Should we Prosecute Nazis? - Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[azrial4421]

Makes no sense, I mean are we gonna prosecute old bus drivers that made blacks sit in the back of the bus?? tons of hate crimes we committed in the past. How do you force someone to do something one day, then prosecute them for it later???

[JohananRaatz]

How to achieve Objectivist results in foreign policy: /watch?v=tHGHT1BQNu4

[aweiss]

Free markets with individuals making decisions rather than central planners allocate resources more efficiently and lead to innovation and growth.

[KajiCarson]

The title to this video is misleading. Just because you were forced into a totalitarian army when you were young, doesn't mean you're a nazi or a fascist.

[RevolutionaryJam]

i love the nonsequeteur about communism, getting his wee anti-left hate rant in there even though it wasn't relevant to the question

plus it wasn't even a communist country, it was a statist centralised dictatorship, ie. state capitalist

[robertochahin]

Colectivism is Colectivism. Whether you subjugate the individual to the race as the National Socialist Party did under Hitler, or to society as a whole like Communism does in Cuba. The basic Idea is the same. The individual becomes a slave to the collective. Those with skills are enslaved to help the incompetent survive. And it is the state who controls it. Changing one master (facism) for another (communism) is not freedom. True Capitalism is the only system that respects the individual.

[RevolutionaryJam]

sorry dude your last statement is blindingly ridiculous

Capitalism, far from respecting the individual, makes the only role of an individual to produce something that others consume so they can consume things that others produce

a cog in a wheel

and if you can't produce you starve

and if you don't consume everyone is out of a job

[robertochahin]

ANd what do you propose? Redistribute wealth? And where did that wealth come from? Given the utter failure of socialism and everything it touches (Yes. the CRA was the seed of the current econ. Downturn), wealth obviously doesn't come form the Labor Theory of Value socialist propose. It comes from an individual's creative thought and that belongs to the thinker, not to those who want to steal it from him via social "solidarity". Wealth doesn't fall from the sky- Its created by individuals.

[RevolutionaryJam]

look don't give me this redistribute wealth scheme, a free market system accelerates wealth to the top and not to people who create the wealth, people gain money from CAPITAL ie. shares, land, and making loans - THAT IS NOT CREATING WEALTH

The people who actually do the labour that creates the wealth are only given a fraction of what they create

I am not a socialist I'm an anarchist-without-adjectives I have serious criticisms of both socialism and capitalism cont...

[robertochahin]

Wealth is not created by labor. Wealth is created by the mind. Who creates more wealth, the guy who pushes the button on a machine or the man who invests time, money and mental effort to bring the machine to life and its productive infrastucture to life whose button is pushed by a unionized worker?

The machine is the effect of the mind of the engineer who invents it, the entrepreneur who designs it and the investor who sees the profit potential in the machine.

[RevolutionaryJam]

ok as I said, I'm all for the engineer and entrepreneur getting their fair share of the pie, and I take your point, but how are they going to create wealth without a labour force? in most cases could many people do the same job as the entrepreneur if they had the same resources? is the entrepreneur actually doing anything that wouldn't be demanded of the market from someone else anyway? how do you guarantee the investor's intellectual property without a state which is a coersive institution?

[robertochahin]

Who ever brings some new product that the market wants IS AN ENTREPRENEUR, by definition. And it is his ability to conveince capital owners to invest in his idea. That idea AND its implementation is the cause of the new wealth. Thus the idea should be protected by the state through IP rights, one of the few legitamate function of the state. Using the idea without its creators permision is theft like any other. Capitalism needs a limited state. Just enough.

[ebrawer]

The objective state is not a tool of coercion: it only uses it's legal monopoly on force against those who have initiated force, and have thus voluntarily opened themselves to the use of retaliatory force.

[RevolutionaryJam]

and again you skipped my point, simply owning capital IS NOT creating wealth, it's running a protecton racket

anyone owning the same capital will draw the same dividends, it just depends whether you're rich enough to be financially independent or not, it's a game to be played

[robertochahin]

Labour, like capital, are just a means of production that are put together in innovative ways by an entrepreneur to produce something in a more efficient way then his competitors. This efficiency is the profit that if the person saves becomes wealth. As means as production, shouldn't both labour and capital both receive a share of production in the form of negotiated wages and dividends? This negotiation should NOT require anyones sacrifice. That is capitalism.

[seanotube85]

I would have to say that they're all equally responsible for the wealth (regardless of who put in the most effort), because without any one of them, the machine wouldn't operate. Of course they could just make a machine that didn't require a button pusher, but that would put a whole factory out of business, and the whole point of that business is to give people jobs so that they can buy whatever crap is produced in the factory.

[robertochahin]

The whole point of business is to fulfill the need for a product or service at a profit. Its up to the entreprenuer to take the factors of production in a optimal mix of machinery and labor to produce at a cost that will satisfy all the people involved: labor, entrepreneur, suppliers and cutomers. Otherwise production is unsustainable. If labor becomes too expensive, than more machines are needed to find the optimal mix of factors for the venture to be profitable.its not perpetual motion Machine

[seanotube85]

My argument is that the whole objective of Ayn Rand style thinking (if implemented in an unhealthy manner) is slavery, in the sense that society becomes dependent on the need fulfilled by the product, and therefor, the factory owner can make the lifestyle of his employees as uncomfortable as possible for the sake of his own profits (through lower incomes/cut medical benefits etc.). It's all about the money you get from revenues.If society were correctly nurtured it would create more competition.

[robertochahin]

If Implemented in the correct manner as intended, objectivism is liberating. One of the main conclusions is that ALL human interactions should be of mutual benefit to all involved. All individuals have unavoidable needs and must be fulfilled to survive and thrive. Competition is stiffled by governments who pick favorites. In real life, businesses who pursuit their LONG TERM self interest compete for the best employees, which allows them to earn more. Cheap is not better 4 biz most of the time.

[seanotube85]

If government were not involved in any form whatsoever, factories could pay their workers whatever they wanted and make working conditions as uncomfortable as they wanted too, then sell everything to England or Europe or China. They could literally save themselves money paying their "button pushers" pennies. The reason why governments pick favorites is because they are bought off by corporations who thrive on this greed based-ideology. They stay on top by holding down their competition unfairly.

[robertochahin]

I agree with your last two senteces. But I would add that they are also bought off by the Unions. So when the Govt has too much power, special interest go into a civil war to get favors from the state. If you reduce the state, both companies and workers would be forced to strike fair bargains, since neither would have a bully to appeal to. As business owner I can tell you that I try to keep my employees happy out of my selfish interest because they produce more that way. Thats the modern truth.

[seanotube85]

If you reduced the state, how would workers have any leverage against their bosses? And secondly would you not want to find a way where you could pay your workers even less if they produced at the same capacity? Wouldn't that be a long term goal under your ideology? Personally I don't advocate the state as it stands today because it is way too sloppy. It does not operate on a personal level with businesses, and I doubt that would be prudent anyways. Perhaps our monetary system is the problem.

[robertochahin]

INDIVIDUAL workers have leverage through their productivity. Not all workers are equally good. Yes, if I could pay them less I would, but they probably have no problem getting a job with my competition, so its not in my best interest to give up TALENTED workers to penny pinching. I went through a lot of trouble to get the good staff I have now. And Yes, the schizophrenic monetary policy has a lot of fault in current crisis. It allowed con artists to take over finance industry.

[seanotube85]

If technology were available you would replace your workers with more efficient machines. And your competition would most likely follow suit. But government doesn't want that to happen because of the monetary system which would reduce our country's affluence if we innovated technology to that extent (because the working class would to lose jobs). Not too far in the future there will be computers that have the capacity of all of the human brains of the world combined. Just something to consider.

[robertochahin]

That argument has not held water since at least the industrial revolution when trains put stage coach drivers out of business. Disruptive technologies destroy some jobs and create others. That has been proven by history. The explanation for the failure of that argument has been explained by Joseph Schumpeter and his creative destruction concept. Julian Simon also argued that human creativity will always create jobs. But workers do have to adapt to the disruptive technology or they wont work.

[RevolutionaryJam]

I am all for people being able to keep the fruits of their labours, but LABOURS is the key term,

A CEO who makes $100k a year, fine! keep it! enjoy it!

An aristocrat who owns vast swathes of land and gets all his income from rent but doesn't life a finger to work in his life - fuck 'em, appropriate his land and distribute it amongst those who want to work the land to provide for him and their families

[RevolutionaryJam]

although to be honest your points are also a non sequeteur, I wasn't being an appologist for the Soviet Regeme, I would never do that

but apart from anything else, throughout the cold war the US was commiting far worse crimes abroad than Russia

[robertochahin]

It's only a non sequitur because you keep missing the point that is being made. That all totalitarian states wheter left or right leaning are equally bad. The US did do bad things. Whether they were worse than the sovites thats debatable, but I wont.

[RevolutionaryJam]

ok fair enough, I agree that all totalitarian regemes are equally bad, but Michael Albert makes the point that even in a Stalinist regeme you don't have to ask to go to the toilet...

....whereas in the workplace you often do...

An interesting observation.

[RyanLVMetal88]

i think its interesting that in america you can be a christian and not be killed.

[thaguy6502]

No doubt the US did some stupid things during the cold war (and after), on both the international and domestic fronts (For something historically egregious with the US, pick slavery and segregation - that's the wost).

They pale, however, in contrast to the crimes the Soviet Union committed against it's own citizens as well as those of Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, and the support lended to other monsters.

[RevolutionaryJam]

ps. thanks for the good natured debate, I suggest you check out the channel

"capitalistholocaust"

for specifics

also note that the things they did WERE NOT "stupid" they were devious and deliberately conducted to serve special interests

[RevolutionaryJam]

Read Rogue State by William Blum if you don't believe me

[thaguy6502]

Being pale doesn't make them right, and I'm not about to defend stupid things. But don't try to establish equivalence between things which are grotesquely unequal.

Stalin alone killed 20 million people and enslaved 100+ million more. Based on historical projections, the US will need thousands of years to catch up to that record.

[RevolutionaryJam]

ok as I said I'm not an appologist for stalinsm, I detest big gov and tyranny, my point is that a lot of libertarians seem to have an irrational virtriolic hatred for the left, who share many of their anti-corporatist and anti-war ideals

I also find libertarianism hypocritical as they hate the government intervening on behalf of the poorest members of society to provide social security, but they are all in favour of intervention to protect the inordinate "property rights" of the ruling class

[thaguy6502]

There are two definitions of "corporatism" is play these days. One is a foundation of Fascism : Giving the major interest groups a seat at the table of absolute power. The other is the leadership by private corporations.

Real libertarians (not so called "libertarian socialists" who are oxymorons, not libertarians) are, of course, vehemently opposed to 1920's Euro corporatism, because it is collectivist rather than individualist.

[thaguy6502]

The second definition of corporatism - advocating for private corporations, libertarians are neutral on. We are not for or against private corporations. They are simply legal representations of a group of individuals and should be protected by government - but not advanced by government.

The current role and influence of corporations in the US government is very corporatist, although it is not an explicit philosophy, but a consequence of the government wielding power it should not have.

[thaguy6502]

And we're not "anti-war", per se... Really, how many peacenik gun owners do you know?

We embrace the principle of non-initiation of force. This does not preclude war in the defense of ourselves or our allies. It does preclude running around the world trying to build democracies for people who don't want them.

Providing for the national defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government. That means being willing to use it - for defense.

[thaguy6502]

And I think it is very much worth noting that we protect the property rights of everyone - rich or poor.

What we hate is theft. Forced forfeiture of your property is never just, stealing is never a sustainable source of wealth, and always discourages it's creation.

Contrary to socialists, we recognize that it is impossible for the anyone to create and hold wealth in the face of a society which does not protect their rights. There is no hope for the poor if we do not protect property rights.

[RevolutionaryJam]

there is no objective property.

property rights is emergent not innate. we respect property because we expect our property to be protected.

having the government protect any inemergent property rights is thuggery and contradicts the principle of non-initiation of force.

You try protecting thousands of acres of land from the peasants who actually farm it and do all the work and have to pay you rent without employing thugs (the government) to protect so-called "your" property.

[CrazyHorseInvincible]

I have a work laptop that is very fast and expensive. Since I'm the one doing the work on it, not my company, does that mean I can keep it for myself if I get fired or quit? Please, tell me I can. I'm hoping I can get a free laptop anytime I get a job.

[RevolutionaryJam]

hi "libertaran socialist" is not an oxymoron

it can be read as: "(civil) libertarian socialist" and is not meant to imply "(economic) libertarian socialist" which could possibly be construed as an oxymoron I imagine

"civil libertarian" ideology probably predates "economic libertarian" by several decades in literature or at least in popularity since it was birthed by The Enlightenment, the (economic) libertarians came a fair bit later so is they that have adopted the term, not vice versa x

[g0ssage]

Nazism and Communism are both Collectivist ideas. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called the common good.

The Only Path to Tomorrow, Readers Digest, Jan. 1944, 8

[cochisestronghold]

I totally agree they should pay for their crimes against humananity.

[MarxBakuninMe]

Nazism and Communism are completely identical? REALLY? So Communism was about a classless society, Nazism was about a hierarchical statism. They were different in practice as well as doctrinally. The utter stupidity of Randism shows itself again!

[ArrogantEgoist]

Actually, it's *your* overwhelming stupidity.

Even an apolitical certified moron can grasp what so many leftists pretend not to get: that despite differences in detail, Nazism and communism are *essentially* the same: both are extreme forms of collectivism based on the ethics of self-sacrifice, and responsible for the murder of millions.

[MarxBakuninMe]

Actually, doctrinal communism was about freeing the individual (along with the rest of the group) and allowing him to reach his full potential. Nazism, by contrast, was a reaction of the ruling classes, which could not have been any more different than the communist conctrine (key word doctrine) So to say they're the same suggests collossal ignorance.

Oh, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find ANY social system that does not require some self-sacrifice or another.

[SirPwn4lot]

@ArrogantEgoist It wasn't the rightism of the Nazis, nor the leftism of the Communists that made them into murderers, it was their AUTHORITARIANISM. Most people who mindlessly listen to Fox or MSNBC don't realize this, but there is an up and down spectrum as well as a left and right.

[xexixk]

@ArrogantEgoist And what you fail to get is that if you go to far to the extremes of either the right or the left you end up at roughly the same place: tyranny. Some of the first people Hitler rounded up were suspected communists and trade union leaders - not people who would be gone after by the extreme left. The extreme left confiscated all privately held industry, Hitler did not. In fact the industrialists loved Hitler b/c he eroded all workers rights, etc.

[RevAlex]

What the christ; Where has this woman been???

[jacksecret]

Start with the current crop, the son and grandson of the NAZI banker Prescott Bush for instance.

[CapitalFailsUsNow]

And soldiers are not responsible for their conduct? The "I was only following orders" justification negates any notion of personal responsibility and free-will. There is a very large list of Nazi war criminals who were not apart of the prominent NAZI political, economic, and military leadership.

Stalinism killed more people? REALLY? Good call, David Irving.

More fodder for my "EPIC FAIL" play list.

[CapitalFailsUsNow]

Simon Wiesenthal rolls in his grave.

[Kurtyoungblood]

Wish it was you doing the rolling :) jk

[Irtidad]

I assume you're not terribly fond of Philip Zimbardo?

[CapitalFailsUsNow]

Oh no, I am. To me, his response was too vague. "Anyway influential." "Individual soldier." These are not entirely separate categories. An individual soldier is responsible, to the degree of power and influence that he or she attains and depending on the situational contexts.

[Irtidad]

It was rather vague, I agree, it didn't really cut to the heart of the issue at all. My point about Zimbardo was in light of the fact that he argued for the lessening of the sentences for the guards at Abu Ghraib.

[CapitalFailsUsNow]

He was mainly referring to the atrocities that "individual soldiers" committed under the NAZI regime. But yeah, I agree with you and Zimbardo regarding Abu Ghraib. England was scapegoated and crucified, while "Rummie" and others received a pat on the back.

[IchorFigure]

This is interesting, but I'm confused what this event is for. Is it Q & A after his lecture or something else?

[IchorFigure]

Ugh, I overlooked the small print in the title.  Yes it is a lecture Q&A, haha.

[MetaMorphy]

She probably doesn't understand that the only people being prosecuted are SS officers, who did not act under compulsion and were directly involved in murdering citizens.

[stratvic]

Soldiers should be responsible for their actions. You do not get to escape personal responsibility for your actions by saying "he told me to do it". If everyone took personal responsibility for their actions there would be less war, atrocities, and government.

[chris3443]

But how would the first precedent-setting trial unfold? A sentence of death to 300 000 soldiers for war crimes (thinking Iraq)?

[stratvic]

Of course, murder is murder and murderers are murderers.

Even if they are not prosecuted by government we can individually sanction them with voluntary disassociation.

[GamblerJustice]

And a lot more people dying horrible deaths for disobeying authority.

It's a totalitarian goverment - they're threatening your life and probably everyone you know. A man cannot be held responsible for his actions in such a situation.

[GamblerJustice]

The choice in such a situation is this:

Either die yourself/see your family tortured or kill people in war.

There is no 'moral choice' to make here - we cannot persecute someone who's only choice was either to be evil or to be evil.

It is only when people have a possibility of being good that we can condemn them for choosing the evil.

[stratvic]

A volunteer army is the authority, its teeth, and its gun. Without willing volunteers to exercise violent ideas the government is powerless.

In the case were there is conscription you may have a weak point. Even under those conditions conscriptees would have an obligation to be ineffective in carrying out orders and an obstacle to authority and violent ideas.