John Ridpath "On the Immorality of Socialism" (debate 1990)

[trivas7]

Herein, cappies, is intellectual ammunition of high order for the new world order we live in. Any RevLefters wish to knock it down? A transcript follows:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFC5OYU4Lyo&feature=related

Well, it's happened again.

I have been in a debate with socialists many, many times.

The subject has been the morality of socialism and the morality of capitalism. I have said, roughly, what I've said in the defense of capitalism tonight many times.

And I have repeatedly, and including this evening, been met with a very philosophical, emotional, heartrending, series of comments that add up often to: no definition of socialism, vague comments about what the wonderful feelings are that we can have for each other and euphemisms which mask what the socialists are really all about.

So if he [Bob Rae, former premier of Ontario] is not going to define socialism and tell you what it's really all about, I am. There's allot more to say than: "What is it we owe each other?!" "We're all human beings,", there's this some-sort of amorphous affection we feel for each-other, which I in fact don't deny; which he calls love, which I think is a little strong.

That we are, in fact, in assertion our brother's keeper; altruism is appropriate, with no argument in defense of that; and that this, therefore, leads to socialism, and no definition of what that means. And the final concluding comments that the solution to many of these problems lies within the realm of politics, without any explanation to what exactly
is being said.

Well, what is socialism? Well, socialism is, most succinctly, the doctrine that every individual man, in fact, has no right to exist for his own sake. That his life and his work do not belong to him; but they belong to society -- that's collectivism.

That the only justification of his existence is service to society -- that's altruism.

And that 'society' may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of what it deems to be its own collective good -- that's statism. The essential characteristics of socialism is the denial of individual rights to property.

Which means the denial that you have a right to own the values and property which you produced by your own efforts, and decide how to dispose of them as you wish. That is the essential characteristics of socialism. Of all socialism.

Now there have been remarks about dismissing Eastern Europe, all all of that, which has 'no more to do with democratic socialism than the mafia.'.

Well, in fact, the truth of the matter is, that tyrannical socialists and democratic socialists do have something in common with the mafia.

What they all have in common is the moral principle that it is appropriate on their part to initiate force in order to expropriate your property for their use. And whether or not this is established by force in the tyrannies, or by vote, and how thoroughly this is applied, whether totally applied in the tyrannies, or partially applied in the democratic-socialist societies are differences of a superficial nature.

The fundamental principle remains the same: individuals do not have right to their own lives, and their own property. And that brings us to my comments on love.

Because I frankly believe that the truth of the matter is that socialists parade beneath a mask of benevolence, and love of humanity, overwhelming generosity, and concern for everyone -- this is the mask they wear.

But if you ask: What does socialism really boil down to? I boils down to the view that individuals left free from physical force to pursue their own lives, will do corrupt and evil things. That individuals are bad; their view of human nature is not one of love and benevolence, it's one of the corruption of human nature, and the need, therefore, for those who are familiar with what the good life and the moral life is, to take upon themselves the power of government in order to force you into their world.

That is what the evil of socialism is. The distinctions between democratic socialism and tyrannical socialism are not fundamental.

The real issue here is: Are individuals to be regarded as sovereign units not to be attacked, or not? And all those social systems which answer: they are not morally sovereign individuals; we will attack them in the pursuit of the good.

There's many different definitions as to what that good is. There's Plato's definition; there's Rousseau's definition; there's Hegel's definition; and there's Marx's definition; and it goes on and on.

But the principle always remains the same. They know what the moral life is, and they have the presumption to ask, to be given, the coercive powers of government in order to plan your lives, and take away from you your right to your own property, your own lives, your own free choices.

Now that is immoral.

The final thing I want to say is that the real enemy of man's future...It is in fact a need of human nature that we live in freedom with each other.

This is not something that can be dismissed with impunity. This is, as for goldfish is water is a need in order to live, freedom is a need for man.

And to dismiss that is to dismiss a fundamental requirement of human life, and leads to the destruction of human life.

The real enemy, therefore, is not merely socialism, which is one version of a statist society -- where they wish, if democratically voted into power, to take over control of the economy, to expropriate massive amounts of private property, to create boards, to set prices, to set wages, control incomes, redistribute income; in a sense, run our economic lives. They wish to take public ownership of the means of production, and that in the end means you. That's what they mean.

That's what's under the mask.

Now the real enemy of the proper future of man, therefore, is not just socialism. The real enemy is anyone who wishes to have the powers of the state in order to initiate those powers to create the 'moral' world as they understand it. I think that a free society is the moral social system for all of us to live under. But in that society, I would fight for you to have the right to do all sorts of immoral things, as long as you weren't attacking the rights of others. That's what being free is.

The moral society is not the society where all behaviour is moral. The moral society is the society that makes free choice possible. So the real enemy is statism; it is not just socialism. And the only principled antidote to statism, of a socialist, fascist, communist, monarchical variety -- whatever, military dictatorship -- whatever kinds of statist societies you could have in mind. The only principled antidote to that is an establishment of a society consistently based on the principle of individual rights. Capitalism is the only alternative to these types of immoral social systems.

[RGacky3]

Well, what is socialism? Well, socialism is, most succinctly, the doctrine that every individual man, in fact, has no right to exist for his own sake. That his life and his work do not belong to him; but they belong to society -- that's collectivism.

Nope, wrong from the very begining, this is where most Capitalists start their arguments, and that basis is flawed from the begining. Socialists, believe every one should be free and equal and have the right to his own life, that being said, we also believe that in the situation where everyone is free and equal it would be in everyones interest to cooporate and mutually aid each other, not only in everyones interest, but it would be the natural thing to do, people would do it naturally.

Capitalism on the other hand, does not respect peoples right to individuality, because they are forced waive that right to live, because of property laws, they are coerced to sell themselves and their freedom for the profit or another, not even for public benefit.

[pusher robot]

Nope, wrong from the very begining, this is where most Capitalists start their arguments, and that basis is flawed from the begining. Socialists, believe every one should be free and equal and have the right to his own life, that being said, we also believe that in the situation where everyone is free and equal it would be in everyones interest to cooporate and mutually aid each other, not only in everyones interest, but it would be the natural thing to do, people would do it naturally.

Then you need to address the question of what happens unders socialism when individuals, for whatever reasons they have, choose to place their own wants and needs above the wants and needs of others. You seem to be saying they are free to do so.



Capitalism on the other hand, does not respect peoples right to individuality, because they are forced waive that right to live, because of property laws, they are coerced to sell themselves and their freedom for the profit or another, not even for public benefit.
[/QUOTE]

You're begging the question of whence comes a "right to live." A human being cannot survive long without properly directed effort. Thus "living" cannot come but at someone's expense. You need to explain why any person has a "right" to demand that the expense come from someone else.

[RGacky3]

Then you need to address the question of what happens unders socialism when individuals, for whatever reasons they have, choose to place their own wants and needs above the wants and needs of others. You seem to be saying they are free to do so.


Of coarse, but the wants and needs of others are tied into their own wants and needs, so cooperation and mutual aid is the natural outcome of a free and equal society, communism does'nt need to be enforced, it just needs to be protected.


You're begging the question of whence comes a "right to live." A human being cannot survive long without properly directed effort. Thus "living" cannot come but at someone's expense. You need to explain why any person has a "right" to demand that the expense come from someone else.

let me rephrase, the right to live, means. the right to maintain ones own life WITHOUT being forced to enslave ones self because of property laws, thats what I"m refering too. The right to not be extorted is pretty much what I'm talking about.

[trivas7]

You're begging the question of whence comes a "right to live." A human being cannot survive long without properly directed effort. Thus "living" cannot come but at someone's expense.
Are you arguing the opposite of Ridpath here, who doesn't believe that some men must be coerced to sacrifice their effort for the sake of others?

[Plagueround]

How did I know when I looked this guy up, the first thing they were going to tell me about him would be "Objectivist". :laugh:

I suppose the main problem I have with him is he has this idea that people should have the right to appropriate as much property and material goods as they want because not allowing them to do so would suppress the individual. Thinking in such absolute terms ignores the individuals you suppress by denial of resources. If individual rights become absolute as he describes, at what point does the violation occur? Is it (to use an extreme analogy for his extreme view) when someone hordes all the water in town and everyone is thirsty, or when we have to steal the water for a drink to survive?

[mikelepore]

Well, what is socialism? Well, socialism is, most succinctly, the doctrine that every individual man, in fact, has no right to exist for his own sake. That his life and his work do not belong to him; but they belong to society -- that's collectivism.

Yeah, how miserable, for industry to be run nonprofit so that working people can receive all that they produce. Instead, they should have the "freedom" to receive a mere fraction of what they produce, and enjoy the "freedom" of having the bulk of what they produce expropriated by their employers.

[insert here whichever smily-icon designates "I was being sarcastic"]

[GPDP]

I just love it when people say they're gonna define a concept or idea, and immediately parrot their own ideological take on it. It means I get to stop reading a useless wall of text.

How about defining socialism for what it has historically stood for, and then evaluating it on its merits, instead of starting out with a prejudiced definition and going from there, and then claim you "destroyed" it?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Then you need to address the question of what happens unders socialism when individuals, for whatever reasons they have, choose to place their own wants and needs above the wants and needs of others. You seem to be saying they are free to do so.
Socialism is an economic system; like all economic systems, it consists of a set of laws and standards of behaviour that people are expected to follow in their transactions with each other.

"Place the needs of others above your own" is not one of those laws or standards. This is not a law that could be even remotely enforced by any imaginable state, commune, or social body. Certainly, socialists hope that people will behave altruistically and place the needs of others above their own, but no socialist has ever proposed to make this a law.

Therefore the entire argument of the OP is a straw man.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Who is this guy, and why must he resort to logical fallacies?

[JimmyJazz]

Well, what is socialism? Well, socialism is, most succinctly, the doctrine that every individual man, in fact, has no right to exist for his own sake.

Why would I waste my time reading this asshole's careful deconstruction of a straw man (and a highly loaded one at that)?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

[trivas7]

Socialism is an economic system; like all economic systems, it consists of a set of laws and standards of behaviour that people are expected to follow in their transactions with each other.

"Place the needs of others above your own" is not one of those laws or standards. This is not a law that could be even remotely enforced by any imaginable state, commune, or social body. Certainly, socialists hope that people will behave altruistically and place the needs of others above their own, but no socialist has ever proposed to make this a law.

So are you saying that a command economy, e.g., is not compatible with socialism? To play the devil's advocate, how exactly is socialism compatible with the sovereignty of the individual who, e.g., cannot accumulate capital under socialism?

[Self-Owner]

How about defining socialism for what it has historically stood for, and then evaluating it on its merits, instead of starting out with a prejudiced definition and going from there, and then claim you "destroyed" it?

:laugh:

People on here spend half the time saying we shouldn't look at what socialism has stood for historically.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So are you saying that a command economy, e.g., is not compatible with socialism?
On the contrary, a command economy is a fundamental component of any socialist system. But a command economy does not require you to behave altruistically and place the needs of others above your own. It only requires you to follow the economic plan. As long as you follow the economic plan, you can be as selfish as you like in everything else you do.


To play the devil's advocate, how exactly is socialism compatible with the sovereignty of the individual who, e.g., cannot accumulate capital under socialism?
Making it illegal to accumulate capital is no more a limitation on the sovereignty of the individual than making it illegal to fly to the Moon. Why? Because the accumulation of capital (or wealth) is not something an individual could do all on his own, if he were stranded on a desert island. It requires a complex, modern industrial society to produce the capital that is to be accumulated, and it requires a strong, effective state to enforce private property rights over that capital.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

:laugh:

People on here spend half the time saying we shouldn't look at what socialism has stood for historically.
Wrong. No one here will ever make the claim that we should ignore everything said or done by any and all socialists in the past.

They will make the claim that we should ignore SOME of the things said and done by SOME of the people who claimed to be socialists in the past. Which is perfectly reasonable. After all, many self-described socialists held views that were utterly incompatible with the views of other self-described socialists, so it is logically impossible to agree with all of them at once.

No matter what kind of socialist you are, there will always be several groups of other people calling themselves socialists that you will strongly disagree with. It's the same for any political "-ism," really.

[trivas7]

But a command economy does not require you to behave altruistically and place the needs of others above your own. It only requires you to follow the economic plan. As long as you follow the economic plan, you can be as selfish as you like in everything else you do.

How is duty to perform a job compatible with self-sovereignty?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How is duty to perform a job compatible with self-sovereignty?
At this point you really need to define "self-sovereignty" so that we know what we're talking about.

And the fact is that people have a duty to perform jobs in every imaginable kind of society. So either it's compatible with self-sovereignty, or self-sovereignty never existed and never will.

[Drace]

Those arguments are just dramatizing the non existent. The chains of society, the free market, individual rights...
Individual rights are that of to be able to live, fairly..

The free trade, and these individual rights are only fair if the trade is fair. Trade is meant to be done fairly.
This free market which has that everyone live under exploitation.
It allows the evil's mind of greed freely take on the others.

Socialism just puts a regulation on trade, to make sure its only done for its right intention. Fair trade.

Also, from those guys you'll also see the "chains of society". Absolute BS that will make you laugh.
For one, you are part of society.
So do they think that the evil dictator by the name of "Society" will rule everyone for him?

Or as they saw it, the "greater good", which is of course 'bad' (In their delusional vision)
But even so, is it not justified if you have someone work 15 hours for a week if it saves a person's lives? Now our evil leader, Socialist,
will have the person who has his life saved work 30 hours for a few days so the guy who helped him is repaid. :)

/end.

[RGacky3]

People on here spend half the time saying we shouldn't look at what socialism has stood for historically.

If you want we can call it something else.

[trivas7]

At this point you really need to define "self-sovereignty" so that we know what we're talking about.

And the fact is that people have a duty to perform jobs in every imaginable kind of society. So either it's compatible with self-sovereignty, or self-sovereignty never existed and never will.
How is enforced duty to fulfill a job compatible with the non-aggression principle*? Perhaps you don't see these in conflict.

* from wikipedia: The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological) ethical stance associated with the rights-theorist school of the libertarian movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights-theorist_school_of_the_libertarian_movement) is an axiom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom) of some forms of anarchism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism), and also held by many political conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism), traditionalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalists) and natural law theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law_theory). It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense or retaliation against aggression.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How is enforced duty to fulfill a job compatible with the non-aggression principle*? Perhaps you don't see these in conflict.
The "non-aggression" principle is absolute crap, because:


It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate.
Aggression, as defined above, is not inherently illegitimate.

As for the enforced duty to fulfill a job; again, all societies impose this duty on individuals in some way or another. In every industrial society that I can think of, people are placed in a position where they must perform certain jobs for others, or withdraw from society. For example, in capitalism, job duty is enforced by the fact that jobs are the primary source of money for working class people, and money is necessary in order to live within the system.

[trivas7]

The "non-aggression" principle is absolute crap [...] Aggression, as defined above, is not inherently illegitimate.

I'm sorry, where exactly do you define aggression?

Are you arguing that the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is legitimate?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Are you arguing that the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is legitimate?
Under certain circumstances, of course it is. Especially if it is directed against property, since private property itself is illegitimate.

I am a utilitarian; I argue that the moral course of action in any situation is the one that maximizes happiness. In some cases, this course of action requires aggression and the initiation of force. So be it.

[trivas7]

Under certain circumstances, of course it is. Especially if it is directed against property, since private property itself is illegitimate.

I am a utilitarian; I argue that the moral course of action in any situation is the one that maximizes happiness. In some cases, this course of action requires aggression and the initiation of force. So be it.
How aggressing against someone's property maximizes happiness is beyond me. And if you believe that private property is illegitimate you must believe that human life is illegitimate since human beings cannot sustain their lives w/o it.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

How aggressing against someone's property maximizes happiness is beyond me.
Private property is used by its owners to essentially blackmail other people. If some vital resource - like water for example - is privately owned, then the owner(s) can tell everyone else "serve us or die of thirst." In such a case, total happiness would obviously be improved by aggressing against the owners, taking away their private property rights, making water public and letting everyone drink.

The same argument that applies to water also applies to the means of production, since they are vital to the survival of most people in an industrial economy.


And if you believe that private property is illegitimate you must believe that human life is illegitimate since human beings cannot sustain their lives w/o it.
Ridiculous.

Human beings need a number of things to sustain their lives: Food, water, clothing, shelter, medical attention and so on. How exactly does it make any difference whether these things are privately or publicly or otherwise owned? Property is a social construct, a piece of paper. Privately owned apples and publicly owned apples taste the same.

(P.S. Are you still playing devil's advocate? I hope you don't actually believe in the absurd views you're defending.)

[trivas7]

Private property is used by its owners to essentially blackmail other people. If some vital resource - like water for example - is privately owned, then the owner(s) can tell everyone else "serve us or die of thirst."
In a free and open market, no one person or company can control a vital resource like water.

Since a man (or woman) has to sustain his life by his own effort, the person who has no right to the product of his effort, i.e., private property, has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave.

I do believe what I wrote.

[RGacky3]

In a free and open market, no one person or company can control a vital resource like water.

Since a man (or woman) has to sustain his life by his own effort, the person who has no right to the product of his effort, i.e., private property, has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave.

Thats EXACTLY, what Capitalism ends up as, ahd monopoly laws just means that a person can choose their slave master.

A free market, means ANYONE, can own ANYTHING, ANY PRODUCT.

[trivas7]

A free market, means ANYONE, can own ANYTHING, ANY PRODUCT.
But slavery is the ownership of persons, so I don't take your point.

[RGacky3]

But slavery is the ownership of persons, so I don't take your point.

My point is Capitalism IS slavery. The free market (in the Capitalist sense), is based on property laws, that you can own something, a part of the earth, that ultimately leads to slavery, because it leads to nessesary resource control, and indirect slavery.

[trivas7]

My point is Capitalism IS slavery. The free market (in the Capitalist sense), is based on property laws, that you can own something, a part of the earth, that ultimately leads to slavery, because it leads to nessesary resource control, and indirect slavery.
Your point amounts to equating property rights with slavery. Absurd.

Again, in a free market, sans the interference of the state, no one person or company can control a vital natural resource. Show me one example from history.

[RGacky3]

Your point amounts to equating property rights with slavery. Absurd.

Again, in a free market, sans the interference of the state, no one person or company can control a vital natural resource. Show me one example from history.

Without interference of the state you can't have property rights. The only way property rights can exist is if the State recognises and protects them.

[trivas7]

Without interference of the state you can't have property rights. The only way property rights can exist is if the State recognises and protects them.
I agree w/ you.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Without interference of the state you can't have property rights. The only way property rights can exist is if the State recognises and protects them.

Depends on what you mean. If by property we mean near-exclusive use of an item, it can still exist without a state.


The free market (in the Capitalist sense), is based on property laws, that you can own something, a part of the earth, that ultimately leads to slavery, because it leads to nessesary resource control, and indirect slavery.

Are you obligated to stand aside if I want to use the resources beneath your feet?

[RGacky3]

Depends on what you mean. If by property we mean near-exclusive use of an item, it can still exist without a state.

I mean non natural property rights, sure you can have your won tooth brush, but you don't need property righst for that its pointless, the only time property rights would come into play would be when its control over something that needs protection from others, something that is'nt near-exclusive use of.


Are you obligated to stand aside if I want to use the resources beneath your feet?

Am I obligated to stand up on the buss for an old lady? Sure, if I'm standing on a carrot plant or whatever, and you need it, I would be somewhat of a dick if I just decided to stand there.

[pusher robot]

Am I obligated to stand up on the buss for an old lady? Sure, if I'm standing on a carrot plant or whatever, and you need it, I would be somewhat of a dick if I just decided to stand there.


Don't we have the right to be dicks?

[RGacky3]

Don't we have the right to be dicks?

Sure you do. Whats your point. I used that example to point out that GeneCostas question is kind of silly. Its just an example of someone being rude, its not an argument for or against the morality of Socialism.