Stumbling Through Darkness Blindly...

Ayn Rand cultist John Ridpath condemns socialism, extols capitalism and forgets to mention the word "theory." Likewise, he forgets to explain the difference between "capitalism" and "democracy" and the interactions between the two concepts. In addition, "immorality" is a relative judgement call in most intellectual circles, but not in the myopic world of Ridpath's Randian worshipping...

"...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....Capitalism is the only alternative to these types of immoral social systems."



Roadkill said...


Capitalism and Socialism are at opposite poles in ecomomics, just as Democracy and Totalitarianism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum. What is interesting is that where you find Capitalism, you usually find democracy, whereas where you find socialism, you often find totalitarianism. There are exceptions, of course (think China, and Scandinavia), but the great democracies are/have been all capitalist, and the worst totalitarian states are/have been socialist.

Democracy cannot thrive in centrally directed ecomomies; the state has too much power and too much responsibility to accomodate popular choice.

Capitalism cannot thrive in Authoritarian regimes; the state has too much power and presige to accomodate private enterprise.

Capitalism flourishes in democracies, albiet with some inequalities of income. Socialism flourishes in dictatorships, albiet with equality of misery.

Take your pick.

Sunny B said...


Help me out here. A current chant on the Right is that CAFE standards should be eliminated. Evidently this will make GM, Ford and Chrysler more competitive. If we increase CAFE standards, is that a move towards totalitarianism or socialism? If we eleimiate CAFE standards, is that a move towards capitalism and/or democracy?