52:40 "I've had it with you people, I've really had it with you people" Ridpath goes off on the Socialists.

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.

Anyone who still thinks social justice warriors are a recent phenomenon needs to watch this.

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

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.

Its amazing how nothing changes

Thanks for posting the debate. I heard Charles and Rucka talk about it recently.

1:34:06 "I don't believe that parenthood consists of that of breeding slaves" Peikoff at his finest.

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.

"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

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".

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?

"When was this debate held?" *reads sign in background "oh shit haha"

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.

"The sacrifice of personal existence is necessary to secure the preservation of the species" - Adolf Hitler.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

A mother dose the laundry by choice, taxes are paid though force how is this a moral equivalence?

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

Rest in peace Mr. Ridpath. A true genius

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.

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.

Nothing of substance from the socialists.

an introduction only rucka could beat in length

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. "

1:35:30 Leonard peikoff the legend

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

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.

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.

Ridpath and Peikoff: two great thinkers.

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.

The most one sided crushing defeat I've ever witnessed. It's a shame we lost Ridpath recently.

Watching Piekoff in this debate is like watching prime Michael Jordan.

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.

If only they all spoke more peaceably.

51:27 And how many women live of the labor of their husbands who don't get paid by the wife.

Better to put only Peikoff’s clips

Regardless of sides, neither of the socialists mount a coherent argument.

1:01:02 The debate was lost right there.

We have a social instinct . Taking breeds hate. Not taking breeds love. Stop taking and people will give.

He threw an 11 year old under the bus... lmao what a villain.

Partway through Caplan's opening comments... is he seriously equating Objectivism and statist Conservatism?

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!

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.

Will doing evil things produce good results?

59:05 is he trying to argue against himself? I am very confused.

socialism does not recognize me as an individual. I feel so excluded.

Beautiful

Truely impressive

Who can be against freedom, every socialist/communist/fascist

what did that guy shout out 1:19:00?

I suppose Socialism, on paper seems moral but it is not always the thought that counts, but the result that does.

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.

The description doesn't give the date of this debate. Anyone know it?

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

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''.

Why socialists are speaking about their friends and family? It does not add any argument.

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.

Pregnant teen kids are not in the situation though NO fault of there own, that is what people are laughing at

Does everyone try to sound like Milton Friedman in this video?

I hate when they read off papers.

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.

Socialist got slammed for sure! But I hate how when they get cornered, the socialists turn into preachers. Ugh. Get off your soapbox

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.

47:15 who owns your clothes then? Or your glasses? Un fucking believable

These were not worthy opponents, not that anyone is to their ideas however they were far from worthy. Faaaaaarrrrrrr

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'll send all my love too, just not the fruits of my labor (1:17:00). Laughable.

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?

Poor display, poor argument from the socialists.

Taking is evil.

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?''

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.

And the socialists get the loudest claps, yet have the least substance.

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?

17:48 uugggghhhhhh. Shut up hole.

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.

She makes me wish domestic violence were legal.