course, through no fault of the child, but again, is it someone’s ‘fault’ that some other parent was successful in some respect?

How do we negate this value if the parent is considerably smarter or intuitive or innovative or creative than most of the others? Do we remove the child from the care of that parent due to an unfair advantage? Do we terminate the parent for being above average? Where does his kind of irrationality end? A competent parent is easily comparable to simply a parent with existing wealth or influence.

A smart child will go as far as he is able, and we should make ‘opportunity’ something tangible that can be enjoyed and experienced by all, but those of ability will always accomplish more than those less advantaged. A child with little or no ability in math will not excel in science, as those with no physical advantages will not excel in sports. These things cannot be balanced without an inappropriate response to the situation. I think you need to rethink your parameters. As Ayn Rand has commented:

“Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong.”

You need to check your premises in the context of the issue. Your positions are an amalgam of contradictions and lazy reasoning. You need to ascertain which of them are truly wrong. I clearly see a number of them.

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

jlushefski

Someone could respond with, "The ones who advocate the strongest for socialism are the ones who are lazy and/or lack skills and/or intelligence."

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

(LCW)   It would certainly not be a position without merit. Perhaps a bit unfair, but it is undeniable that those who lack motivation, lack basic skills, and lack any level of reasoned intelligence will be attracted to a paradigm that promises all the things that they will never achieve through their own abilities. There is no distinction made as to the level of ‘need’ versus ‘want’ from these individuals. There should be. Also that some individuals are put to a disadvantage for other reasons, some manufactured by inappropriate individuals. They can be addressed if they are identified and defined.

But they can be assisted by people such as yourself that are good-natured and willing to put in the time and effort, and yes, even some ‘wealth’, to help those who are unfortunately incapable of competing in the marketplace. Why does it always have to be the nanny state that fulfills the need for assistance? Is this a problem? Are there not others that wish to help? We all have the opportunity to share in the challenge, and it is a personal decision to what degree we do that. I don’t understand why it has to be a collective decision. Please enlighten me. There are many more alternatives than the few you have acknowledged. Perhaps we should have a legitimate conversation about what they are.

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

Public education is such a clear and obvious counterexample to your paragraph. Why do many schools with high investment per student have some of the poorest performances, like Baltimore or one of the many California districts? The students/schools are getting better funding than rich area public schools, and the teachers are getting great pay. Meanwhile, we have lottery charter schools getting half the money per student, with those students performing as well as students at schools where families make 5 or more times as much money. You can't blame capitalism or "institutional racism" for public schools: They're getting much more money and have the same student race make-up as the charter schools.

What you're looking for is a free ride on someone else's sacrifice, like so many of the other "victims." That sacrifice can even be a child's education.

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

(LCW)   So much of what you say is true but is dismissed out of hand with weak argument and biased explanations. Again, if we had valid and open, and honest discussions about these things maybe we could discover some alternate answers that could at least get us going in the right direction. How does collectivism answer these relatively basic issues? I never seem to hear the issue of education even mentioned. How do we keep that existence of ‘force’ that is acceptable to the philosophy from being embedded into the educational experience itself?

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

jlushefski

@John Smith Yet nobody can explain, and provide empirical evidence, how socialism fixes this. It's always deconstruction and vacuum moral arguments.

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

(LCW)   Unfortunately, this seems to be the invariable course of argument. Capitalism sucks, socialism will fix all ills, but there is no evidence given, on any level as to how this will be accomplished. They wish to destroy capitalism before the reasoned argument is even made, much less finished, as to how the replacement ‘ism’ will rectify all or even any of the ills of the arguably best system the existence of mankind has ever experienced.

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

The best modern examples of "socialism" are Scandinavian countries, yet they don't have any of the commonly proposed socialism policies, a la Bernie Sanders.

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

John Smith

@jlushefski Yes, someone could reply with that lazy generalization that in no way addressed the very real problems being pointed out. But such a response would need no reply because it was just an uninformed, baseless claim.

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

(LCW)   Why did you avoid the comments? I did not find them to be a lazy generalization in any way. A response was given to your concerns. Why the reluctance to continue the conversation? As far as being an uninformed, baseless claim, I fail to see how you have done anything with your own to legitimize your observations in any way. Your own words come across as an incoherent rant.

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

Regarding outcomes of schools vs funding, this is a clear example of how the many factors that add up need to be looked at. I touched on only a few, and they are factors that absolutely apply to schooling. To point out just one example, schools in the poorest areas where gang violence is a huge problem, where parents aren’t reading books to their young children, where drugs and guns are problems, where houses are more likely to be broken into, where teachers are more likely to be assaulted... good teachers aren’t lining up around the block for the opportunity to move to these areas and teach at these schools.

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

(LCW)   And I ask, why not? Don’t they want to raise these children out of their environment? What does socialism present as a way to change this? Will it not simply ‘assign’ a teacher to the school in a collective environment? Is there any criminality in the socialist paradigm? Is it all just honey and cream?

Why don’t the neighborhoods do something about gang violence? Is it that they can’t do it on their own, and they want the state to do it? But when the state asks for witnesses, they dissipate into the ether. You can’t have one without the other. It is always easier to simply blame anyone but themselves. Why do the parents not read to their children? If they can’t read themselves then they need to learn. How is this anyone’s fault besides their own?

Why do they have children at all if they are completely incapable of giving them the most primitive levels of security and support? I don’t want to blame the parents, but they are not free from culpability. It is their obligation since it is their children we discuss. You can parse it all you want, but the fact remains, they have made some bad choices in life, and their children are paying the price. At some point, you have to stand up and be accountable. I have never heard of any collective addressing these concerns in any form. What say you?

All of your examples are closely related. Anarchy, criminality, ignorance, violence, force. And all an integral part of the new socialism and history says categorically that it is inevitable unless drastic and unprecedented actions are taken. Not the overthrow of a government and an economic system that works, but a paradigm where people do not have to think, are actually encouraged not to, so those people you hate so much within capitalism, will lose that perceived control over us all, to be replaced by benign totalitarianism of the collectivist state resulting in an equality that we will inevitably rue.

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

There need to be incentives to get teachers to these schools. Public education is an excellent (and critical) example of my point. It’s only a counterpoint if you think I’m saying investment in public education directly corresponds to educational outcomes for students. But that’s the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m saying there is a myriad of factors that add up.

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

(LCW)   If people are afraid for their safety and their lives, there is no amount of monies that will change that reality. They want security, and that is something that obviously is not on the table, especially with the environment, the political environment within our inner cities.

I would rather see resources spent moving anyone with a child, to an environment where this is not the case, but it seems fairly evident, that the problem will follow the children when the reality is that these people that are doing the worst damage, come from the very same families that are being attacked and put at risk. What are they willing to do to change the paradigm? I am not sure the will or the capability exists.

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

As for the “free ride” comment, that’s not related to anything I’ve said. I’ve pointed out big problems with the inevitable outcomes of capitalism. I haven’t proposed answers. If you want to know what I think - ask. As it is your only interest seems to be in making straw man arguments. That’s your choice, but just be aware you’re only arguing against yourself by doing that, not against anything I’ve said.

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

(LCW)   Demanding answers just illustrates your impotence. If you are reading this you would know that I am not asking questions, I am addressing concerns, and I will have my say in response to those concerns. Just my comments constitute over 100,000 words, or a complete book, trying to clearly state my interpretation of the debate, and the perspective of Objectivism through my own perceptions and experience.

I reject your demand for anything. If you don’t have it, you can’t supply it. If you do, then I don’t understand why you don’t make it known. Nothing you say has any significance or legitimacy if you do not back it up with reason and whatever evidence you can muster. I make no strawmen, but there are certainly more than enough to go around, including your own.

There are no inevitable outcomes to capitalism, and I have been more than forthcoming with examples and suggestions, as well as questions. There are many answers, many alternatives, and it is only the will and ability of individuals to do something about it. I don’t argue with myself, although I question myself perpetually, but I don’t see any opportunity to argue with you, since you have not presented anything of substance that evokes a response. This is validated by your own words. Pretty lame.

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

jlushefski

@John Smith As I said in my other comment, you didn't address the "very real problems" either. You just point out that they exist somewhere, and inequality intrinsically doesn't even mean someone is living poorly--the standard is still much higher than previous generations or other countries. Capitalism leads to inequality of result, so you point out gang violence or poverty. Show me where socialism fixes it...in reality, not, as I said already, a moral argument in a vacuum.

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

(LCW)   I think you refuted his little diatribe nicely. I am certainly not looking for a fight. A reasoned argument, perhaps, but really only someone who can articulate and give insight and answers to their own concerns. I found nothing about morality, which was the original intent of the discussion. I continue to hope for so much more and am continually disappointed with the inability to speak directly to the issues, instead of the misdirection and digressions that seem to be part and parcel of the socialist paradigm.

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

jlushefski

@John Smith I provided a counter-example to the original commenter. As far as something that relates to your comment, well, yes, you mentioned that it's "inherently unfair," yet one can say socialism, where people lose their earned property, is also inherently unfair. That's why I said it's a boring vague deconstruction.

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

John Smith

@jlushefski It's difficult to combat the often used, "Not everything is perfect in capitalistic countries." My point isn't merely that capitalism "isn't perfect". That statement is true of every system, and would as you point out make a conversation meaningless. My point is that capitalism has some fundamental flaws that necessarily lead to extreme inequality.

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

(LCW)   And yet you give no credible evidence whatsoever, and cry that we are not asking you questions? You need to validate your own comments, and try not to get caught up in the weeds of the words of others. Layout a position, in detail, and make a reasoned argument that can be investigated and responded to.

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

When individuals have more money than the GDP of entire countries, and the system keeps benefitting those individuals at the expense of the masses that's not merely an imperfect system. It's a broken one.

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

(LCW)   Your opinion only, and a weak one. It is not the norm and not even a dominant aspect of capitalism. These are arbitrary and random instances, and yes, I totally agree that they need to be addressed, but your obsession with money, per se, is irrational and counter-productive. Unearned wealth and ill-gotten gains would be more relevant, but you do not speak of those things.

I have given multiple reasons for this failure, and none of them point to capitalism itself, but those that use and abuse it. Your claims remain unsubstantiated. While the system is indeed imperfect, it is far from broken, more being held captive. What say you to those comments?

The system is not benefitting them, since that seems to infer legitimacy, they are taking, they are stealing, from everyone with the use of the tool of capitalism as a weapon, and you are incapable of even recognizing that. It is troublesome. If you can’t see the alternatives inherent in the system, how can you think that you truly recognize the flaws?

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

Yes, the world is unfair. Why do anti-capitalists seem to always feel entitled to claiming debate victory without providing anything constructive?

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

(LCW)   I am confused. Are you berating the ‘anti-capitalists’ now? I thought you were one of them?

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

I have not made the point that the world is supposed to be fair. I have not claimed to have won a debate. I'm just a person interested in a conversation as I have big concerns about the current system and I think things need to change.

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

(LCW)   So then why this reluctance to engage? Say something that makes me think and question my own positions, if different than your own. You have not offered anything of substance that is more than superficial, and difficult to refute since you do not defend or explain. Make an effort to present a comprehensive perspective on any subject you like, but choose one, and stay with it, at least for a while.

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

I'm sure you've encountered idealists before. I'm sure you've encountered people that advocate throwing capitalism away in favour of socialism. Your only interest seems to be in imagining what I might think, then arguing against what you imagined. You don't need to do that. I've made points. Respond to them instead.

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

(LCW)   Unfortunately, you have not made those points you reference. I am not sure I understand what you are railing against. I will give you some benefit of the doubt, and many do not respond to direct assertions and accusations, but I find that you do not as well. You need to change that. I am indeed also an idealist, and nothing has ever been accomplished in the history of mankind without some ideal being used as the impetus to do so. I really don’t care what you think, personally, but I do care about your thoughts and ideas when presented properly and coherently. Key on that.

I imagine a lot of things. Some happen, some don’t, so let’s talk about those that have substance and value, and I may talk of things that are unrealistic at times. Ignore them, I have no problem with that, but don’t beat them to death if you don’t even think that they have any value. Make your point and move on to something else. Give us something to talk about that is worthwhile.

I don’t like to imagine what anyone ever thinks, but I feel the responsibility for that is the speaker, if not immediately, then when a response occurs. The art of conversation, and especially reasoned argument, is not an easy task. The fact that one thinks they have made a point is not always the case. Further dialogue is necessary at times to determine the meaning of content. Take it as a challenge.

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

If we're looking for equality of opportunity and result...I think that's the second time you've mentioned equality of result. If you're arguing against me, this is a strawman. I don't believe in equality of results. Heck, I don't even believe there's a fair way of guaranteeing equality of opportunity. I just think we need to strive to make opportunities as equitable as is possible.

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

(LCW)   I am confused once again. Was the transcript corrupted? I agree completely. I also do not believe in equality of result, in fact, I don’t believe it even approaches something achievable. It is an irrational expectation. I also agree that it may be impossible to provide equality of opportunity, for all the criticisms against capitalism, which are false accusations against the system itself, but certainly have an element of truth to them, and our only recourse is to make an effort to make available the best version of opportunities possible, for every single individual that exists within the paradigm of America, and then we need to work on a way to make it so for those that cannot find a way in by themselves.

Capitalism is not the obstacle to realizing these things, but the political environment certainly is. We have a tremendously complex nation, and way too many laws, but the ones we have simply have to be enforced, equally and across the board, or they lose significance and legitimacy. This is not the responsibility or the ability of capitalism to resolve.

I passionately believe that every single individual, irrespective of life circumstances, needs to be allowed the same opportunities to make an effort to improve self and community. This does not mean undue assistance, there is a need for others to become involved. The state can only make the opportunity available, it is up to the individual and the community to help them realize something positive from the chance to do so.
I hope that you would agree with that. This is the essence of discussion and debate. Perhaps we have other concepts that would dovetail as well, but without effort, there will be no meeting of the minds, as it were.

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

Scandinavia (high economic freedom, high income taxes) is repeatable in larger diverse countries is interesting;

I'm not clear if you're stating the Nordic model is repeatable or wondering out loud if it could be successfully applied elsewhere. Either way, it's good you bring it up because it encapsulates a lot of what I think is the most effective way to achieve the goals that I believe we should have. (Goals like good education for all, systems that hold up those that are struggling and give them opportunities, systems that ensure you don't bankrupt if you have a major medical condition, and systems that work for all people and not just a small percentage with the most power).

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

(LCW)   The problem is that these models have never been able to be shown to be viable in any but a very small number of very small countries, which makes this still nothing more than a theory. The virtues that you attribute to these experiments are highly arguable. They have many deeply concerning issues within their own societies that are being conveniently overlooked and avoided. They have issues that ‘do not’ work for ‘all’ the people, and the people themselves, while they do think they are doing well, comparatively, are not as content and smug as are those that don’t live there, and have little real experience or evidence as to what they present as legitimate. We can talk about these things if you want, but be careful what you ask for.

It should be noted that our nation was supposed to be a republic, where multiple ‘experiments’ took place simultaneously to attempt new and different paradigms to see if superior results could be realized. We have gotten far away from such an intent, and this is to our detriment. The successes that have been seen in these smaller European countries could be tested here as well, in various states under multiple scenarios. Perhaps we could find some answers this way, but the wish of many political factions wish to consolidate power and take away that opportunity to try new things.

They have a fundamental problem with one state allowing their people to do something they don’t like, or even simply not allowing that which they desire. They want total compliance, but that works directly against the very objectives we attempt to resolve. Just something to think about. Prescriptions, medical insurance, even things such as abortion and school curriculum and judicial issues as well. If there can be no disagreement there will inevitably be no agreement as well.

The result? Look around. Chaos in congress, violence on the street, and the rich get richer and the disadvantaged remain effectively where they were before. No change, and none coming. Is that by design? Does this work for those inappropriate players in capitalism and Washington? Of course it does, and they laugh as you blame capitalism. They don’t care what you use, or what you call it since they will control whatever new ‘ism’ you come up with. Think about it.

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

Personally, I think those Scandinavian countries would work perfectly fine with keeping their low regulation and keeping the government's role small, but that's not something easy to prove.

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

(LCW)   And it is certainly not easy. But for true consensus you need more than a hunch. Or even an educated guess. You need credible and legitimate options, and verifiable results.

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

These countries have lots of social programs and high levels of tax to support them. If by "low regulation" and "small" you mean lowering the involvement the government has, then I think that would necessarily change the outcome because you would be talking about a fundamental change to their system.

If, though, by small you keeping the same policies but lowering the number of people involved in governance then I have no idea. I've not heard of Scandinavians complaining about the inefficiencies of their government agencies (in fact, high approval rates and trust in governance are a unique feature of these countries). But I know very little about their policies so you may well be right.

...I just noted that wealth creation has many factors, but economic freedom and generally low regulation are almost always present.

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

(LCW)   It is interesting that you specifically reference economic freedom and low regulation as what seems to be perhaps the two most desirable attributes when Objectivism strongly promotes both of these things as instrumental and indispensable to the concept of capitalism working with an Objectivist philosophy and ideology. Is this something that you acknowledge?
You also mention wealth creation, but socialism, true socialism at least, resists if not completely rejects the concept of property, and therefore wealth, at all. Is this relevant in some way?

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

These two things are generally factors in extreme wealth creation for the few at the top.

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

(LCW)   The problem with this comment is that, while it may be true that there is an unbalanced power and wealth existence within any even remotely capitalistic model, in our own, in America, even with this unbalance, we have the most successful results across the board as to wealth accumulation concerning individuals in relation to themselves, notwithstanding those hated ‘wealthy’ that we can’t seem to get out of the conversation.

Please don’t think that I condone, promote, or support them as a group. I find many of them have obtained their wealth and power and influence under the most dubious circumstances and would like to make that impossible, but until such a time as that is actionable, we still have to discuss what economic system to use, and how to control it with a minimum of force.

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

I consider systems where the few with the most power are allowed to wield that power in ways that screw over others so they can enrich themselves to be poor systems though. I think the role of government should be to stop those in power from being able to exploit those who are powerless.

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

(LCW)   It’s pretty frustrating. You call on the ‘role of government’ to stop those in power from being able to exploit, blah, blah, blah, when the government itself is in such an unhealthy and intimate relationship with those actually doing all of these disreputable actions that it is virtually impossible to distinguish between them. Don’t expect any help from the government as it stands now.

If we cannot reign in our representation, there will be no reform of any kind, at any level, for centuries to come without revolution, and if it results in socialism or some other form of collectivism, I fear the solution will be so much worse than the original disease.

As a caveat, I just wanted to say I agree with you wholeheartedly, and abhor with a passion, those few that enrich themselves at the expense of others in any unethical and immoral way. I personally don’t believe it has anything to do with wealth, per se, although it certainly makes it easier for the individual without a conscience to take action to that end. It is a matter of personal philosophy, and the intrusion of corruption in the political process, with everything else a corollary to those. Money is not the issue, and while it is a contributing factor, it is the lack of character and integrity on the personal level that is the true cause of the problem.

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

Max D

Extraordinarily well stated. Reading this is as if I am speaking about my own progression in thinking as I have aged and become acutely aware of how things truly are versus how I once perceived things. The solution is a balance between the two, not a ‘this’ or ‘that’ system. But it likely won't ever happen in this country because the wealthy capitalists hold the power

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

(LCW)   Well that’s a defeatist non-answer if ever I heard one. Not that I don’t feel that way at times myself, but the goal of debate and discussion is one of resolution, is it not, or at least a possible genesis of one?

But you make a good point. This is not a ‘this’ or ‘that’, a black or white, or a ‘with me or agin’ me’ kind of scenario. I don’t care what you name it, so I don’t reject socialism because of its name, but because I hear nothing but collectivism, force, and lack of liberty and freedom, and I have seen throughout history what results when these things are not present. We can find something else if that is the only alternative, but I think there could be many, and possibly one that could work. Not for me, but for those who will be dealing with these same issues decades from now. I am sure that Ivan and Victor said the same thing in Russia a few years before the revolution. Nothing will change, the Tsar will see to that.

We live in a land of immediate gratifications. We want change today, but in many cases it can take decades, centuries, to bring about true change. The change will not come until tomorrow, or until it comes. We can push, but reality at times pushes back.

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

nico bustamante

So much babble. It’s funny that people in capitalist states advocate for socialism and people in socialist states run away from them (I ran away from Uruguay because of its socialist agenda). You and most of those who advocate for the stupidity that you are talking about have never lived in any other country. Who said selfishness is a bad trait? And what systemic racism? 8.5 out of 10 new millionaires in the USA are first-generation millionaires... the USA has the most economic mobility in the world and that is the only important thing; if you can’t accumulate wealth it is your fault, not the system, look in the mirror.

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

(LCW)   Excellent point, I am glad you brought it up. I said something similar about our minorities. We do not have a static level of these wealthy bastards. There are new ones every day, like no other time in history that precedes us. They may have had some advantages, I don’t see how you can ever prevent that, but these new ‘wealthy’, they did not simply ‘inherit’. They ‘created’ it. And many of those are from families that never saw wealth before. All races, all ethnicities, all genders. You want equality? Well, you are beginning to see it, and it comes from capitalism, and it is something that cannot be denied, although I am confident that many will try, and they do.

Use the system to your advantage. Create wealth and use it for those things that you want. Help those you wish to help. Support those causes that are in line with your own thinking. Create scholarships. Create foundations. Help individuals, help anything and everything that is you. Stop trying to confiscate and coerce. Use freedom to your advantage. I will not argue your right to do so. Try to control me, and I will fight you to my last breath. Put your effort into yourself and what is of importance to you and you have my support.

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

nico bustamante

@SadamYT I agree with you, but I think the first portion is flawed; those who have no freedom advocate for it the most, etc. I don’t have capital, I live a normal life, but I advocate for a chance to possibly have capital. I know socialism completely erodes that option away. I sincerely think those who advocate for socialism just want free luxury. My niece is over for the holidays and she goes to a very liberal university and the Marxist s*** that comes out of her mouth is crazy: but she drives a BMW, lives in an expensive-ass apartment, etc... oh, and wants her student loan forgiven

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

astreiner boi

5 months ago
@nico bustamante Why did these millionaires become millionaires? Because they expropriated the work of others.

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

(LCW)   That is not reason talking, just envy and ignorance. The vast majority of these people have hurt no one and there is no evidence out there to the contrary. All you have is an unyielding lust to control and coerce. You are blinded by out-of-context examples and a mindless ideology that simply prevents you from participating in any kind of a cooperative community, unless, of course, when you are in complete control. Very sad comments from you. I hope you can find some help.

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

This is one of the main points of left theory. You talk about socialist agendas but do not argue against any actual socialist talking points. Why is social mobility the only important thing? Randomly assigning millions of dollars to people would increase social mobility, but would it make sense? Uruguay is also by no means socialist. I don't know what you are talking about.

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

(LCW) That is quite evident.

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

nico bustamante

@astreiner boi what are you babbling about? 99% of millionaires are millionaires because they came up with a product/idea that was in demand. We had a Marxist president for 5 years, what are you talking about? He was literally in prison for 20 years for trying to topple the government as a guerillero; he was best friends with Che and Castro. The only important thing in a society is an equal opportunity which the US has. 88% of millionaires are first-generation.. Socialism, communism, Marxism, whatever you want to call it aims at equality, and as Milton Friedman said, “a country that aims at equality first over freedom will end up with neither.”

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

Lance Walker

@Le Roy Correct.

"A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills."

- Schopenhauer

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

(LCW)   Ya gotta give Schopi credit, he sounds good even when he makes no sense at all.

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

Le Roy

@Lance Walker I think the last clause of that quote is the truer one.
I can certainly do what I am motivated to do, but can I do what I am not motivated to do?

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

(LCW)   I am not sure I agree that they are similar, but I must admit that I like yours as well. We will find out when the socialists tell you what your job is going to be for the rest of your life. It will be interesting to see how you respond, and if they let you disagree.

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

Lance Walker

@Le Roy They are both equally true, and mutually reinforcing concepts. My point is simply to point out that the illusion of free-will is inevitably intractable, intellectually we can acknowledge the illusion, but that doesn't mean we've escaped it.

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

(LCW)   While you have not made any particular argument for your position, I find it difficult that there even can be one, but I see many speak of such an illusion, albeit invariably without any real substantiation. It would seem that without this ‘illusion’ of free will, there can be no will at all, and therefore no thought, no action, and inevitably, no life as we believe there to be in our reality. There would be no existence whatsoever. If there is no will, there can be no action of any kind, no decisions, no philosophy, no morality, no integrity, no legitimacy of any sort. It sounds very irrational and Nietzschean, and yet he was not of the opinion that it was an illusion.

Having said that, I find it fascinating that someone who negates their own existence would wish to argue for their own irrelevance, but I am open to the suggestion.

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

seriously short of normal

@Le Roy people aren't puppets so the question is moot. People think and reason for themselves even when they're being manipulated.

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

(LCW)   Something of a contradiction in terms. I am not sure I agree that people cannot be puppets. I guess the question is how simple or stupid are they, really? Is it a matter of lazy, or an incapacity to make rational decisions? Are they being easily led or easily fooled, or do they value community over self-interest? Sounds like a socialist to me.

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

Without free will you cannot reject anything because you would have no will to do so. Your position is self-defeating and contradictory.

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

(LCW)   There are many obvious ramifications to the negation of free-will, and this is a good illustration. The irony is that this fact cannot be argued because that would entail the usage of free will, which would contradict the initial position. Like the selfless altruist that the collectivist holds up as a positive, without the will there can be no self, and without self, there can be no reason to act in any way whatsoever. Even survival loses any immediacy or relevance. So you die. You have no choice since you have no will.

Be that as it may be, the focus today, as I may have mentioned once or twice, is the morality of the ideology of capitalism, of which we have heard a bit, and also of socialism, which has yet to make an appearance.

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

Le Roy

@seriously short of normal People do think and reason, and they appear to do so "for themselves", but if they are being manipulated in any way, how can you say that they have free will?

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

(LCW)   Key point, I think, is being ‘normal’. Thinking and reasoning for ‘self’ can take many forms, and exist at many levels. We all make mistakes in judgment, so is that not an example of ‘not’ thinking for oneself. Being manipulated simply means looking at information or options, and making mistakes of different magnitudes. Many have the free will to make mistakes by not putting enough time and effort into making the best possible conclusions. I have no control over that process of theirs, and I have difficulty even judging what they decide. It may, at some point, be the right thing for them, while being anathema for me.

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

Any alteration of my brain chemistry or of my past experiences would change who I am, even though I had little or no say in those things, and yet you insist that my rejection of Objectivism is "free"?

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

(LCW)   I am not sure that past experiences can be changed. Possibly my perception or memory of them could be distorted, but if left unchanged, your initial perceptions of them would remain, at least it would seem that way. You may not have had any say in the ‘event’ but your past experiences, not to mention whatever level of will exists for you, definitely ‘flavors’ and interprets any new events. They are not objectively based, but for the most part, subjective.

Not sure what your rejection of Objectivism even means, or what free means, if not free will, but the irrationality would suggest there was a psychological reason for that rejection of Objectivism. But you are the one that undeniably makes the final decision, to accept or reject anything. That means that you also have to accept responsibility for the ramifications of said decisions.

Are you trying to say that you experience or accept or reject things without your own consent? That would tend to be a psychological disconnect from reality and indicate that some manner of remediation would be necessary to return you to a level where you can once again interact with society at large. I would characterize that as ‘broken’ or ‘insane’. You could interpret the situation in various ways, but the end result would be the same.

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

Whether I reject or accept a philosophical position is beside the point that I am making here since I maintain that whichever position I take, I was always destined to do so.

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

(LCW)   If destiny is any part of your positions, then you can just sit there and contemplate your navel since there is no reason for you to partake in life, and your ‘self’ will have no ability to be relevant in any way. This explains much. You have much in common with Mr. Hitchens and his determinism. You have my condolences.

Where does your motivation for the concept of life derive? Destiny implies non-compliance, non-responsibility, non-engagement, and arguably non-life. Why would you care about anything at all if you had absolutely no input into the events of your existence? The more I think about it, it just seems silly and immature and irrational, and religious, but I repeat myself.

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

seriously short of normal

@Le Roy cool story bro but you're simply proving my point by admitting that you're exercising free will by choosing to begin with. You keep admitting you have free will trying to argue that you don't. It's amusing at least. It really is true that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.

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

(LCW)   But we can’t blame him since he has no free will to the contrary. It should be obvious that he is one of those puppets that were referenced, since, if he indeed has no free will, then every thought and action is being perpetrated by some other entity. The good thing is that he bears no personal responsibility for his bad actions, while the bad thing is that he doesn’t even really exist.

He has no responsibility for anything he does. In fact, someone else must have typed his comments, not to mention thought them, since he has no free will to create or develop concepts or even words. He cannot talk, or walk, or even think. That is the inevitability of someone with no free will. Who is controlling him, I wonder? Maybe it is the cult of Ayn Rand? Please note that Rand was a champion of free will, characterizing it as the focus one uses to think, and thought is the root of reason, and the negation of free will negates that as well.

If, for me, free will did not exist, why would I waste any time at all responding to your comments? This is all nothing much more than an amusing digression.

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

Le Roy

@TheShadowblade What do you mean by "self-evident"? A person may perceive that they are free to do whatever they want, but that perception could be only an illusion.

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

(LCW)   And if an illusion and he does indeed have no free will, he would be incapable of any action or thought, including breathing, so, bye, bye. I have a feeling that this interminable conversation is eternal and considering that it is with someone who has no free will, I find that contradictory as well.

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

And as long as it possible that said perception is incorrect, I do not see how they can say that it is "self-evident" that they have free will.

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

(LCW)   I think, therefore I am, and if I think, therefore it is an act. If I act, I must have willed myself to do so, or be an automaton being used at the discretion of some outside force. Kind of silly.

I never mentioned the concept of self-evident, only that my ‘reason’ tells me something other than what you perceive, or don’t perceive. Continue to live your life by your standards and we will let reality decide. Yeah, I know. How do I know reality exists as well? You actually may be right, but to be completely honest, I could care less. I act as if I truly exist. if not, does it really matter at all?

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

TheShadowblade

@Le Roy Apologies, the self-evidence is a redundancy. Free Will is an Axiom i.e., a concept that is an irreducible primary. You know when you hit one when you have affirmation through denial, which you have to use said axiom in its rebuttal which only reinforces it. It is no illusion and is quite real but to understand why would take a rebuttal which I cannot fit in this comment section, but to be brief:

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the senses are invalid, this is false and dangerously so. We don't make up reality and what we sense is real, our sense organs can only tell us what they detect allowing us to create the necessary precepts to know our world, precepts which we integrate into Concepts. I.e. Your perception is valid regardless of your sense organs. Since our perception is not only valid but infallible (in the context of what you sense is true and always valid) there can be no room for illusion.

I am talking logical leaps here however if you’re interested I can point you to the full presentation of the validity of the senses
Now free will doesn't mean you can anything, you are still bound by the laws of cause and effect however it does allow you to take the causal actions or in some cases alter the effects by focusing and choosing to change course if allowable by reality.

There is no conflict between ‘cause & effect’ and free will, only a false dichotomy created by ancient philosophers and religionists.

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

(LCW)   Existence is real or we don’t exist. Free will also exists or we cannot exist. I know there are those that like to play word games, and at times, I drink too much and join in, but not today.

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

Curt Bressler

Capitalism is the pursuit of wealth while creating and ignoring consequences

Socialism is the solution to those consequences

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

(LCW)   Interesting thought. Completely illegitimate, but interesting. Where does this absolutism come from? Can you site a source? If your opinion, then by all means make an argument. If not, let us know. At this point, you have done neither.

Capitalism is fundamentally about individuals that take consequences quite seriously, or they fail completely. Socialism cares nothing about consequences since they just ‘sacrifice’ someone else to compensate. There are no ‘solutions’ in socialism since it is the genesis of the problem.

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

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