Radio Debate with a Socialist by Christine Smith
Several days ago I participated in a live radio debate with a socialist (he identified himself as a socialist, both in his
political affiliation, philosophy, and activism, and has been for many years). I perceive the debate not over an
economic system, but over the fundamental issue: freedom versus no freedom.
Never before have I engaged in such a lengthy debate with a socialist. I’ve often (as we all do) strike conversations
with Americans who’ve accepted the many socialistic programs the U.S. government has made (only, ironically, many
Americans seem to regard them as part of a capitalistic society). In such talks, I have found areas of agreement, and
areas of confusion, making the dialog productive and often at least causing those in the discussion to question the
premise of legal theft since at least they identify it as such after a discussion. But never had I, till now,
spoken/debated someone whose fundamental premise differed so from mine of free enterprise – this man
wholeheartedly openly defended theft from the American people and our corporations in order to create his fantasy
utopia where everyone is promised to be equally cared for.
The debate was most interesting, so I share my recollection: A libertarian versus a socialist. We were both
respectful of one another, though diametrically opposed on every issue discussed save for the wrongness of the empire
building of the U.S. government and unjust wars of aggression and greed. But even on this point, we fundamentally
disagreed on the culprit of such military action, with he vehemently blaming corporations, and I identifying the U.S.
federal government as the one responsible for all the ills of this society and the evils of our foreign policy. He also
espoused positive things about Cuba’s system, but conveniently ignored the oppressive policies and lack of freedoms.
Frog being lynched has to do with a decree that Chavez put out, but
had to withdraw, revamping the intelligence & counter intelligence
services. In Venezuela a toad is a snitch, the new law would have
required people to snitch on everybody else, therefore the lynching
of snitches in effigy. They called it the Get sapo law. Instead of
Gestapo. Sapo meaning toad in Spanish.
For example, the man spoke about poor education in our nation and its brainwashing of our youth into accepting
imperialism (he was much opposed to military recruitment in schools), he also lamented the high cost of healthcare,
and a few other areas – all of which he said the American people are terrorized by corporations. In fact, he went so far
as to say something to the effect that corporations were responsible for the unjust wars and that without corporations
there would be no war.
These points were easily decimated with facts about our educational system and how the very things he complained of
would be immediately removed if we had true free education (free from government control). “Public education” is
government controlled education with the expected results of centralized planning: bureaucracy, propaganda,
rewarding of incompetence, a blind eye to historical fact – and paid for by everyone – even those without children.
Same with healthcare, I pointed out we once had not only the best in medical care but it was affordable for all (and for
those who were indigent, clinics existed), and the sole change making healthcare and pharmaceuticals expensive (and
which ended clinics) occurred when the U.S. government ventured into its socialistic programs of Medicare and
Medicaid.
Our economic hardship is directly caused by the degree this country has adopted socialism.
‘with Chavez the people are the government’ on a sign on
the Metro. In Spanish, small letters to the right, ’con
Chavez el pueblo es el gobierno’.
But regardless of the facts presented, no matter the issue being discussed, the socialist returned to his assertion that
healthcare, education, retirement, electricity, food, etc. should be given equally to all and that everyone should earn
the exact same amount of money. He said all should be guaranteed jobs, so all will have a life of security.
Black sticker in a mall says “no more FARC, milk
now!”.
He was obviously intelligent, articulate, and well versed and believing in the socialist philosophy, but ready with only
facts about people’s difficulties in our nation – blaming such difficulties and suffering firmly upon capitalism and
corporations. At one point, I told him (and our audience) that every grievance, every one of his examples of suffering
and I named several as he had, were caused solely by the federal government, buttressing each with a few facts.
Corporations may exploit the situation in which they are given military contracts, subsidies, bail-outs, and
protectionism from the government, but they, corporations and capitalism, are not the cause.
The blame for our economic and social ills is with the federal government.
Without the government forming unconstitutional alliances with what should be a free-market and truly free
enterprises, none of the problems he mentioned would even exist. I provided a few examples of how it is capitalism
which has always given us greater choice, lower prices, and resulted in higher standards of living wherever it is applied
in the world. It also brings greater peace among nations that trade as their interdependence develops.
Then we again moved into the basic necessities of life discussion, with he saying no person should ever be without their
needs being met, and that everyone has a responsibility to take care of everyone else. I challenged this on a couple
points, with his saying that government does waste and that it must be reformed to work more efficiently.
When I pointed out it’s the federal government who is the robber, the thief…and no matter what it says it will do with
the money, it’s wrong to take from one to give to another, he could not understand the analogy (the hold-up at
gunpoint example in which the robber takes your wallet and gives it to some good cause afterward-posing the question
was it wrong for the man to steal your money?) The government threatens all citizens with fines and incarceration
unless they pay up. All he could say was “No, no.”
On the topic of charity, the truth of his doubt and lack of faith in the American people and our generosity became
apparent – he truly believes that people must be forced to help others and sees nothing wrong with forcing people
to do so.
When I posed the rhetorical question of imagining how much more suffering would be eased, (or for that matter how
much more the arts would be supported, and how much more research would be done into areas of science and
medical cures, and how the very people who are in need in each of our communities would be helped) if only the
American people were able to keep all the money they earned so they could choose to spend (and give) it as they
chose, he immediately replied that some people would be discriminated against. To this, I said each individual should
have the freedom to help others or not, and the freedom to choose whom they help.
Compulsory benevolence is not charity, but Americans (even despite so much of their money being exploited) have
always sought to care for the poor, the aged, and the ill. He again responded he didn’t think Americans would care for
everyone, to which I simply replied, “Then, I have more faith in the American people. We are generous. And we’ll be
even more so when we’re able to keep and spend or donate our money as we see fit.”
From the U.S. government’s (CIA) operations of regime changes, protectionism of U.S. corporate interests in foreign
nations, torture, and other similar matters, we were both in agreement as to the wrongness of, and we discussed
together several examples in South America…only he blamed the corporations for all of it and I went to the root:
unconstitutional programs/policies of the U.S. government. I could not begin to understand (nor will I waste time
trying) to make sense of how this socialist could see the suffering and yet refuse to trace the cause to its origin – the
federal government. One point on which we agreed was the wrongness of government subsidizing of businesses.
“The words on the left mean “response center – Of the
sovereign” ; on the right it reads “With Chavez – one united
government”
The debate ended with a final assertion on his part saying something like libertarians would defend the use of military
force to protect U.S. corporations stationed in Saudi Arabia if they were threatened (hypothetically) to be taken over
by the Saudi Arabian government. I immediately stated that he not presume to speak for libertarians, as he clearly was
wrong. So, he posed the question to me: What would you, as a libertarian, do? I replied I don’t care where corporations
go, but that they should be on their own be it in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, South America, just as I couldn’t care less
where an individual goes or who they do business with…but that all protection whatever form it takes, all protection
including the use of U.S. military forces and U.S. taxpayer money, should be absent. If someone wants the profit, they
take the risks. No longer should private corporations receive the protection of the intimidation and threat of force
from our nation to protect their interests. I said “They can go anywhere, they can get killed, they can defend
themselves, but they shouldn’t be protected with taxpayer’s money or the lives of our military.”
To this he seemed appalled, asking me if I was saying that private corporations could defend themselves if they were
set up in a foreign nations, and I said, yes, I do not care what they do – they should be on their own without any
government help. To this, he replied “Corporations would then rule the world,” and he then went further stating all
assets of corporations should be taken and given to the people. I replied, “That’s theft. It’s no different than stealing
from your neighbor down the street to help some other neighbor out.” At this point, he said “Lines drawn.” We
thanked each other for participating and announced our websites (I encouraging the radio audience to read the online
version of Bastiat’s The Law.)
I’ve been told by the show host the man enjoyed our on-air debate, and the radio audience was vocal in expressing
how interesting it was. I’ve been asked if I might do it again, and, I said yes, that another debate sounds
interesting…only next time I want us to choose one topic to be debated, with a moderator timing answers so that we
have equal on-air time to answer each question.
From this experience, I can see how such an articulate knowledgeable socialist could easily influence listeners if not
challenged point by point. The tactic of identifying people’s lack is powerful, and each time he went back to his
primary theme: Capitalism causes all the suffering. Socialism will solve it all. Though his premise is false, Americans
who have been well programmed since childhood to accept the basic immorality of taking from one to give to another,
and Americans who find themselves suffering economically, are especially vulnerable to such rhetoric.
The only barrier the people have to such a political activist espousing socialism, is the American knee-jerk reaction to
the term “socialism.” But the message of providing everything for everyone (no matter how immoral, unjust,
burdensome and impractical) is attractive to those who are suffering hardship. They seem to care nothing about the
immorality, they can’t rationally accept the fact that they (or their grandchildren and their children) will pay for the
debt later, or that the promises will never be met – that those in power will promise the world for their own advantage
and agendas.
Therein is the reason for the gullibility of millions of Americans as they take seriously the upcoming presidential
election and the major candidates they’ve been provided to choose between. Not one candidate proposes that they’d
like to see an end to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. Not one proposes an end to government favoring some
corporations over others with their bail-outs. Not one proposes ending the widespread socialism we already suffer
under. No. Each, in their own deceitful style give lip service to smaller or more efficient government and/or promise
changes accomplished only by larger more intrusive government and greater taxation, but none would actually do
anything about it. And they never focus on the cost to liberty for all that they promise. They play to people’s desire for
security. Do the American people even remember how self-sufficiency and independence once created wonderful
ingenuity and thus the wealth of this nation? Don’t they see the world around us where government provided security
has always come at the greatest cost of all – letting go of liberty?
Socialism weakens people; it morally debilitates them; and economically destroys them.
The message I heard repeatedly during my debate with the socialist, is the identical message the major candidates give
the American people, only the major candidates have the advantage: they promise benefits to millions through
socialism but always they avoid the word “socialism” replacing it with words of change, hope, and compassion. They
know what they’re doing, only their motives aren’t as pure as the man I debated. They are going for the power and
control, he is simply, in my opinion, a compassionate peace-loving individual who truly (and mistakenly) believes
socialism will help America.
Our major presidential candidates care nothing about helping the American people, but they know the great things to
promise while never telling Americans what they’ll loose: freedom.
Ironically, as people worldwide abandon socialism having suffered its dark economic and societal repercussions,
Americans – once the symbol of freedom, prosperity, and generosity – are forging only deeper into its dark abyss.
For as Edmund Burke, a British philosopher and statesman, said of socialism,”A perfect equality will indeed be
produced. That is to say equal wretchedness, equal beggary, and on the part of the petitioners, a woeful, helpless, and
desperate disappointment, such is the event of all compulsory equalizations. They pull down what is above, they never
raise what is below and they depress high and low together beneath the level of what was originally the lowest.”