WEBVTT NOTE Ethics in Collision 1 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:11.520 in Collision. Today there are two major views, two major philosophic positions that are in head-on 2 00:00:11.520 --> 00:00:18.800 confrontation. It is important for us to know what those views are. Obviously there are many 3 00:00:18.800 --> 00:00:26.400 divergent views that cover the area in between the two extremes, and it will do us very little 4 00:00:26.400 --> 00:00:31.920 The Middle Good to examine the middle ground where all kinds of compromises and adjustments 5 00:00:31.920 --> 00:00:38.880 have been made, or are being made, until we understand what the extreme positions are. 6 00:00:38.880 --> 00:00:46.680 Always a philosophy is based upon an extreme assertion. An axiom that arises, presumably 7 00:00:46.680 --> 00:00:54.480 from nature, is not provable, but nonetheless appears to be a self-evident truth, an ultimate 8 00:00:54.480 --> 00:01:03.280 Given. We have two extreme philosophies warring today for the minds of men. One of them is 9 00:01:03.280 --> 00:01:11.520 the view that the social group is the important unit in so far as human life is concerned, 10 00:01:11.520 --> 00:01:19.600 and everything must be subordinated to that group in the final analysis. In this area 11 00:01:19.600 --> 00:01:27.920 It is presumed that whatever should be done should be done with the group in mind. That 12 00:01:27.920 --> 00:01:37.020 is to say, the individual who does not fit in to this overall group view must be either 13 00:01:37.020 --> 00:01:43.520 trained and conditioned until he fits in, or must somehow be excluded or possibly even 14 00:01:43.520 --> 00:01:49.440 and Eliminated so that the good of the group is not disturbed. 15 00:01:49.440 --> 00:01:56.180 The other view, and it goes clear across the field to an opposite point, is that the real 16 00:01:56.180 --> 00:02:02.380 viable and important element in human life is the individual. It is the well-being of 17 00:02:02.380 --> 00:02:08.860 the individual that counts, and that if you take care of the well-being of each individual, 18 00:02:08.860 --> 00:02:16.260 and of course the total group good would be best served by that process. In the individualist 19 00:02:16.260 --> 00:02:26.220 view it would not be proper to try to correct or change any individual because each individual 20 00:02:26.220 --> 00:02:33.320 would be at liberty to decide good as he sees it for himself. In examining therefore these 21 00:02:33.320 --> 00:02:40.360 These two extreme views, I am going to provide two names that are proper names for each position, 22 00:02:40.360 --> 00:02:48.800 but it is unfortunate that the names I use have emotive overtones. I don't mean to awaken 23 00:02:48.800 --> 00:02:53.960 an emotional response. I am simply using the words because they are the correct words to 24 00:02:53.960 --> 00:03:00.840 deal with this area, and I trust that whether you like or dislike one or the other of the 25 00:03:00.840 --> 00:03:13.440 and Socialism, and Individualism. 26 00:03:13.440 --> 00:03:19.560 When we use the suffix ism in conjunction with the word of this sort, we know that we 27 00:03:19.560 --> 00:03:29.160 are talking about a system of belief, a philosophy, a dogma, if you like, which is organized and 28 00:03:29.160 --> 00:03:32.720 and Predicated Upon a Particular Position. 29 00:03:32.720 --> 00:03:41.280 And so we have two particular positions here, socialism and its antonym, individualism. 30 00:03:41.280 --> 00:03:46.900 Now there are many persons who presume that the opposite of socialism is capitalism or 31 00:03:46.900 --> 00:03:56.160 something of this sort. That's not true. The opposite of socialism as an ism is individualism. 32 00:03:56.160 --> 00:04:03.240 In a socialist framework of reference, good would be good determined for the benefit of 33 00:04:03.240 --> 00:04:09.760 the group. And in an individualistic context, good would be something that each individual 34 00:04:09.760 --> 00:04:12.960 would have to arrive at for himself. 35 00:04:12.960 --> 00:04:20.200 How would this work out in practice? Let's imagine a community containing, say, 100 persons 36 00:04:20.200 --> 00:04:26.840 and let us suppose that the socialist ethic is involved here, that the people in this 37 00:04:26.840 --> 00:04:35.680 community accept and operate a socialist type of arrangement. Then it would follow that 38 00:04:35.680 --> 00:04:42.020 any particular practices that would be adopted in this community of 100 would have to be 39 00:04:42.020 --> 00:04:49.420 practices that were deemed to be good for the social whole. No other practices could 40 00:04:49.420 --> 00:04:55.260 be tolerated. Well, how would you arrive at finding out which practices were good and 41 00:04:55.260 --> 00:05:02.300 which were bad? Actually, here there would be a number of methods. Various types of socialism 42 00:05:02.300 --> 00:05:09.100 exist, all of them dealing with methods as to how you arrive at the concept of the social 43 00:05:09.100 --> 00:05:15.780 good. With some, all you need is a dictator, and he can declare what the social good is 44 00:05:15.780 --> 00:05:22.340 is arbitrary. Or you could have a kind of an elite. That is, you could have a council 45 00:05:22.340 --> 00:05:30.020 of workers or a council of autocrats, call them what you will, who make a decision in 46 00:05:30.020 --> 00:05:36.260 their own little committee which decision would be binding upon the total number in 47 00:05:36.260 --> 00:05:42.500 the community. Or you could arrive at it by popular vote. You could take a policy, offer 48 00:05:42.500 --> 00:05:55.660 Let us suppose in this particular instance, with our prototype group of 100, that this 49 00:05:55.660 --> 00:06:01.500 is the method that we are following, which would lead to a kind of democratic socialism. 50 00:06:01.500 --> 00:06:07.580 And we will suppose that policy X, whatever it may be, is thought of and suggested to 51 00:06:07.580 --> 00:06:09.060 the people. 52 00:06:09.060 --> 00:06:15.360 And let us suppose that after this policy is suggested, all 100 approve of it. Well obviously 53 00:06:15.360 --> 00:06:21.820 there would be no question policy X would be adopted as the social good for that group. 54 00:06:21.820 --> 00:06:26.060 And there would be no conflict because everyone agrees in the first place. But let's suppose 55 00:06:26.060 --> 00:06:31.820 that we not only had policy X to consider, but let's suppose that we also had policy 56 00:06:31.820 --> 00:06:38.820 Policy Y and Policy Z to consider. And we offered these three policies for our little 57 00:06:38.820 --> 00:06:47.420 group of 100 to consider. Let us suppose that in voting for these policies, 45 of the 100 58 00:06:47.420 --> 00:06:57.300 Favour policy X. However, we'll suppose that, well, let's say 25 favour policy Y. Now that 59 00:06:57.300 --> 00:07:09.720 makes 70. We'll suppose that another 20 favour policy Z. And then there are 10 who don't 60 00:07:09.720 --> 00:07:15.940 favour any policy at all. They'd rather not have one. What will the result be? Assuming 61 00:07:15.940 --> 00:07:22.060 Following that we are following the socialist ethic, Policy X will win the day because 62 00:07:22.060 --> 00:07:30.340 Policy X has been accepted by more people than except any other policy, even though 63 00:07:30.340 --> 00:07:36.940 it is merely a plurality. You see, there are really more people in this situation that 64 00:07:36.940 --> 00:07:43.620 favor something other than Policy X. That is, forty-five favor Policy X, whereas fifty-five 65 00:07:43.620 --> 00:07:50.580 favor something else. But that doesn't matter, because there is a unanimity of view, insofar 66 00:07:50.580 --> 00:07:56.900 as policy X is concerned, that is larger than any other unanimity of view. And the consequence 67 00:07:56.900 --> 00:08:01.940 would be that policy X would be accepted. Additionally, and characteristically, 68 00:08:01.940 --> 00:08:14.100 Basically, all 100 must accept Policy X, even though 55 don't want it. Now that is the practice 69 00:08:14.100 --> 00:08:22.500 of democratic socialism. You arrive at the concept of the social good by the democratic 70 00:08:22.500 --> 00:08:28.800 process. But the key factor is that once you have arrived at it, whether it is done by 71 00:08:28.800 --> 00:08:50.780 Now let's go over to individualism and see how the same thing would work. Remember that 72 00:08:50.780 --> 00:08:58.760 in an individualist ethic, each individual selects his own concept of good, and no one 73 00:08:58.760 --> 00:09:05.360 One is to bind anyone. Let's suppose that we now have a community with 100 individualists 74 00:09:05.360 --> 00:09:11.400 in it, and let's suppose that policy X is introduced, and let's suppose that all 100 75 00:09:11.400 --> 00:09:16.520 approve of it. Well, then you would have the appearance of exactly the same thing that 76 00:09:16.520 --> 00:09:22.560 you would have had in the socialist community when all 100 agreed there, because there is 77 00:09:22.560 --> 00:09:27.360 nothing in individualism that says that you have to disagree, although many people suppose 78 00:09:27.360 --> 00:09:35.640 It simply says that the decision-making function is retained by the individual. So in this 79 00:09:35.640 --> 00:09:43.240 case, in the individualist community of 100, since all 100 happen to like policy X, it 80 00:09:43.240 --> 00:09:48.120 would be adopted. And superficially, you might not be able to detect the difference 81 00:09:48.120 --> 00:09:54.680 between a socialist community and an individualist community when everyone has arrived at unanimity 82 00:09:54.680 --> 00:09:56.240 in any case. 83 00:09:56.240 --> 00:10:04.380 And yet, in point of fact, the positions would be opposite, because in the socialist community, 84 00:10:04.380 --> 00:10:09.380 the policy is adopted because of unanimity. 85 00:10:09.380 --> 00:10:15.680 But in the individualist community, the policy is adopted because each one wants it. 86 00:10:15.680 --> 00:10:21.260 So there's a completely different framework of reference, although it might appear to 87 00:10:21.260 --> 00:10:29.840 to be identical assuming unanimity is reached. Obviously, whenever unanimity is reached, 88 00:10:29.840 --> 00:10:37.140 you never have any problems. Problems arise when unanimity is not reached. And we rarely 89 00:10:37.140 --> 00:10:42.000 arrive at unanimity, I might point out. Get two people together and it is very difficult 90 00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:47.780 for them to arrive at a constant view of anything. Get a hundred people together and you can 91 00:10:47.780 --> 00:10:58.220 In our second case, we have the same type of finding that we had in the first case. 92 00:10:58.220 --> 00:11:10.660 That is, 45 favor policy X, 25 favor policy Y, 20 favor Z, and 10 would prefer no policy 93 00:11:10.660 --> 00:11:17.180 at all. What would happen in the individualistic community? What would happen would be that 94 00:11:17.180 --> 00:11:24.740 The 45 who like Policy X would get it, and the 25 who want Y would have that, and the 95 00:11:24.740 --> 00:11:29.180 20 who want Z would have that, and the 10 that don't want anything wouldn't get anything. 96 00:11:29.180 --> 00:11:37.740 Now that's the difference. In an individualistic community, no one has any rightful power over 97 00:11:37.740 --> 00:11:43.420 any other person, nor could he get it. You either explain to the other person and get 98 00:11:43.420 --> 00:12:12.380 In this country, we are practicing both ethics, and we are in a state of confusion because 99 00:12:12.380 --> 00:12:21.260 because of that fact. You see, where we demand unanimity, at least of action, if not of opinion, 100 00:12:21.260 --> 00:12:28.220 is in the political arena. Political decision-making is always aimed at a monopoly. It is aimed 101 00:12:28.220 --> 00:12:35.900 at one point of view. No others will be tolerated. It is simply an academic nicety as to how 102 00:12:35.900 --> 00:12:42.420 you arrive at the one point of view. In an individualist community, and we also practice 103 00:12:42.420 --> 00:12:47.660 this, each person gets to make his own choice. And that is the kind of practice we have in 104 00:12:47.660 --> 00:12:53.940 this country when we go into the marketplace. I can go into the market and essentially vote 105 00:12:53.940 --> 00:13:00.420 for any product that I wish to. I vote for it by buying it. The minute I do so, I am 106 00:13:00.420 --> 00:13:06.380 I'm voting against all the competitive products that exist. I'm choosing product X instead 107 00:13:06.380 --> 00:13:12.820 of Y, Z, or whatever, and that means that X gets my vote in a very practical way. But 108 00:13:12.820 --> 00:13:19.440 note that my vote in the marketplace does not inhibit anybody else who might not agree 109 00:13:19.440 --> 00:13:25.020 with my choice and would want to vote for another product, and he's at liberty to do 110 00:13:25.020 --> 00:13:32.640 So, in fact, put it that way. Let's suppose we're talking about soup. Just take a very 111 00:13:32.640 --> 00:13:42.780 common item. We have, let us suppose, four brands of soup, X, Y, Z, and zero. And we 112 00:13:42.780 --> 00:13:48.260 are operating in a marketplace which is the individualistic way of making choices. What 113 00:13:48.260 --> 00:13:53.940 What would happen? Forty-five people have chosen X brand, twenty-five people have chosen 114 00:13:53.940 --> 00:14:00.740 Y brand, twenty people chose Z brand, and ten people didn't buy soup. But nobody is 115 00:14:00.740 --> 00:14:05.220 inhibited and next week you can go back and make the same choice as you did this week 116 00:14:05.220 --> 00:14:13.180 or an entirely different choice and no one's choice inhibits your choice. You are still 117 00:14:43.180 --> 00:14:50.980 are viewed as uneconomical and foolish to provide brands of soup that are obviously 118 00:14:50.980 --> 00:14:57.320 not as good as one particular brand which has one popular support. So all of the other 119 00:14:57.320 --> 00:15:03.760 brands would be ruled out, and from that time on, if you wanted soup, you'd get X brand 120 00:15:03.760 --> 00:15:09.680 or you'd go without. Now that's the fundamental difference. And as I pointed out, we do both 121 00:15:09.680 --> 00:15:17.280 in this country. Politically, we insist on communal and socialist decisions, and in the 122 00:15:17.280 --> 00:15:24.180 market, we insist on individualistic decisions. And it's no wonder we get ourselves into confusion 123 00:15:24.180 --> 00:15:25.180 in this area. 124 00:15:25.180 --> 00:15:31.720 Now, I've been talking at the area of ethics. Let me drop down to another area. Let's talk 125 00:15:31.720 --> 00:15:38.560 about economics. Assume the same communities now, 100 persons in each, of our socialist 126 00:15:38.560 --> 00:15:43.760 Socialist and Individualist Communities, and let's suppose that we're going to have a socialist 127 00:15:43.760 --> 00:15:48.960 economic system. What would that mean? Well, it would mean that we would have to have an 128 00:15:48.960 --> 00:15:56.660 economy that is predicated upon the socialist ethic. And the socialist ethic calls for good 129 00:15:56.660 --> 00:16:01.400 to the total group. What would that mean? Well, it would mean that there would have 130 00:16:01.400 --> 00:16:07.880 to be a central plan. There would have to be a managed economy. The economy would be 131 00:16:07.880 --> 00:16:13.000 He managed all the decisions made concerning it by some central figure. Now, whoever that 132 00:16:13.000 --> 00:16:17.920 is, or it could, of course, be a small group, but it would have to be an elite of some sort, 133 00:16:17.920 --> 00:16:24.300 or preferably possibly one person, an economic czar, and he would make all of the decisions. 134 00:16:24.300 --> 00:16:29.060 Because you see, in a socialist arrangement, you couldn't permit individuals to make separate 135 00:16:29.060 --> 00:16:35.000 decisions because some of them might be selfish, and would be making decisions that might benefit 136 00:17:35.000 --> 00:17:46.760 And if there were another person in that community that didn't have that item, then he would be 137 00:17:46.760 --> 00:17:53.680 deprived. And so the only time private property could be tolerated in a socialist community would 138 00:17:53.680 --> 00:18:00.320 be when there was enough of a given product, good or service, so that each member of the community 139 00:18:00.320 --> 00:18:05.360 could have exactly the same amount as any other person. And if there are certain 140 00:18:05.360 --> 00:18:10.960 products where that wouldn't apply, for example, automobile manufacturing 141 00:18:10.960 --> 00:18:14.960 companies, certainly everyone wouldn't want one. There would be no point in that. 142 00:18:14.960 --> 00:18:21.680 So you couldn't have that owned by one party because that would create imbalance. 143 00:18:21.680 --> 00:18:26.520 You would have to have something like that owned by the collective, by the 144 00:18:26.520 --> 00:18:32.160 The political czar or the economic czar, who would in essence be making the meaningful 145 00:18:32.160 --> 00:18:38.120 decisions concerning it. So this would be characteristic then in all socialist communities, 146 00:18:38.120 --> 00:18:44.580 there will be a reduction, if not a total elimination, of all private ownership, especially 147 00:18:44.580 --> 00:18:49.440 of the tools of production and distribution, and there will be a centrally managed economy 148 00:18:49.440 --> 00:18:55.840 with somebody at the top making the decisions for everyone else. Now how would it work in 149 00:18:55.840 --> 00:18:58.840 and Individualist Economy. 150 00:18:58.840 --> 00:19:00.520 Well it would be quite the reverse. 151 00:19:00.520 --> 00:19:05.600 In an individualistic economy you couldn't have one man making plans for everybody else 152 00:19:05.600 --> 00:19:10.640 because in individualism it is presumed that each individual has a right to make his own 153 00:19:10.640 --> 00:19:11.640 decisions. 154 00:19:11.640 --> 00:19:17.060 Therefore in this community each person would be at liberty to make whatever economic decisions 155 00:19:17.060 --> 00:19:18.060 he wished. 156 00:19:18.060 --> 00:19:24.640 Now some might like to set up a factory but others would prefer to work in one and fine 157 00:19:24.640 --> 00:19:54.640 In a socialist situation, they would have to be restrained. They would have to coincide and all their actions would have to fit in with the plans of the economic 158 00:19:54.640 --> 00:20:07.520 Let's suppose that you have a socialist economic system and a famine develops. What would you do? 159 00:20:08.560 --> 00:20:13.520 Well, if you have a famine developing so that there isn't enough to go around, 160 00:20:14.320 --> 00:20:23.440 the immediate action of all pure socialists would be to take whatever it is that you have 161 00:20:23.440 --> 00:20:29.040 and divide it equally, so that no one has any advantage over anyone else. Let's suppose 162 00:20:29.040 --> 00:20:34.120 there's a meat shortage. Well, fine. Then you take whatever meat is left and you cut 163 00:20:34.120 --> 00:20:40.460 it up in small pieces and everybody gets his share. This would be imperative because there 164 00:20:40.460 --> 00:20:46.560 has to be somebody making the decision and then distribution is the major idea. I might 165 00:20:46.560 --> 00:20:55.520 The symbol of division is the mathematical symbol that always accompanies all socialist efforts. 166 00:20:55.520 --> 00:21:02.400 You take whatever you've got and you divide it on an equitable basis because that is the whole morality, 167 00:21:02.400 --> 00:21:10.640 that is the whole ethics of socialism. Let's suppose the meat ran out entirely 168 00:21:10.640 --> 00:21:16.320 in your socialist community. Then what would you do? We know what has happened in communities 169 00:21:16.560 --> 00:21:23.920 where Socialism has been prevalent. In such a case, when there is no food at all, what happens is 170 00:21:24.560 --> 00:21:31.920 that the czar turns around and selects the fat man in the group and puts him in the pot. 171 00:21:32.880 --> 00:21:38.720 And, of course, at this point the chances are very good that the fat man in the pot will 172 00:21:39.680 --> 00:21:44.960 begin to be a little bit dissatisfied with Socialism. And as the water warms up, he will 173 00:21:44.960 --> 00:21:57.840 And now you'll find the most important socialist argument that there is. It is this. The economic 174 00:21:57.840 --> 00:22:05.040 czar now approaches the man bubbling in the pot and says to him, Sir, shame on you for 175 00:22:05.040 --> 00:22:11.120 complaining. Are you trying to suggest that your rights are greater than the rights of 176 00:22:11.120 --> 00:22:17.680 of the Group? Wouldn't it be better for you to die so that the whole group could survive? 177 00:22:17.680 --> 00:22:23.600 Shame on you! Boil in joy and think of the good that your death is bringing to everyone 178 00:22:23.600 --> 00:22:33.640 else. Now, that would be typical. I might point out that economic socialism could be 179 00:22:33.640 --> 00:22:40.760 expressed as dietetic cannibalism. Of course, today we don't hear very much of cannibalism, 180 00:22:40.760 --> 00:22:45.280 And it's the kind of thing that does happen periodically when human beings find themselves 181 00:22:45.280 --> 00:22:51.120 in this kind of a situation. Sometimes they become socialists very much in a hurry, and 182 00:22:51.120 --> 00:22:57.560 they proceed to use their power over perhaps the fattest or possibly the most helpless 183 00:22:57.560 --> 00:23:04.520 member of the group, and they simply take him or his assets, as they may demand, and 184 00:23:04.520 --> 00:23:09.040 they simply take them away from him and divide it up for the good of the group. Today we 185 00:23:09.040 --> 00:23:15.460 We hear much more of financial cannibalism than we do of dietetic cannibalism. But fundamental 186 00:23:15.460 --> 00:23:23.960 is the idea that the group has rights in itself that individuals don't have, and always some 187 00:23:23.960 --> 00:23:30.140 individual could be sacrificed for the good of the group which is superior. Now put it 188 00:23:30.140 --> 00:23:36.160 in an individualistic framework, and what would you have? Assume a famine. Incidentally, 189 00:23:36.160 --> 00:23:40.160 I could point out that the chances are rather good in an individualistic community that 190 00:23:40.160 --> 00:23:45.880 you wouldn't get a famine because everybody in there is going to be doing his own thing 191 00:23:45.880 --> 00:23:49.960 and the minute it looks as though there's going to be a food shortage somewhere in the 192 00:23:49.960 --> 00:23:55.160 future, somebody there will see that this is an opportunity for profit if he can do 193 00:23:55.160 --> 00:23:59.440 something about it so the chances are that he's going to do it and instead of having 194 00:23:59.440 --> 00:24:04.200 one economic czar doing all the thinking, you've got a hundred different people doing 195 00:24:04.200 --> 00:24:05.200 thinking. 196 00:24:05.200 --> 00:24:09.760 And even though the one man may be very brilliant, he can't possibly be as brilliant as all 197 00:24:09.760 --> 00:24:10.880 100. 198 00:24:10.880 --> 00:24:17.440 And so you've got 100 times the chance of avoiding famine in an individualistic community 199 00:24:17.440 --> 00:24:20.160 than you would have in a socialist community. 200 00:24:20.160 --> 00:24:21.920 But let's say it happened anyway. 201 00:24:21.920 --> 00:24:27.100 Say some natural catastrophe occurred and it simply wiped out all the food supplies 202 00:24:27.100 --> 00:24:28.100 and here you are. 203 00:24:28.100 --> 00:24:30.000 Well, say there's just a little bit left. 204 00:24:30.000 --> 00:24:31.320 Well, what would you do? 205 00:24:31.320 --> 00:24:36.360 Well, I'll tell you the first thing you wouldn't do is divide it unless the owner of it happened 206 00:24:36.360 --> 00:24:42.560 to want to. Now, there's nothing to prevent him doing it. If the owner happens to be very 207 00:24:42.560 --> 00:24:48.440 kind and generous in his own mind and wants to hand it out, fine, that's his decision 208 00:24:48.440 --> 00:24:53.180 and he would be at liberty to do so. There's nothing in individualism opposing charity 209 00:24:53.180 --> 00:24:59.040 or generosity or kindness or anything of the sort. It's just that he doesn't have to. 210 00:24:59.040 --> 00:25:06.320 The chances are rather good if you had one man left with a bag of seed that he wouldn't 211 00:25:06.320 --> 00:25:08.640 divide that up so everybody would get it. 212 00:25:08.640 --> 00:25:13.120 He'd go out and plant it so there'd be a better crop next year. 213 00:25:13.120 --> 00:25:16.960 Certainly there would be nothing to compel division, although it could happen if the 214 00:25:16.960 --> 00:25:19.840 owner wanted to divide. 215 00:25:19.840 --> 00:25:25.320 Well let's suppose there's nothing left, it's wiped out as in our socialist experiment. 216 00:25:25.320 --> 00:25:26.320 What would happen? 217 00:25:26.320 --> 00:25:28.600 Well, I don't know what would happen. 218 00:25:28.600 --> 00:25:34.280 One thing that would not happen would be the idea that you would take one of the men and 219 00:25:34.280 --> 00:25:40.360 make him a victim of the circumstance. If a man wanted to step forward and volunteer, 220 00:25:40.360 --> 00:25:44.300 there wouldn't be anything to prevent it. But he would be the one that would have to 221 00:25:44.300 --> 00:25:51.340 make the decision, not someone else, imposing his will upon him. That would be characteristic 222 00:25:51.340 --> 00:25:55.060 of the Difference in the Two Systems. 223 00:25:55.060 --> 00:26:02.620 As you have begun to see already, socialism provides a closed system. When you adopt it, 224 00:26:02.620 --> 00:26:09.060 you cannot tolerate anything else. And the interesting thing about individualism is that 225 00:26:09.060 --> 00:26:14.840 in an individualistic community you can even tolerate socialists because there isn't anything 226 00:26:14.840 --> 00:26:20.340 you could do to prevent a person from believing in socialism if he wanted to. You might argue 227 00:26:20.340 --> 00:26:41.140 Let's go down one further level. We've talked of ethics and economics. What about politics? 228 00:26:42.340 --> 00:26:49.300 Well, of course, you're going to have politics in socialism. This is implicit because in 229 00:26:50.340 --> 00:26:56.940 In order to have a central czar managing everything, you've got to have a man making decisions 230 00:26:56.940 --> 00:26:58.640 for the general good. 231 00:26:58.640 --> 00:27:01.680 And that's what politics and government is all about. 232 00:27:01.680 --> 00:27:10.560 You have to have a central agency that is imposing its will by force on the body politic. 233 00:27:10.560 --> 00:27:16.940 And so some political method and some agency of force is implicit. 234 00:27:16.940 --> 00:27:22.540 Of course, you could have a kind of voluntary socialism in which people were willing to go 235 00:27:22.540 --> 00:27:26.940 along with it, but nonetheless somebody's got to make the decision for them. And if they 236 00:27:26.940 --> 00:27:33.260 ever objected, they'd either have to be ousted or they'd have to be suppressed some way. 237 00:27:33.260 --> 00:27:38.860 Now put this, put politics into an individualistic framework of reference and you would see that 238 00:27:38.860 --> 00:27:43.820 if you had true individualism, you couldn't have a government because it would have nothing 239 00:27:43.820 --> 00:27:50.300 to Do. You couldn't have a central agency making decisions over other people who in themselves 240 00:27:50.300 --> 00:27:53.700 have the right to make their own decisions. It would be impossible. 241 00:27:53.700 --> 00:27:59.700 So these things are antithetical. I know some people today who feel that Republicans are 242 00:27:59.700 --> 00:28:05.980 individualists and Democrats are socialists. Actually, that's not true. Both political 243 00:28:05.980 --> 00:28:11.300 parties are socialists. You merely have the conservative socialist, who is the Republican, 244 00:28:11.300 --> 00:28:15.380 and the Liberal Socialist who is the Democrat, but in essence they are all going along with 245 00:28:15.380 --> 00:28:21.540 the idea of central control and just how it's to be managed becomes an academic point.