Wonderful. It was this debate that I saw back in 2016 that introduced me to objectivism. I will always be grateful to Leonard and John for changing my life.
Oh they've existed 100 years before this. But they were properly marginalized and kept underground. Now with social media the cockroaches come out from behind the walls.
One thing changed. The LP formed in 1971, legalized birth control with under 4000 spoiler votes, and in 2016 had 4 million voters increasing at 80% per year. Objectivists could do a lot of good by joining and offsetting hostile infiltrators.
Peikoff uses "Man" in a long standing context, which everyone *knew* meant humanity in general and the man spoken of in the individual sense was hypothetically any human being. The forgettable feminist immediately pounces on the opportunity for disingenuous wordplay, as if you had taken her seriously it might be some point about economic inequality between men and women. But if you took that statement seriously, you'd have to conclude she is either uncultured or an idiot. I wish it would have surprised me.
Dang, @51:50 Ridpath hits the nail on the head! Jill provided no actual arguments, she just used bumper sticker quotes like "I hope when Medicare is rolled back you don't get sick".
"It is a marxist myth that you get rich at the expense of the poor, if they're poor how did you get the money from them to begin with." - Leonard Peikoff
@@FreedomPhilosophyTV That is what a union "worker" is. Everybody else is free to start their own business and compete. Now there is some "surplus value" who the state exploits. The only interest communism has in capitalism is to exploit capitalism to fund communism.
@@FreedomPhilosophyTV you can think that it is their labour, but it isn't... It is labour of "rich", which is made by the hands of workers. Workers would die without the force that organized them, but the force itself wouldn't - it would have found a way to live by producing everything itself, just like Robinson Crusoe.
@@samsteers8504 Right. The choice between working two or three jobs for slave wages or not working at all. Spare me. The whole point of 'Capitalism' almost by definition, is to get people other than yourself to do actually do the work.
You are free to have compassion and nurture whom ever you wish! That does not make it moral to steal from others for your own self interests! In a free country, you are free to organize with other like minded individuals, and collectivize your resources among each other. Freedom does not imply that you can take from others. Will we ever see America as it was designed, with Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness?
38:28 "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism-by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide" - Ayn Rand
The commy side got messy. And the guy saying to Peikoff "you're not much of a Jewish". The ugliness. Ewww. He thinks he has that "Jewish-ness barometer" it seems. The advocates of capitalism shined bright in this debate 🕊️👏👏👏
Some tıme ago I was homeless due to depressıon. I was ınvolved ın chauffeurıng at weddıngs ın Rolls-Royce motor cars whıch actually paıd very lıttle. I would sometımes receıve a call from a gentleman's lıve-ın chauffeur to take hıs boss to hıs offıces ın hıs Rolls-Royce, I have loved these cars sınce I was a small boy and I cleaned two cars for someone once whıch got me ınvolved, I dıd a good job I was told. I never felt the need to ask an unreasonable amount for my servıces from thıs busınessman because I realızed that hıs wealth belonged to hım. I never thought that because I lıved ın a car and he lıved ın wealth that he ought to share ıt wıth me, I recognızed hıs property rıghts. Thıs capıtalıst made ıt so that I could escape the mısery of homelessness from tıme to tıme and drıve my favourıte car, he made that happen for me and I thank hım for ıt. Beıng ın hıs presence had a posıtıve effect on me, he always treated me wıth respect and he would always gıve me ten pounds more than I asked for, he dıd that every tıme. You may ask why I got ınto thıs posıtıon whılst beıng homeless, well I used to shave and hand shower myself ın publıc toılets and collect my suıt from my daughter's apartment, I was clean and smart and polıte, I had spent 12 years ın the Army so that had a lot to do wıth my demeanour. Even as a homeless man I could see the posıtıvıty of capıtalısm even though I could do nothıng about ıt for myself at the tıme. I am sure thıs man never knew I was homeless.
It's amazing how concrete-bound, and out of context socialists are in understanding simple concepts. *Peikoff:* _People cannot exist without property, they are not ghosts._ Meaning, he rejects that there is any dichotomy between property and people. *Vickers:* _Well, I guess I've just been declared a ghost, since I neither have property nor think that my human dignity is bound up in having property._ Well, first of all, I doubt that she does not has any property, however, that is beside the point. The point is that her property rights are protected in the constitution. Her lack of property at the moment, is completely irrelevant.
I’ve yet to see the video, but the utility in framing an individual as either having property or being a “ghost” is to show that all people have a physical form, a body, that they own. And by extension, require autonomy over that. Property rights are a justified extension of that autonomy, if a person can own the skin on his back, a person can own the clothes on their back as well. To divorce all property from you would be to divorce your own soul from its mortal shell, something that isn’t just immoral, but impossible.
@@ivandafoe5451 quoting a national SOCIALIST attempting to justify SACRIFICE (a central tenant of SOCIALISM) through a baseless fear mongering assertion. This SOCIALIST committed genocide.
Gerald Caplan's only arguements were: "These bad, horrendous people share some similarities with capitalists, therefore we can use their actions as proof of what you guys believe". Is he really that unintelligent?
That desperate. Three years later I debated a socialist and the whole time he tried to depict his long-haired libertarian adversary as a religious prohibitionist. But we also point to the similarities between them and NSDAP, Pol Pot, and other altruists and they think it's unfair.
I think that we need to drop q&A segments from all future debates. I've seen too many debates with this kind of BS happening in the question and answer period
This is a classic, and Peikoff wipes them out right at the end at 2:10:17 with the fixed-pie observation. Months after this Ridpath told me they had later debated some really dishonest socialists and were disgusted. But I've never seen that later debate.
> they had later debated some really dishonest socialists and were disgusted. In the past, I was disgusted by dishonest and also ignorant anti-Objectivists. But now I happily regard their dishonesty and/or ignorance as a teaching moment.
Vickers: “I have no property!” Me: * she wears glasses, has earrings, clothing, and how’d she afford that terrible haircut? She obviously got money!* I guess the only thing she really doesn’t own is her own ideas. Not even those ideas are hers.
I take it she thought "property" refers only to literal property, I.e a house. This kind of shallow, short-sighted thinking is what leads to the horrors of communism.
Irrespective of the social structure the most important thing is the ethical system and the morality on which the youth is brought up. Self education and self perfection should be the basic principles
I beg to differ,socialists do not believe what they preach.They preach for effect rather than to communicate.Oxymorons, blind assertions,are socialist meat.Facts,empirical observations,and critical thinking are not of consequence to socialists.
@@abramgaller2037 I get what you are r saying, but generally they do. They do not understand what they are saying and have never tried it in the real world. The amount of socialists that parrot Marx and the communist manifesto is hilarious. It is a full blown religion to many of them especially the less bright ones who can lay all the failings in life on their oppressors and class.
MIchel Chartrand! That was a colourful man. He once noticed people fixing a telephone pole near his house. They were RCMP agents taping his phone. He told them: "You can break your neck: come and install that spying stuff straight on my phone inside my house and have a cold beer. "
You can find things to disagree with on both sides but what is clear is the use of fear through language that the Soclialst side use. The skill of debate is entirely replaced with political sophistry.
Although he sometimes does come off as cool and impersonal, Peikoff definitely won the day. We need more people like him today who can UN-APOLOGETICALLY make the case that Socialism is a moral evil, and do so with authority, including making fun of people like that speaker about the woman selling her child. Too many on the right today try to defend capitalism solely in financial terms. That's important but it's too easy for the other side to say "What about X group" and try to explain why capitalism is immoral. The left relies on moral arguments when they argue for a welfare state, and charts and graphs are not going to cut it. You have to strike socialism with a stake right through the heart, and forcefully show why socialism is not even moral in theory, that it in fact does NOT help the people the socialists think it helps. But too many people arguing the capitalist point do so too softly and cave in to the other side too much. Say what you want about the socialists, they have emotion on their side and they're good speakers who make no apologies for their position. That (and their monopoly in education) is the only reason young people today tend toward socialism. If we had more voices like Mr. Piekoff we wouldn't be in such a mess.
@@Sidtube10 I think the social democratic system is the norm in places like Europe, precisely because there aren't enough Leonard Peikoffs today. If anything, the reality is showing these systems don't work.
@@tomservo75 Well, some could argue that US is not too far from being a social democratic state. The welfare machinery may not be as big as EU, but is not small either. At the end of the day, political democracies is always about making compromises. Extreme views [Communist or Laissez faire Capitalism] are not seen in practice [unless there is some kind of dictatorships and thus far those dictatorships have been based on Communism only and the not surprisingly, even the socialists denounce them, just as the libertarians denounce the republicans/conservatives]. But we know that both the socialists and the libertarians often have a soft corner for the communists and the republican/conservative "neoliberal" govt, respectively!
@@Sidtube10 I'm not sure which one you refer to as the idealism and which one the reality. The plain truth is that the only card the socialists have to play (or so they think) is the morality card. But if you argue as effectively as these two do, you see that if the case is made that capitalism is not only more effective but it actually is the more moral system of the two, then that is the nail in the coffin for socialism. The reason the social democratic system has "become the norm" which I argue is starting to reverse now, is because no one has bravely stood up and made that case the way these two did.
@@Sidtube10 I would take one issue with what you said.... I do not see laissez faire capitalism as "extreme." Some people can take it too far and it can lead to minarchy or anarchy. I'd consider that the extreme VERSION of capitalism, but Laissez faire basically means "leave the system alone to work." That's about as un-extreme as it gets. I hope you're also not suggesting the Laissez-faire Capitalism can only come into being with "some kind of dictatorship."
48:44 the utterance in the crowd suggests otherwise, as does his son King Justin. 51:05 they often stay poor by choice, aided by the welfare state. 1:15:17 an example of epistemological subjectivism that Peikoff will later write about in 2004. 1:43:14 some time later, bill C16 gets royal assent to control free speech, some arms are removed from Canadians, King Justin prorogues parliament. 2:09:23 dodge answering the question by deflecting to the mixed economy.
If the two systems are discussed openly and honestly, expressed so well by people like Piekoff and Ridpath and others, capitalism will always win the debate. Some socialists will even agree that capitalism may be more effective "in certain situations" but they think they can take the moral high ground "oh but what about marginalized group X?" But if you make the MORAL argument effectively, which these two men did, and sadly few if any pro-capitalists these days seem to be willing or able to do, you have the coup-de-grace. Capitalism is both more effective AND higher in morality. If we can make the case, the socialists don't stand a chance. But we don't.
You said it. All I heard from the "socialist" (anti-social?) side were subtle layers of ad hominem and contrived appeals for applause. Neither of the socialists seemed very interested in rebutting specific arguments, erecting an intelligible framework for their ideas, or even addressing the main question of the debate.
What an animated debate. At the end of the day, political democracies are always about making compromises and so tend to be left or right of the "center". Extreme views [Communist or Laissez faire Capitalism] are not seen in practice [unless there is some kind of dictatorships and thus far those dictatorships have been based on Communism only]. The socialists denounce the Communists, just as the libertarians denounce the republicans/conservatives. But we often see both the socialists and the libertarians have a soft corner for the communists and the republican/conservative "neoliberal" govt, respectively!
@@drytool I think that's just the theme of the conference. The book 1984. Usually people don't just place a giant banner with the current year, but some advertisement or title.
@@The757packerfan Yeah, that's likely true, but I thought I heard the speaker make a comment at the beginning that it was that year, like maybe they were assessing how much the book had come true by the actual year.
These socıalısts remınd me of a tıme when I had a book about man 20,000 years ago and how he was lıvıng. I was really excıted about thıs book and I told my supposedly devout Roman Catholıc sıster about ıt, as soon as I began to tell her about ıt she cut me off and saıd ''I don't want to know!''. Thıs seems to have been the mentalıty of these two socıalısts, they just dıdn't want to know what Leonard Peıkoff and John Rıdpath were talkıng about and I fınd that to be so sad.
1:13:18 ''I belıeve ın reason''. Can anyone else see the problem wıth that statement? I would say as a student of Objectıvısm ''I 'recognıze' reason''.
Well, you can also recognize things that are not true. So which is it? Do you recognize "reason" as truth in reality as the most import trait of a human being, or a myth, a useless byproduct of mans imagination? How about this my Objectivist student, (hehe)? "I Am Man! I Am A Rational Living Being! I AM REASON"!" (if practiced) Class is adjourned. You owe me a dollar. :)
Socialism: You should help others, why? Because it is the right thing to do Capitalism: you should help yourself? Why? Goes on a long 30 minute conversation asking what is the purpose of morality, and then coming to the conclusion that you must be selfish to be moral, meaning that being altruistic is being anti morality
Good arguments from both sides, but the capitalists established their moral reasoning and stayed on topic much more. Capitalists won this one I think, but socialists would of done better without all the rhetoric about current events and stayed on the philosophical.
@Carlos If the socialists had delved into the philosophical it would have been even worse for them. They would have been required to tell every member of the audience that their lives don't matter and that their purpose is to serve the group at the expense of their own happiness.
@@itos191 We choose to help each other by producing things that other people want. But we don't want to give it away for free. There should not be any sacrifice of any kind in a healthy society. Under socialism the emphasis is not on the individual but on the group. That means that some individuals can be sacrificed for the sake of other individuals. THAT is what is unnecessary.
@@Shozb0t right so the convincing would be on the not wanting to give it to others for free part. idk where he would have to convince people that the group is more important than the individual
I hate it when people start off the debate by thanking everyone who organized it and the audience for attending. No one gives a rat’s ass that you’re thankful, just get to your point. We didn’t tune in to hear you spend an hour pandering everyone smh.
I like to imagine these people running a blood bank. All healthy citizens have to line up once a week and donate enough blood to almost send them into cardiac arrest, but not quite, because the ill and the injured need the blood and what is private property anyway. Your blood, citizen? No, it belongs to all of us, we are brothers and sisters, are we not? Dont be selfish, you were born able to produce more blood than the less fortunate and therefore they are entitled to some of it. Don't take away their right to live.
At about 2:04:02, the lady democratic socialist is smokin' off a cigarette next to her co debater. TERRIBLE!!! What about his right to breath clean air, girl?? You're violatin' his rights to be healthy, my ducky!! Jesus Murphy! She's so self-righteous about feminist concerns and the poor, etc., but what about the rights of the poor guy on her side, eh? Hoho. T'underin' Jaesus, Boy!!! I just loves then humans! They're like children.
All I hear from the left is that we need systems in place to help people. Forget community, we don't believe in that anymore, do we? We need government to be involved in all affairs of our life now. Community and voluntary consent is what we had before big government came around. This is the difference between capitalist and socialist: The capitalist believes in the individual; the socialist does not, and therefore we need big daddy government to take care of us.
I am all for capitalism, but the objectivist arguments are ridiculous to me. They claim that laissez faire capitalism is logically required for human survival and yet it has never been implemented so far. Doesn't our survival so far contradict this?
@Packster Mosk If the guy chained to the ball can stay alive, then clearly the ball doesn't prevent his survival, by definition of the word survival. It may worsen his well-being and prevent his flourishing, but these are different words with different meanings.
@Packster Mosk Well if a disease is fatal then it contradicts survival, while non-fatal diseases can be survived. I guess since lives are finite anyway we have to specify -- survival over what time period. But I believe some of the points they were making were not even about individual survival but about survival of humanity as a whole. And humanity as a whole has survived so far for the past 200,000 years.
@Packster Mosk If the argument really was simply "laissez faire capitalism would result in longer life expectancy", they could just state it that way and try to argue about that. But that's not what they are saying Instead they try some stupid absurd logical errors which seems essentially like "if you have 0 food you will die, therefore taking all the food from you would be immoral because it leads to death, therefore.... (?) taxes bad". This makes no logical sense. Maybe it's an argument that 100% taxes would be a bad idea (and even that doesn't follow from this logic, because maybe even then we could give everybody some food to survive), but it definitely doesn't follow that 0% taxes or whatever is the only remaining option other than dying.
@Packster Mosk Their principle seems to be "we need to make sure humans have what they need to survive", and today humans survive to old age, so I don't see how their conclusions follow from that principle.
@Packster Mosk You keep asking "what principle", but I wasn't making my own argument from my own principle, I was criticizing their logic. Everybody agrees reason is very important, and yet almost nobody concludes 0 taxes from that They provide no justification for this logical leap. The argument seems to be "a lot of X is bad, therefore a little X is also bad", and "a little of Y is good therefore a lot of Y must be super good". This doesn't follow. If we were to reason like this, we would go to extremes with everything. It's an argument for extremism. But not every function is linear, the optimum is not always at the extremes of every spectrum.
Judging by the bulk of the commentary being uncritically libertarian in tone, bias confirming in discourse and intellectually shallow laziness beyond belief, this site is nominally and tacitly considered a safe space by the delusional followers of objectivism. A bogus "philosophy" with the built-in cognitive dissonance of touting capitalism as one of its major tenets along with rationality, freedom of choice/speech and individualism. The obvious fact that corporate capitalism by its very nature, is incompatible with the other tenets, because it demands that those involved cede their individual rights, responsibilities and freedoms to the interests of the overriding corporate culture, seems to be completely ignored. How does this happen? How can this in any rational way be considered freedom of choice when choice is constantly being compromised by never-ending, enforced requirements from "superiors"? You really have to be somehow very deeply indoctrinated to accept this level of inconsistency without questioning the legitimacy of the whole illogical set of ideas behind it. Also these pathetic attempts to add a moralistic shine to total selfishness and callousness would be laughable were they not so damaging and antisocial...true morality cannot solely exist on an individual level, it must have a social context that includes considerations of others for it to have any validity.
Two people stood drınkıng at a bar. One ıs a socıalıst and the other ıs a student of Objectıvısm. The socıalıst says to the Objectıvıst ''Hey there's an aspect of my phılosophy that I want you to joın me ın''. The Objectıvıst says ''Oh yeah what's that?''. The socıalıst says ''Well, we should sacrıfıce ourselves for each other and the ultımate sacrıfıce ıs to cut our own throats, would you be wıllıng to do that?'' The Objectıvıst says ''Yeah ok, but on one condıtıon''. The socıalıst says ''What condıtıon?'' The Objectıvıst says ''You go fırst! Now, you jerk, wake up and change your phılosophy to mıne whıch keeps us both alıve! what are you drınkıng?''
One's morals measured by one's survival how much do you need to survive and who are you willing to walk over? This rigid ideal is extremely flawed and only serves to construe rationality with survival and personal gain without thought given the workers in the trenches who traditionally have no control of their so-called survival wages. I am not an advocate of pure socialism. I would like to point out that in order for any system to progress that some sacrifice is necessary, taxes, for instance, is an example of sacrifice necessary for the maintenance of the infrastructure on which a free society ie. free enterprise or unmitigated free capitalism or socialism rely on. This argument for capitalism only prefaces an argument that no one should be held as a slave to any other but makes no concession for the cost of doing business, who then the workers or the people who benefit the most?
The earth and its resources belong to all people. Private use beyond what is necessary for subsistence is a privilege granted to an individual by all others and only exists through the others' behavior. One component of the privilege of private use is an obligation to invest back into the community that granted the privilege. This investment makes up a citizen's dividend, which should keep all people out of poverty. This does not "sacrifice" anyone, nor does enforcing it "initiate" force against anyone. Taxation isn't coercion - it's a condition of ownership. Rental income is the real theft. Landlords add nothing new to the economy but only take wealth from others by claiming exclusive control for what properly belongs to everyone. 60% of wealth in this country is inherited, and that wealth grows progressively due to the labor of employees who remain at a subsistence income. These people are the real parasites, not people born into poverty.
If the earths resources belong to everyone, then I have no right to pick and eat an apple I find without asking everyone on the planet if they are agreeable to my use of our resource.
@@FreedomPhilosophyTV True. You don't have a right to do *anything* outside of some social institution which positively *grants* you a right. Outside of that, your "right" is coextensive with your power. You *also* don't have a right to pick an apple and eat it in a private property system in which all land is already claimed and no one wants to transact with you. *If* the world is deemed a common resource, it will be managed like any other corporate property. The elected officials will decide who gets access, and on what terms. If people don't like the terms, other officials are chosen. In point of fact, land is already managed this way. "Owners" are ultimately tenants of the government. Taxes are rent. If you don't pay your rent (taxes), you are evicted (tax foreclosure).
52:40 "I've had it with you people, I've really had it with you people" Ridpath goes off on the Socialists.
Ridpath told me he didn't want anymore debates because a later team of looters didn't play fair.
Dr. Peikoff's and Ridpath's responses:
09:01
25:30
41:56
51:51
1:02:55
1:24:24
1:28:54
1:32:31
1:35:32
1:42:00
1:44:05
1:49:37
1:54:13
1:59:00
2:05:27
2:10:23
Thank you so much👍👍😊
Excellent 👍
Thanks
Wonderful. It was this debate that I saw back in 2016 that introduced me to objectivism.
I will always be grateful to Leonard and John for changing my life.
Yes, John has done good work and avoided some common errors--unlike the NAMBLA guy.
Anyone who still thinks social justice warriors are a recent phenomenon needs to watch this.
Well what is an SJW? If you know the answer to this then you know it dates way way back.
They are the same "people not profits" communists fighting for deadly coercion and losses in the 1980s.
Yep. The shows have been around for a while. It is just a matter of semantics
@@please.stop.coping comes from Rawls, right?
Oh they've existed 100 years before this. But they were properly marginalized and kept underground. Now with social media the cockroaches come out from behind the walls.
Its amazing how nothing changes
One thing changed. The LP formed in 1971, legalized birth control with under 4000 spoiler votes, and in 2016 had 4 million voters increasing at 80% per year. Objectivists could do a lot of good by joining and offsetting hostile infiltrators.
The Libertarian Party has changed a LOT of bad laws, despite Ayn's toadying to Tricky Dick and betrayal of Hospers
1:34:06 "I don't believe that parenthood consists of that of breeding slaves" Peikoff at his finest.
That 1984 debate was the finest. I especially liked his undoing of the "fixed pie" theory. That theory is dogma in China, See "Three-Body Problem"
I'm so impressed with John Ridpath. Had never heard of him and just looked him up. He died a couple days ago. Rest in peace.
Wow, he’s a great speaker and has another great debate with Benswanger against Christopher hitchens, probably better than this one
@@jacbug-7349 watched that this morning! RUclips algo making me more and more of a libertarian.
@@mzebari well these guys are objectivists so it looks like your more of an objectivist which are different. I would consider myself an objectivist
Thanks for posting the debate. I heard Charles and Rucka talk about it recently.
Peikoff uses "Man" in a long standing context, which everyone *knew* meant humanity in general and the man spoken of in the individual sense was hypothetically any human being.
The forgettable feminist immediately pounces on the opportunity for disingenuous wordplay, as if you had taken her seriously it might be some point about economic inequality between men and women. But if you took that statement seriously, you'd have to conclude she is either uncultured or an idiot. I wish it would have surprised me.
Yup. It's like people completely ignore the history of pronouns to fit their ideological goals.
@@zylo999 She struck me as an idiot with getting her feminist back up over a terrible misinterpretation on her part. What a start.
Dang, @51:50 Ridpath hits the nail on the head! Jill provided no actual arguments, she just used bumper sticker quotes like "I hope when Medicare is rolled back you don't get sick".
"It is a marxist myth that you
get rich at the expense of the poor, if
they're poor how did you get the money
from them to begin with." - Leonard Peikoff
Indirectly by “exploiting” their labour and stealing their “surplus value”.
@@FreedomPhilosophyTV You missed a key outcome of capitalism, choice. Marxists love to blur the lines between economic and political power.
@@FreedomPhilosophyTV That is what a union "worker" is. Everybody else is free to start their own business and compete. Now there is some "surplus value" who the state exploits. The only interest communism has in capitalism is to exploit capitalism to fund communism.
@@FreedomPhilosophyTV you can think that it is their labour, but it isn't... It is labour of "rich", which is made by the hands of workers. Workers would die without the force that organized them, but the force itself wouldn't - it would have found a way to live by producing everything itself, just like Robinson Crusoe.
@@samsteers8504 Right. The choice between working two or three jobs for slave wages or not working at all. Spare me. The whole point of 'Capitalism' almost by definition, is to get people other than yourself to do actually do the work.
"When was this debate held?"
*reads sign in background
"oh shit haha"
You are free to have compassion and nurture whom ever you wish! That does not make it moral to steal from others for your own self interests!
In a free country, you are free to organize with other like minded individuals, and collectivize your resources among each other. Freedom does not imply that you can take from others. Will we ever see America as it was designed, with Life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness?
38:28 "There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism-by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide" - Ayn Rand
Nowadays looters believe the other looters "aren't really" altruists.
What else do you expect of a jew who hate his native country, oh no, not US but communist Russia?
Ayn Rand is also a dumbass. Her entire argument relys on false dichotomies and strawmans
@@user-hr9zv1mz5g substantiate
The commy side got messy. And the guy saying to Peikoff "you're not much of a Jewish". The ugliness. Ewww. He thinks he has that "Jewish-ness barometer" it seems.
The advocates of capitalism shined bright in this debate 🕊️👏👏👏
Some tıme ago I was homeless due to depressıon. I was ınvolved ın chauffeurıng at weddıngs ın Rolls-Royce motor cars whıch actually paıd very lıttle. I would sometımes receıve a call from a gentleman's lıve-ın chauffeur to take hıs boss to hıs offıces ın hıs Rolls-Royce, I have loved these cars sınce I was a small boy and I cleaned two cars for someone once whıch got me ınvolved, I dıd a good job I was told. I never felt the need to ask an unreasonable amount for my servıces from thıs busınessman because I realızed that hıs wealth belonged to hım. I never thought that because I lıved ın a car and he lıved ın wealth that he ought to share ıt wıth me, I recognızed hıs property rıghts. Thıs capıtalıst made ıt so that I could escape the mısery of homelessness from tıme to tıme and drıve my favourıte car, he made that happen for me and I thank hım for ıt. Beıng ın hıs presence had a posıtıve effect on me, he always treated me wıth respect and he would always gıve me ten pounds more than I asked for, he dıd that every tıme. You may ask why I got ınto thıs posıtıon whılst beıng homeless, well I used to shave and hand shower myself ın publıc toılets and collect my suıt from my daughter's apartment, I was clean and smart and polıte, I had spent 12 years ın the Army so that had a lot to do wıth my demeanour. Even as a homeless man I could see the posıtıvıty of capıtalısm even though I could do nothıng about ıt for myself at the tıme. I am sure thıs man never knew I was homeless.
That's what I call integrity, not bending on principles even at the worst moments of your life, huge respect, sir
Wow!
Respect
Thank you for sharing your story. My take-away is that you have a high degree of self-respect and ownership of your attitude and comportment.
Man, that is powerful. All my best to you, sir.
It's amazing how concrete-bound, and out of context socialists are in understanding simple concepts.
*Peikoff:* _People cannot exist without property, they are not ghosts._ Meaning, he rejects that there is any dichotomy between property and people.
*Vickers:* _Well, I guess I've just been declared a ghost, since I neither have property nor think that my human dignity is bound up in having property._ Well, first of all, I doubt that she does not has any property, however, that is beside the point. The point is that her property rights are protected in the constitution. Her lack of property at the moment, is completely irrelevant.
You almost can't have a conversation with anyone on the Left. You can only make fun of them, it is waste of time showing how wrong they are.
Yea that women is crazy literally
I’ve yet to see the video, but the utility in framing an individual as either having property or being a “ghost” is to show that all people have a physical form, a body, that they own. And by extension, require autonomy over that. Property rights are a justified extension of that autonomy, if a person can own the skin on his back, a person can own the clothes on their back as well. To divorce all property from you would be to divorce your own soul from its mortal shell, something that isn’t just immoral, but impossible.
"The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species" - Adolf Hitler.
Ah! Eugenicist artificial selection for Christian altruism in that NSDAP platform.
Quoting your objectivist god again, are you?
@@ivandafoe5451 quoting a national SOCIALIST attempting to justify SACRIFICE (a central tenant of SOCIALISM) through a baseless fear mongering assertion.
This SOCIALIST committed genocide.
@@ivandafoe5451 Nothing says Objectivism like calls for self-sacrifice for the collective.
Gerald Caplan's only arguements were: "These bad, horrendous people share some similarities with capitalists, therefore we can use their actions as proof of what you guys believe". Is he really that unintelligent?
That desperate. Three years later I debated a socialist and the whole time he tried to depict his long-haired libertarian adversary as a religious prohibitionist. But we also point to the similarities between them and NSDAP, Pol Pot, and other altruists and they think it's unfair.
@@please.stop.coping The best way to counter looters is to vote libertarian.
I think that we need to drop q&A segments from all future debates. I've seen too many debates with this kind of BS happening in the question and answer period
This is a classic, and Peikoff wipes them out right at the end at 2:10:17 with the fixed-pie observation. Months after this Ridpath told me they had later debated some really dishonest socialists and were disgusted. But I've never seen that later debate.
> they had later debated some really dishonest socialists and were disgusted.
In the past, I was disgusted by dishonest and also ignorant anti-Objectivists. But now I happily regard their dishonesty and/or ignorance as a teaching moment.
You know Ridpath? Thats pretty amazing.
@@gch5559 I handed him translations of a couple of Ayn Rand articles into Portuguese.
@@libertariantranslator1929 :)
Rest in peace Mr. Ridpath. A true genius
Caplin: you cant call yourself a socialist if you are a tyrant. That is not what socialist is!
Also caplin: every bad thing ever is capitalism
Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.
Capitalism was coined by Marxists to describe Orthodox slaveholding monarchic colonial mercantilism. From that to laissez-faire is a stretch...
Vickers: “I have no property!” Me: * she wears glasses, has earrings, clothing, and how’d she afford that terrible haircut? She obviously got money!*
I guess the only thing she really doesn’t own is her own ideas. Not even those ideas are hers.
I take it she thought "property" refers only to literal property, I.e a house. This kind of shallow, short-sighted thinking is what leads to the horrors of communism.
Irrespective of the social structure the most important thing is the ethical system and the morality on which the youth is brought up. Self education and self perfection should be the basic principles
Very amusing with hindsight, seeing socialists talk rubbish. The socialists would still believe what they preach.
I beg to differ,socialists do not believe what they preach.They preach for effect rather than to communicate.Oxymorons, blind assertions,are socialist meat.Facts,empirical observations,and critical thinking are not of consequence to socialists.
@@abramgaller2037 I get what you are r saying, but generally they do. They do not understand what they are saying and have never tried it in the real world. The amount of socialists that parrot Marx and the communist manifesto is hilarious. It is a full blown religion to many of them especially the less bright ones who can lay all the failings in life on their oppressors and class.
Nothing of substance from the socialists.
Just the usual!
Just the usual! Imagine trying to defend the indefensible?
A mother dose the laundry by choice, taxes are paid though force how is this a moral equivalence?
MIchel Chartrand! That was a colourful man. He once noticed people fixing a telephone pole near his house. They were RCMP agents taping his phone. He told them:
"You can break your neck: come and install that spying stuff straight on my phone inside my house and have a cold beer. "
an introduction only rucka could beat in length
Niceee
When she said she must be a ghost cuz she doesn’t have property, someone should’ve gone up there and took her glasses and notes.
Ridpath and Peikoff: two great thinkers.
1:35:30 Leonard peikoff the legend
You can find things to disagree with on both sides but what is clear is the use of fear through language that the Soclialst side use. The skill of debate is entirely replaced with political sophistry.
Although he sometimes does come off as cool and impersonal, Peikoff definitely won the day. We need more people like him today who can UN-APOLOGETICALLY make the case that Socialism is a moral evil, and do so with authority, including making fun of people like that speaker about the woman selling her child. Too many on the right today try to defend capitalism solely in financial terms. That's important but it's too easy for the other side to say "What about X group" and try to explain why capitalism is immoral. The left relies on moral arguments when they argue for a welfare state, and charts and graphs are not going to cut it. You have to strike socialism with a stake right through the heart, and forcefully show why socialism is not even moral in theory, that it in fact does NOT help the people the socialists think it helps. But too many people arguing the capitalist point do so too softly and cave in to the other side too much. Say what you want about the socialists, they have emotion on their side and they're good speakers who make no apologies for their position. That (and their monopoly in education) is the only reason young people today tend toward socialism. If we had more voices like Mr. Piekoff we wouldn't be in such a mess.
Good observation. But reality has trumped idealism. The social democratic system is the norm across countries for that very reason of realism.
@@Sidtube10 I think the social democratic system is the norm in places like Europe, precisely because there aren't enough Leonard Peikoffs today. If anything, the reality is showing these systems don't work.
@@tomservo75 Well, some could argue that US is not too far from being a social democratic state. The welfare machinery may not be as big as EU, but is not small either.
At the end of the day, political democracies is always about making compromises. Extreme views [Communist or Laissez faire Capitalism] are not seen in practice [unless there is some kind of dictatorships and thus far those dictatorships have been based on Communism only and the not surprisingly, even the socialists denounce them, just as the libertarians denounce the republicans/conservatives]. But we know that both the socialists and the libertarians often have a soft corner for the communists and the republican/conservative "neoliberal" govt, respectively!
@@Sidtube10 I'm not sure which one you refer to as the idealism and which one the reality. The plain truth is that the only card the socialists have to play (or so they think) is the morality card. But if you argue as effectively as these two do, you see that if the case is made that capitalism is not only more effective but it actually is the more moral system of the two, then that is the nail in the coffin for socialism. The reason the social democratic system has "become the norm" which I argue is starting to reverse now, is because no one has bravely stood up and made that case the way these two did.
@@Sidtube10 I would take one issue with what you said.... I do not see laissez faire capitalism as "extreme." Some people can take it too far and it can lead to minarchy or anarchy. I'd consider that the extreme VERSION of capitalism, but Laissez faire basically means "leave the system alone to work." That's about as un-extreme as it gets. I hope you're also not suggesting the Laissez-faire Capitalism can only come into being with "some kind of dictatorship."
48:44 the utterance in the crowd suggests otherwise, as does his son King Justin.
51:05 they often stay poor by choice, aided by the welfare state.
1:15:17 an example of epistemological subjectivism that Peikoff will later write about in 2004.
1:43:14 some time later, bill C16 gets royal assent to control free speech, some arms are removed from Canadians, King Justin prorogues parliament.
2:09:23 dodge answering the question by deflecting to the mixed economy.
Truely impressive
Watching Piekoff in this debate is like watching prime Michael Jordan.
51:27 And how many women live of the labor of their husbands who don't get paid by the wife.
If the two systems are discussed openly and honestly, expressed so well by people like Piekoff and Ridpath and others, capitalism will always win the debate. Some socialists will even agree that capitalism may be more effective "in certain situations" but they think they can take the moral high ground "oh but what about marginalized group X?" But if you make the MORAL argument effectively, which these two men did, and sadly few if any pro-capitalists these days seem to be willing or able to do, you have the coup-de-grace. Capitalism is both more effective AND higher in morality. If we can make the case, the socialists don't stand a chance. But we don't.
what did that guy shout out 1:19:00?
I think he said,
"What are you talking about?" in a mildly exacerbated sort of way
@@Meditatum101 cheers Jake
Will doing evil things produce good results?
Regardless of sides, neither of the socialists mount a coherent argument.
You said it. All I heard from the "socialist" (anti-social?) side were subtle layers of ad hominem and contrived appeals for applause. Neither of the socialists seemed very interested in rebutting specific arguments, erecting an intelligible framework for their ideas, or even addressing the main question of the debate.
He threw an 11 year old under the bus... lmao what a villain.
Better to put only Peikoff’s clips
The most one sided crushing defeat I've ever witnessed. It's a shame we lost Ridpath recently.
If only they all spoke more peaceably.
We have a social instinct . Taking breeds hate. Not taking breeds love. Stop taking and people will give.
Beautiful
59:05 is he trying to argue against himself? I am very confused.
What an animated debate. At the end of the day, political democracies are always about making compromises and so tend to be left or right of the "center". Extreme views [Communist or Laissez faire Capitalism] are not seen in practice [unless there is some kind of dictatorships and thus far those dictatorships have been based on Communism only]. The socialists denounce the Communists, just as the libertarians denounce the republicans/conservatives. But we often see both the socialists and the libertarians have a soft corner for the communists and the republican/conservative "neoliberal" govt, respectively!
1:01:02 The debate was lost right there.
The description doesn't give the date of this debate. Anyone know it?
There's a big screen behind them that reads "1984"
@@drytool
I think that's just the theme of the conference. The book 1984. Usually people don't just place a giant banner with the current year, but some advertisement or title.
@@The757packerfan Yeah, that's likely true, but I thought I heard the speaker make a comment at the beginning that it was that year, like maybe they were assessing how much the book had come true by the actual year.
@@drytool That's when I recall it too. Ridpath visited UTexas the following year if memory serves.
1984, it says on the banner if memory serves. Petr Beckmann was excited abt progress against totalitarianism that year
Partway through Caplan's opening comments... is he seriously equating Objectivism and statist Conservatism?
socialism does not recognize me as an individual. I feel so excluded.
These socıalısts remınd me of a tıme when I had a book about man 20,000 years ago and how he was lıvıng. I was really excıted about thıs book and I told my supposedly devout Roman Catholıc sıster about ıt, as soon as I began to tell her about ıt she cut me off and saıd ''I don't want to know!''. Thıs seems to have been the mentalıty of these two socıalısts, they just dıdn't want to know what Leonard Peıkoff and John Rıdpath were talkıng about and I fınd that to be so sad.
I escaped from similar schooling. Young Adolf, on the other hand...
I suppose Socialism, on paper seems moral but it is not always the thought that counts, but the result that does.
Who can be against freedom, every socialist/communist/fascist
1:13:18 ''I belıeve ın reason''. Can anyone else see the problem wıth that statement? I would say as a student of Objectıvısm ''I 'recognıze' reason''.
It's more of a problem with language, yeah, ideally you would say I'm convinced of reason, but that sounds weird
Well, you can also recognize things that are not true. So which is it? Do you recognize "reason" as truth in reality as the most import trait of a human being, or a myth, a useless byproduct of mans imagination? How about this my Objectivist student, (hehe)? "I Am Man! I Am A Rational Living Being! I AM REASON"!" (if practiced)
Class is adjourned. You owe me a dollar. :)
Touché.
Socialism: You should help others, why? Because it is the right thing to do
Capitalism: you should help yourself? Why? Goes on a long 30 minute conversation asking what is the purpose of morality, and then coming to the conclusion that you must be selfish to be moral, meaning that being altruistic is being anti morality
She thinks it is her place to be in charge of banning pornography?
Good arguments from both sides, but the capitalists established their moral reasoning and stayed on topic much more. Capitalists won this one I think, but socialists would of done better without all the rhetoric about current events and stayed on the philosophical.
Carlos Orellana Yes but socialism doesn’t have a rational philosophic defense. They stick to philosophy, they lose worse.
@Carlos
If the socialists had delved into the philosophical it would have been even worse for them. They would have been required to tell every member of the audience that their lives don't matter and that their purpose is to serve the group at the expense of their own happiness.
@@Shozb0t Thats not necessarily true. Just that our lives do matter, and that we should choose to help each other to increase everyone's happiness.
@@itos191
We choose to help each other by producing things that other people want. But we don't want to give it away for free. There should not be any sacrifice of any kind in a healthy society. Under socialism the emphasis is not on the individual but on the group. That means that some individuals can be sacrificed for the sake of other individuals. THAT is what is unnecessary.
@@Shozb0t right so the convincing would be on the not wanting to give it to others for free part. idk where he would have to convince people that the group is more important than the individual
I hate it when people start off the debate by thanking everyone who organized it and the audience for attending. No one gives a rat’s ass that you’re thankful, just get to your point. We didn’t tune in to hear you spend an hour pandering everyone smh.
Does everyone try to sound like Milton Friedman in this video?
Ryan Anderson What? No one in this video is in full agreement with Friedman.
Friedman taught me economics, but he did not understand Prohibition and The Crash
Why socialists are speaking about their friends and family?
It does not add any argument.
Because since their logic makes no sense, they’re forced to appeal to people on an emotional, more personal level.
I do that too when I want to increase my essay word count.
Pregnant teen kids are not in the situation though NO fault of there own, that is what people are laughing at
Socialist got slammed for sure! But I hate how when they get cornered, the socialists turn into preachers. Ugh. Get off your soapbox
I like to imagine these people running a blood bank. All healthy citizens have to line up once a week and donate enough blood to almost send them into cardiac arrest, but not quite, because the ill and the injured need the blood and what is private property anyway. Your blood, citizen? No, it belongs to all of us, we are brothers and sisters, are we not? Dont be selfish, you were born able to produce more blood than the less fortunate and therefore they are entitled to some of it. Don't take away their right to live.
47:15 who owns your clothes then? Or your glasses? Un fucking believable
I hate when they read off papers.
These were not worthy opponents, not that anyone is to their ideas however they were far from worthy. Faaaaaarrrrrrr
At about 2:04:02, the lady democratic socialist is smokin' off a cigarette next to her co debater. TERRIBLE!!! What about his right to breath clean air, girl?? You're violatin' his rights to be healthy, my ducky!!
Jesus Murphy! She's so self-righteous about feminist concerns and the poor, etc., but what about the rights of the poor guy on her side, eh? Hoho. T'underin' Jaesus, Boy!!! I just loves then humans! They're like children.
All I hear from the left is that we need systems in place to help people. Forget community, we don't believe in that anymore, do we? We need government to be involved in all affairs of our life now. Community and voluntary consent is what we had before big government came around. This is the difference between capitalist and socialist: The capitalist believes in the individual; the socialist does not, and therefore we need big daddy government to take care of us.
Poor display, poor argument from the socialists.
They don't have much "reality" to work with.
These socialists who advocate altruism are always the ones who sacrifice others for themselves.
I am all for capitalism, but the objectivist arguments are ridiculous to me. They claim that laissez faire capitalism is logically required for human survival and yet it has never been implemented so far. Doesn't our survival so far contradict this?
@Packster Mosk If the guy chained to the ball can stay alive, then clearly the ball doesn't prevent his survival, by definition of the word survival. It may worsen his well-being and prevent his flourishing, but these are different words with different meanings.
@Packster Mosk Well if a disease is fatal then it contradicts survival, while non-fatal diseases can be survived. I guess since lives are finite anyway we have to specify -- survival over what time period. But I believe some of the points they were making were not even about individual survival but about survival of humanity as a whole. And humanity as a whole has survived so far for the past 200,000 years.
@Packster Mosk If the argument really was simply "laissez faire capitalism would result in longer life expectancy", they could just state it that way and try to argue about that. But that's not what they are saying Instead they try some stupid absurd logical errors which seems essentially like "if you have 0 food you will die, therefore taking all the food from you would be immoral because it leads to death, therefore.... (?) taxes bad". This makes no logical sense. Maybe it's an argument that 100% taxes would be a bad idea (and even that doesn't follow from this logic, because maybe even then we could give everybody some food to survive), but it definitely doesn't follow that 0% taxes or whatever is the only remaining option other than dying.
@Packster Mosk Their principle seems to be "we need to make sure humans have what they need to survive", and today humans survive to old age, so I don't see how their conclusions follow from that principle.
@Packster Mosk You keep asking "what principle", but I wasn't making my own argument from my own principle, I was criticizing their logic. Everybody agrees reason is very important, and yet almost nobody concludes 0 taxes from that
They provide no justification for this logical leap.
The argument seems to be "a lot of X is bad, therefore a little X is also bad", and "a little of Y is good therefore a lot of Y must be super good". This doesn't follow. If we were to reason like this, we would go to extremes with everything. It's an argument for extremism. But not every function is linear, the optimum is not always at the extremes of every spectrum.
I'll send all my love too, just not the fruits of my labor (1:17:00). Laughable.
Taking is evil.
Judging by the bulk of the commentary being uncritically libertarian in tone, bias confirming in discourse and intellectually shallow laziness beyond belief, this site is nominally and tacitly considered a safe space by the delusional followers of objectivism. A bogus "philosophy" with the built-in cognitive dissonance of touting capitalism as one of its major tenets along with rationality, freedom of choice/speech and individualism.
The obvious fact that corporate capitalism by its very nature, is incompatible with the other tenets, because it demands that those involved cede their individual rights, responsibilities and freedoms to the interests of the overriding corporate culture, seems to be completely ignored. How does this happen? How can this in any rational way be considered freedom of choice when choice is constantly being compromised by never-ending, enforced requirements from "superiors"?
You really have to be somehow very deeply indoctrinated to accept this level of inconsistency without questioning the legitimacy of the whole illogical set of ideas behind it.
Also these pathetic attempts to add a moralistic shine to total selfishness and callousness would be laughable were they not so damaging and antisocial...true morality cannot solely exist on an individual level, it must have a social context that includes considerations of others for it to have any validity.
Keep trying buddy. Reality doesn’t have to conform to your emotive wishes and neither does objective morality.
And the socialists get the loudest claps, yet have the least substance.
Two people stood drınkıng at a bar. One ıs a socıalıst and the other ıs a student of Objectıvısm. The socıalıst says to the Objectıvıst ''Hey there's an aspect of my phılosophy that I want you to joın me ın''. The Objectıvıst says ''Oh yeah what's that?''. The socıalıst says ''Well, we should sacrıfıce ourselves for each other and the ultımate sacrıfıce ıs to cut our own throats, would you be wıllıng to do that?'' The Objectıvıst says ''Yeah ok, but on one condıtıon''. The socıalıst says ''What condıtıon?'' The Objectıvıst says ''You go fırst! Now, you jerk, wake up and change your phılosophy to mıne whıch keeps us both alıve! what are you drınkıng?''
Meh.
17:48 uugggghhhhhh. Shut up hole.
One's morals measured by one's survival how much do you need to survive and who are you willing to walk over? This rigid ideal is extremely flawed and only serves to construe rationality with survival and personal gain without thought given the workers in the trenches who traditionally have no control of their so-called survival wages. I am not an advocate of pure socialism. I would like to point out that in order for any system to progress that some sacrifice is necessary, taxes, for instance, is an example of sacrifice necessary for the maintenance of the infrastructure on which a free society ie. free enterprise or unmitigated free capitalism or socialism rely on. This argument for capitalism only prefaces an argument that no one should be held as a slave to any other but makes no concession for the cost of doing business, who then the workers or the people who benefit the most?
She makes me wish domestic violence were legal.
Will Miller Jesus Christ dude
Nah mate
The earth and its resources belong to all people. Private use beyond what is necessary for subsistence is a privilege granted to an individual by all others and only exists through the others' behavior. One component of the privilege of private use is an obligation to invest back into the community that granted the privilege. This investment makes up a citizen's dividend, which should keep all people out of poverty. This does not "sacrifice" anyone, nor does enforcing it "initiate" force against anyone.
Taxation isn't coercion - it's a condition of ownership. Rental income is the real theft. Landlords add nothing new to the economy but only take wealth from others by claiming exclusive control for what properly belongs to everyone. 60% of wealth in this country is inherited, and that wealth grows progressively due to the labor of employees who remain at a subsistence income. These people are the real parasites, not people born into poverty.
Wow...
Literally insane.
If the earths resources belong to everyone, then I have no right to pick and eat an apple I find without asking everyone on the planet if they are agreeable to my use of our resource.
@@FreedomPhilosophyTV True. You don't have a right to do *anything* outside of some social institution which positively *grants* you a right. Outside of that, your "right" is coextensive with your power.
You *also* don't have a right to pick an apple and eat it in a private property system in which all land is already claimed and no one wants to transact with you.
*If* the world is deemed a common resource, it will be managed like any other corporate property. The elected officials will decide who gets access, and on what terms. If people don't like the terms, other officials are chosen. In point of fact, land is already managed this way. "Owners" are ultimately tenants of the government. Taxes are rent. If you don't pay your rent (taxes), you are evicted (tax foreclosure).
@@FreedomPhilosophyTV Also, you don't have to get permission from every stockholder of the McDonald's corporation to buy a hamburger, do you?