Comments (103)

• Mike

  "Oh sure, in theory I would like to see everyone with their own homestead, money in their pocket for regular shopping frenzies, and no health worries despite eating at Burger King 24/7, but arriving at those goals is not exactly doable unless government robs Peter to pay Paul and/or starts up the printing press."

  You are implying here that such a riduculous proposition is in fact possible, but only with government intervention. From the rest of the article I'm pretty sure you don't believe it, in which case you might want to be careful what you write. I can see a liberal reading this saying "Sounds good to me."

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:10 AM

• Cramchakle

  "We meet one family that is so desperate for money that they were willing to accept $1,000 for cleaning out the house that they were just evicted from. Was it sad? Yes. But should we end capitalism due to this one family in Peoria, IL?"

  They sound like a bunch of evil capitalists, to me; willing to do anything to make a buck...

  ;)

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:28 AM

• Giant_Joe

  "At the end of his Q&A, Moore pushed the audience to understand that while they don't have the money, they do have the vote. He implored them to use their vote to take money from one group to give it to another group. Did he really say that openly with no ambiguity? Yes, sadly."

  I have to say, that at least to some extent we're lucky that voting is just a placebo.

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:32 AM

• Cramchakle

  From what I've heard of the movie and some of the interviews with Moore I've seen lately, I would go so far as to say that most of the specific blames he's laying out aren't so far from the truth. The problems are coming from his suggested fixes and his confusion of those blames with capitalism or free market. If he had named his film "Cronyism: A Love Story," it would have been far more accurate.

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:36 AM

• Barry Loberfeld

  Contempt for the masses, not compassion for the poor, motivates the welfare statist, a disciple manqué of the Gotha Marx. It is from his creation of an "evil" entity -- the "greed," "selfishness," and "materialism" of all others, of society -- that he derives, with his advocacy of redistribution, an opposed "good" identity -- his own "social conscience." For a Michael Moore, the evil of America -- of capitalist society -- is that it will not "guarantee" free, unlimited medicine for all as a political right, while his own good is to be found right there in his support for such a noble (i.e., paper) proclamation. His position doesn't come from a focus on the reality (theoretical and empirical) of health care as provided by the market vs. the State, a reality well known in Canada (which didn't legislate free, unlimited medicine for all, but government control over all areas of medicine) and brilliantly dramatized in the Québecois export The Barbarian Invasions, the 2004 Oscar winner for best foreign language film. If the good is to be found in the market -- in "civil society," the explicit enemy from Marx to Chomsky -- what is to be gained from setting oneself apart from -- above -- it?

  From here.

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:36 AM

• Franklin

  "Moore is a rather simple guy."
  Quite.

  "He is likable."
  Errr, no.

  "He sees the world as good guys (people with no money) and bad guys (people with money)."
  Except for himself maybe.

  I confess cowardice; I will not suffer through the film, and that gives me little credibility in arguing against it.
  Anyway, if every citizen in the U.S. were to answer a poll question, "What describes the current U.S. economic system?
  (a) capitalist
  (b) socialist
  (c) neither"
  then I wonder how the response distribution curve would appear, and if it realistically would portend any libertarian opportunity.

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:47 AM

• Dick Fox

  I don't understand why we give Michael Moore the time. He is P.T. Barnum of our age. He cares nothing about the issues. He cares only about making money. He has found a niche feeding on the foolishness of radical leftists and in a caricature of his own movies he fleeces his gullible audience.

  But that brings me to my confusion. Why do thinking libertarians and conservatives give him so much of their hard earned money? I understand the liberals; they are stupid - but conservatives....?!
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:50 AM

• Savannah Liston

  I rarely have time to listen to the radio anymore, but yesterday I turned on NPR, only to hear an interview with Michael Moore. I turned it off about 10 minutes later, it wasn't worth my time. I found myself shouting back at Moore more than listening to him. I find it very disturbing and very sad that Americans believe his simplistic and socialist message. I guess it is the education system, kids are brought up listening to the sort of stuff Moore is promoting, and they never learn how to think it through logically and intelligently. But I guess I am a little biased against the school system, as I am homeschooled. :)

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:55 AM

• Franklin

  I really hate the blog delay and not having the ability to see who's writing when.
  Sometimes I'm trying jot down some pithy comment, and I end up having to follow Barry Loberfeld.
  It's like entering a community audtion where Andre Previn precedes me with _Rhapsody in Blue_, and then I get on stage to juggle three red balls.
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:58 AM

• Shelly Peterson

  The most successful accomplishment of socialism is the re-naming of all its failures as Capitalism.

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:59 AM

• Mushindo

  From the article: 'Moore is a rather simple guy. He is likable. He sees the world as good guys (people with no money) and bad guys (people with money).'.

  
  I wonder what Michael Moore's net worth is, and what he does with it......

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:06 AM

• Richie

  Michael Moore is a classical hypocrite and demagogue that is not aware that all his wealth and popularity is thanks to capitalism. Can you imagine Michael Moore would exist if there was no capitalism? He does not understand that he is making money on the economic ignorance of his audience/consumers. Only capitalism does provide that kind of opportunity. In a socialist system Michael Moore would not exist!

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:08 AM

• Arend

  "Government cluster-fucks: A Love Story of Causing Class Conflict across the board", would have been a far more accurate a title for the movie.

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:25 AM

• Gil

  "The people in that theater with me, including Moore, were not bad people."

  Really?

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:34 AM

• Professor_Blitzkrieg

  Savannah

  "I guess it is the education system, kids are brought up listening to the sort of stuff Moore is promoting, and they never learn how to think it through logically and intelligently."

  It's probably just a coincidence that the state controls education.

  But seriously, the reason people most often cite for opposing the free market is that it hasn't worked before. They learn that great depression was caused by capitalism and saved by socialism, that reagonomics failed, etc etc. All the history they know is wrong.

  The masses learn their national history from high school history, Top Gun, and the media.

  When you have an argument with someone, and their facts are all wrong, it becomes he says she says. It's no use debating in from of a computer either because If I find an article with data supporting that the great depression was caused by the fed, they can find an article by some michael moore wannabe saying that capitalism caused it with some phony evidence and just believe that. It's hopeless.

  They have no respect for theory either, and yet Austrian theory in particular has been able to predict every depression from first principles.

  Oh well..

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:39 AM

• Mike

  "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." -George Orwell

  I find it a fascinating realization that the words "oligarchical collectivism" (the words themselves, not Insgoc per se) describe the United States' situation pretty accurately.

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:46 AM

• Thomas Andersen

  I find it interesting that, even after viewing his other movies, you still don't realize that Moore is a socialist at heart.

  He, as socialist should, cares not for the problem of the rich and wealthy and focuses only on the problems in the lower reaches of society.

  One could argue that it is a "stupid" pursuit, but in the eyes of America ( who is inherently the main audience ), Moore is right on the money.
  Robin Hood is the picture of a hero in most peoples eyes - he gives to the needy at the expense of those who have more than enough.
  In a libertarian society it might be silly, but in Capitalist-America, it seems very likely to be the best solution *NOW*.

  Socialism is used as a slur and a degradation - it is neither.
  In fact, Socialism is just as viable as Libertarianism - it is a choice to live under the same rules and principles as your fellow man.
  Libertarianism is more of a "anarchist" / "every man for himself"-way of thinking, which I find very distasteful when we're talking about society.

  A special blend of Socialism and Libertarianism - now that's a cocktail I'd support any day.
  In the end, it's all about know what one strong points are - Socialism is unbeaten when it comes to public service.
  ( Again, don't trust US anti-socialism propaganda .. )
  Sicko is a great example of what Moore advocates - Socialism where it makes sense.

  Aside from that, I do really agree that Moore is Capt. Obvious, rather than Capt. Solve-a-Lot.
  Libertarianism is a great view of life, it just needs a little of the other sides as well :)

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:47 AM

• EnEm

  To my mind there's just one thing wrong with Michael's Moore's film that stops it from being a hit - the title. It should be "Crony Capitalism - A Love Story". Now it's a natural, perfect fit.

  Moore is the archtypical Jock: Unshaven, baseball cap, tweed shirt, burger-eating, beer swilling, self righteous scum bag with cargo pants at half-mast. What gnaws at my gut is that we are mandated to drag this kind of human ballast along with us through the centuries.

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:47 AM

• J Cortez

  Moore is great at what he does, he's like the "radio shock jock" of film. I'm pretty happy that not many people cared about his movie Sicko, which like this movie was also a gross distortion of reality. It really bothers me that a guy that can make Farenheit 9/11, which was excellent, goes on to make the kind of crap he's making now.

  Personally, I'm steeling myself in the expectation of having to argue with anyone and everyone that agrees with the premise of this movie (free markets are bad.)

  I have to second Shelley Peterson's comment because I think it's so good.

  Shelley Peterson said: The most successful accomplishment of Socialism is the re-naming of all its failures as Capitalism.
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:50 AM

• Mike

  Heh, Thomas, you really need to spend more time perusing this site. Only then will you realize that Moore is simply very good at *appearing* to be Captain Obvious due to his admittedly fantastic propaganda skills.

  Your talk about a mix between libertarianism and socialism means you're halfway to understanding economic reality. Once you understand it fully, you will see clearly that socialism's promises are impossible and therefore empty, and that capitalism is the only long-term way to raise the standard of living of everyone, rich and poor alike.

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:52 AM

• Michael Covel

  "Oh sure, in theory I would like to see everyone with their own homestead, money in their pocket for regular shopping frenzies, and no health worries despite eating at Burger King 24/7, but arriving at those goals is not exactly doable unless government robs Peter to pay Paul and/or starts up the printing press."

  That was sarcasm on my part!

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:02 AM

• Michael Covel

  I probably did not do as good of a job as I could have in describing the shock that I felt when that room jumped up and cheered the FDR proposal. They all had such happy looks on their faces. It was weird. Cultish. Hence my thinking of "Kool-Aid".

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:07 AM

• An old uneducated Hillbilly

  And same said evil capitalism film makes Mr. Moore and Hollywierd millions of capitalist dollars. Nuff said.

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:21 AM

• Bill Green

  "we seriously might be past the point of no return toward a socialization of America."

  I agree we are past the point of no return. Sometimes I have hope that we may be on the verge of a second revolution, as Gerald Celente predicts, but it soon passes. I am not sure the reasons for discontent manifested in the tea party culture run deeply enough.

  We have a crisis of character, as Lawrence Reed has pointed out. We have a country of folks like Moore who are content to live by plunder.

  Votes and politics are a placebo, as another noted above.

  What is the true medicine for our malady?

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:54 AM

• Jesper Brodersen

  Sorry, if this is off topic, but I hate how Robin Hood always are used in the wrong context. He took money from the government and gave it back to the people, who where wrongly taxed. It was a Libertarian story, that have been converted to a Liberal story. Funny how it is actually a fitting analogy to the transformation of the original liberal cause.

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:00 AM

• Ronald

  I am frighten for America when the communist slogans of FDR are taken as "cures" for the moral expectations some feel government should be enforcing from a desk in Washington.

  It is the government mandated economic warping that has gotten us to this disastrous point thus far, and the sheeple cry out for more of the same by driving more and more nails into the coffin be formed by them for liberty, freedom and self maintained worth!

  A desire to be a religious follower of something is the basic human need that a crowd manipulator uses to his advantage...bravo Michael Moore and the left for utilizing this knowledge to the benefit of your own capitalistic surge to power. Seems the very sins capitalism is accused of is prevalent in the Michael Moore tool chest and his entourage of blind worshipers.

  Michael Moore wants church and state to become one as his vision of America is a magistrated moral existence directed from the pulpit of Washington that no one is free of........yea that will work better.

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:06 AM

• Tina Brewer

  Let's hear it for Shelley Peterson! I need a bumper sticker STAT with that wonderful quotation on it!

  I'm not kidding, and I will pay real fiat currency for one...:)

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:07 AM

• Franklin

  Ref. Thomas:
  "Socialism is used as a slur and a degradation - it is neither.... it is a choice..."

  Utterly incorrect.

  Socialism is not a choice at all. It is a subjugation of the individual to something that is undefined and even deliberately ambiguous -- "society."

  Libertarianism is respect for each _individual_, each person with a name. It is voluntarism based on respect, the antithesis of slavery.
  Socialism is slavery: masters who dole out goods according to their idea of right and wrong, but only after the masters have taken their cut, of course.

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:08 AM

• Ohhh Henry

  "While Moore sees Japan and Germany today as socialistic winners where corporations benefit workers more than shareholders, he sees America sinking fast."

  I think that those two countries are in just as much trouble as America, and probably even more trouble due to the greater pervasiveness of state welfare and other interventions. Their overall deficit and debt picture taking into account demographic trends and spending commitments is possibly much more severe. But those countries seem peaceful, serene and successful to Moore and to many other North American leftists. Why do they appear so successful? I think that because they are both in the unique position of having been defeated in WWII and placed directly under the thumb of the USA (both countries still actually occupied by the US military) the populations of both countries are extraordinarily docile and willing to accept their fate when their welfare state comes crashing down. It's not worth agitating because that will only bring trouble in the short term whereas the fiscal collapse will be in the (relatively) distant future.

  If Moore admires the situation in Germany and Japan then what he is really advocating is a vastly expanded domestic welfare state enforced by the US army, and to hell with what happens 10 or 20 years from now when there are no taxpayers or bond buyers left to fund the pyramid scheme.

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:09 AM

• Ohhh Henry

  BTW that's not the real movie poster is it? Moore should be holding the money bags and the member of the public should be holding up a $12 movie ticket.

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:15 AM

• fundamentalist

  Shelly Peterson: "The most successful accomplishment of Socialism is the re-naming of all its failures as Capitalism."

  Exactly! The only thing wrong with Moore's film is that he gets fingers the wrong guy. State intervention in the economy destroys people's lives. The sad thing about Moore is that he doesn't want to know the truth. He doesn't want justice. He doesn't want to prevent future disasters. He certainly doesn't want to think very hard about anything. He just wants to hurt rich people. He hasn't progressed emotionally or intellectually beyond middle school.

  And the people who cheer his film are very much the same. They don't want to know anything. They just want what rich people have because they think rich people have stolen their money. The logic is obvious: "I don't have money; rich people do. I didn't give them my money, so they must have stolen it."
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:17 AM

• Barry Loberfeld

  Franklin,

  "Socialism is slavery: masters who dole out goods according to their idea of right and wrong, but only after the masters have taken their cut, of course."

  Spot on. And thank you for the above comment.

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:18 AM

• Abhilash Nambiar

  I do not think we are past a point of no return for socialism. Americans tend to think it creepy to watch a figurehead leader cheered by a huge crowd. Michael Covel here has symbolised that concern.

  What is likely going to happen is that Moore is going to make a lot of money and retire on it, while his drones wake up to the reality that Moore was only the last in a long line of people that they let trick them into being broke. Then they may actually download one of those free books from mises.org and get educated in real economics.

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:29 AM

• Shay

  Shelley Peterson wrote, "The most successful accomplishment of Socialism is the re-naming of all its failures as Capitalism."

  Something similar has happened in the computer field a while back. Originally a hacker was a person who enjoys exploring the details of programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary. At some point, when breaking into computer systems became a more common thing, the media referred to the criminals as hackers, and thus the word now means a criminal (those in computers referred to such people as crackers, but the media liked hacker better). There are still some who try to use the term with its original meaning, but most have realized that it's been appropriated and use other terms. I think we should do the same and realize that "capitalism" doesn't mean what it used to, and choose a new term, like "free market".
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:32 AM

• DW

  I had a conversation with a friend of mine some time ago about Socialism, and he claimed that true Socialism is supposed to be merely a partnership of sorts between all workers of a production process, whereby all the workers vote to determine the path of their business. "The workers own the production process" in other words. Apparently individual property rights are respected here and members are allowed to opt out without threat of force.

  Is there any truth to this? It seems to me just a distributive form of Capitalism, albeit a form that is not very practical beyond small-scale business.

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:37 AM

• BHG

  Michael Moore grew up in white, middle-class Davison, MI. His father owned his own home, two cars, paid for parochial schools for all four children, college educations for 3 of the four (guess who'd the dropout), worked for GM from 6 to 2, played golf at a private club every afternoon, and retired comfortably at 53. See Larissa MacFarquhar, "The Populist," New Yorker, February 16 and 23, 2004.
  Hats off to Peter Schweitzer's Do As I Say (Not As I Do) for referring us to Michael Moore's foundation, Center for Alternative Media and Culture's IRS filings, the PF990. Michael signed all of the foundation's returns and its address is his home address. Fleet Financial, if they're still his broker, can tell him where his money is going.
  Whatever the goofy priests told him, the encyclical Rerum Novarum explicity condemns socialism - not capitalism. No Church teaching since that encylical has ever condemned capitalism.
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 11:54 AM

• Bob Roddis

  The secret to Moore's success is that he presents generally true factual episodes in a decent documentary style and then applies the absolute dumbest, unsophisticated and most dishonest socialist analysis imaginable to whatever problem he's discussing.

  His fan base has the intellectual capacity of a box of bricks.

  He demonstrates that there's big big money to be made in anti-capitalism.

  Published: October 1, 2009 12:05 PM

• Sean Amavisca

  Michael Moore: has body guards with guns...makes an anti-gun movie; he's dangerously obese...makes a health care movie; he makes millions off privately funded movies with only a high-school degree...makes a movie denouncing capitalism.

  If you want to see the extent of his narcissism and vague demagoguery suffer through this interview http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+moore+wolf+blitzer&search_type=&aq=0&oq=Michael+moore+wol
  Note especially the part where he begins talking in the 3rd person around 7minutes in: "you're gonna walk out of this film saying Michael Moore loves this country; MIchael Moore is a true patriot, he loves democracy......" It gets worse.
  Also, look at the movie cover; implicit captions: "hey you capitalist pig. you're not smart enough to pull one over on this genius."
  Outside of my disdain for him, I'm rather amused by this guy. Similar to the way I felt when I saw a women trying to buy Doritos, a snickers bar, and a soda with food stamps at 6am. Crack binge anybody? Real capitalist society we're living in :)

  Published: October 1, 2009 12:27 PM

• fundamentalist

  DW: "Socialism is supposed to be merely a partnership of sorts between all workers of a production process, whereby all the workers vote to determine the path of their business."

  I had a co-worker tell me that socialism was just sharing. By extension, capitalism is selfishness. Socialists breast feed their infants with this nonsense because they're too immature to digest real intellectual food. You have probably seen the "cow economics" jokes going around public schools these days in which socialism is just sharing.

  The dictionary difinition of socialism is state ownership of the means of production, that is, businesses. But it doesn't go far enough in defining ownership. Ownership equals control, therefore, the more the state controls businesses, the more it owns them regardless of what the paper title says. Germany and Italy followed a form of socialism before and during WWII in which the paper title to a business resided with the owners while the state controlled all aspects of running the business.

  As for your friends definition of socialism, you have to consider how the employees obtained their partnership with the owners. If the state forced the partnership upon the owners, the yes it is socialism. However, it's possible that the workers purchased shares in the business and have a rep on the board. That's capitalism. But then the workers are owners, too.

  Also, the owners may have created a committee of workers as advisers to management, but the owners have the final word. That's still capitalism. Wise capitalists will always listen to workers.

  Property is everything. The ultimate test of whether a policy is capitalist or socialist is what does it do to property. If the state takes control away from the owner and gives it to anyone else, it's socialist. If the owner freely sells control to someone else, such as workers, it's capitalism.

  Published: October 1, 2009 12:29 PM

• Michael Covel

  "His fan base has the intellectual capacity of a box of bricks."

  I don't believe that this is true. That is why the crowd reaction for me was so frightening. Just calling them idiots will not win. The issue is not their smarts, its their delusion.

  Published: October 1, 2009 12:37 PM

• Timothy

  "The people in that theater with me, including Moore, were not bad people."

  I live near Westwood, and it's true, these people aren't "bad". They wouldn't mug you in the parking lot. But they will mug you at the ballot box, each and every election. They are kind enough to give to local beggars, but stonehearted enough to cheer violence against even poorer people around the world. What is "bad people"?

  An evil man is just a child grown strong. There are an awful lot of strong children in my neighborhood these days. Probably in yours, too.

  Published: October 1, 2009 12:48 PM

• Ribald

  A lot of Covel's ammunition against Moore is weak. That's not to say there aren't stronger arguments to be made, just that Covel's are pathetic.

  A) Moore is rich, therefore he is a hypocrite for having benefited from the free exchange of money and ideas.
  -He seems to be primarily against the use of money as an instrument of power, rather than against the free exchange of money and ideas.

  B) Moore has an unfair black-and-white, rich-vs-poor view of the world.
  -Moore is himself quite wealthy, and is attempting to promote the interests of the poor (fairly or not). His criticism of the way some rich people spend their money doesn't mean he views all rich people as evil.

  C) Moore uses individual tragedies to generalize nation-wide suffering.
  -He can't tell every story out there in the space of a couple of hours. He chooses tragedies to appeal to pathos, and this is a legitimate form of argument, especially when statistics fail to convey suffering adequately ("X people are losing their homes" is much weaker than "This man is losing his house. He is one of X people who are.")

  D) Moore overreaches by endorsing FDR's pie-in-the-sky 2nd bill of rights, due to violations of free market principles and vagueness of the proposed rights.
  -This one is interesting. The constitution provides for the right to a "speedy" trial, but doesn't say how fast "speedy" is. It also prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment. The right to bear arms is famously controversial as well. FDR's BoR2 has more vague terms, but who says that we have to leave them undefined, or that we can't come to a consensus as to what these rights shall mean?
  The objection on the basis of free market principles is a bit more substantive, but raises questions that Friedman is not helpful in answering here. For instance, where are the angels who will provide free healthcare/homes to the penniless?

  Libertarians tend to believe these angels only exist in a free market, and disappear as soon as well-intentioned people try to enforce a government guarantee of help.

  Published: October 1, 2009 12:54 PM

• Mike

  I'm with Covel on this one. In my experience, Michael Moore fans consider themselves intellectuals, and in fact some of them seem pretty smart when we're not talking about politics or economics. Socialism runs really deep with them.

  Personally I put the blame on government schools. While libertarians nearly universally oppose government schools, I don't think many realize just what a serious problem it is. I am 26 and a product of these schools, and in my early 20s I went through a period of clinically depressed nihilism thinking nothing at all in the universe made sense. When I finally started realizing that much of my education was BS and started seeing reality for what it is, the depression vanished.

  What the government is doing to the psyches of our children is nothing short of horrifyingly criminal.
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:00 PM

• John

  DW, libertarian-minded people who believe in that type of business organization often call themselves mutualists. Kevin Carson is probably the most recognized mutualist today. It might be fun to Google the word mutualist along with the names Kevin Carson and/or George Reisman...

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:06 PM

• Sean Amavisca

  "The questions running through my head were immediate: how does one legislate words like useful, enough, recreation, adequate, decent, and good? Who decides all of this and to what degree?"

  Have your read the Constitution? The entire thing is based on the ability to expand based on subjective interpretation of the wording. "Necessary and Proper", "Commerce."

  And I have a problem with Milton Friedman being presented as some face of capitalism when his implemented tax schemes (to his credit he later regretted) and his monetarist views which pushed for a fiat currency (where his arguments proved false but he still refused to refute his conclusions) have been a major help in the governments ability to increase in size and scope at the expense of capitalism. (To be fair, i had did agree with his comments in the interview)

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:12 PM

• Timothy

  Mike, you are right to lay the blame on compulsory government schools. I survived several myself, but they were hideous experiences that sent me in some very mistaken directions. Fortunately, there's nothing self-directed study can't remedy, as long as the seed of intellectual curiosity hasn't been utterly crushed.

  Many people never recover from the government school experience. They adopt the tyranny they find there as a model to be extended to all of society. Having abandoned their own rights of self-ownership, they cruelly deny them to everyone else. Michael Moore speaks exactly what's on their mind. That's why they applaud him so enthusiastically.

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:14 PM

• Mike

  Ribald,

  I won't comment on your entire post, but I want to note that your last part is extremely short-sighted.

  Government can provide stuff for the penniless only by taking from others (let me finish; please do not brush this off as moralizing). What I am saying is that government does not produce anything.

  The market is what produces, and the less regulated it is the better it does this. Production is what feeds the poor. Abundance is what feeds the poor. The government cannot provide these things; it can only take them away. Socialism in the long run makes everyone poor. Capitalism in the long run makes everyone rich (no, it doesn't make everyone Bill Gates, but did King Louis the Whateverth live in an air-conditioned home with a device for keeping food fresh year-round and the ability go anywhere in the land in a reasonable amount of time? Nope, but today's America's "poor" do).

  Capitalism is the only system capable of elevating the poor. Anything else only pounds everyone else down to the poor's level.
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:14 PM

• Jero

  Ribald,

  "For instance, where are the angels who will provide free healthcare/homes to the penniless?"

  You raised this question in another blog post's comments section and I replied to it. Why bother posting it again without responding to replies? Have you even perused the literature on this site? Do you not know that much has been said on this?

  In answer to your question (and adding to Mike's response) - charity. Even now, when the government taxes almost half our incomes, people give huge amounts to charity. I personally know of people who have received expensive health care free of charge from the Shriners. I know of people who donated a lot of money to help those in New Orleans rebuild after Katrina.

  Why do you suppose that, if taxes were significantly lowered, that people would not give more? (what would you do in such a case? would you give or refrain? what would your friends do?)

  Also, it can be reasonably supposed that many people do not give more because they are being taxed to provided mandatory "charity" by the government (hence, they figure that they are already giving). Also, voluntary charity is much more efficient as people can choose to allocate their funds to whichever organization best fulfills needs (contrast this to government where lobbyists and politicians decide where funds go).

  Before posting tired cliches like the one I quoted, at least do some reading on the contrary view. Also, you should respond to people who reply to your posts, I am waiting on you in the "Keep you Self-Righteous Fingers Off my Processed Foods" article comments section.

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:16 PM

• John

  Ribald,

  The only one of your points that strikes me as valid is (C). I agree with that one. I mean, I see Covel's point that a few sob cases don't make any system good or bad or right or wrong, but a documentary for the general public isn't supposed to be an essay; it's okay to make a point with individual representations of national phenomena, and it sounds like Moore actually provided quite a few examples, to his credit.

  I object to (A) and (B) because everything I know about Moore (maybe less than you) indicates that he does see (most) rich people as evil and, in fact, the possession of very much wealth as evil. All of his posturing and commentary and films back this up. He thinks rich people should be punished for having more than the poor and this should be remedied by taking from the rich and giving to the poor. He is not oblique or vague about this point. This makes him a hypocrite for making so much money off of his films and not giving it away to the point of near-poverty himself.

  (D) is a poor argument because it overlooks the key issue: those things FDR advocated cannot possibly be rights at all because for the government to provide them to certain people, it would need to violate the other rights of other people. The right to keep the fruits of our own labor, free exchange, freedom of association, etc.

  Lastly, not that the Constitution is a perfect standard for enumerating or protecting the rights of man, but a constitution is supposed to delineate the specific activities that a government may perform, and our Bill of Rights supplemented the Constitution to go even further and emphasize certain limitations on the central government; the 10 amendments all specify protections that the people have against the government. FDR's ludicrous "second bill of rights" contains the polar opposite of limitations; it provides for numerous additions and expanses of governmental power, because, again, those items concern the economic and social well-being of the citizens, and the government cannot provide them unless it has a lot more power over the people and has permission to violate other rights in order to provide those things.* Obviously socialists believe rights are provided by the government, though, so it makes sense for FDR and his followers to call that a "bill of rights."

  (*Actually, the government cannot provide those things at all, but it can't even try without a vast expanse of its power.)

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:33 PM

• Inquisitor

  What of the "right" not to be obstructed by pure quality, sensationalist propaganda? Oops, there goes Moore's entire portfolio...

  One must ask how would FDR (or Moore) care to pay for all those "rights" and how do they justify theft on such a grand scale? Moore is a product of crony corporatism, with the rolls of fat to prove it. Perhaps he should cease the loudmouthed fear-mongering and get an economic education rather than spouting mindless bullshit. Just a thought.

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:48 PM

• Jonathan Finegold Catalán

  Why doesn't Michael Moore give 90% of his profit to the poor?

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:50 PM

• Michael Covel

  "The questions running through my head were immediate: how does one legislate words like useful, enough, recreation, adequate, decent, and good? Who decides all of this and to what degree?"

  Sean Amavisca, if government takes care of all of this for you or anyone, why life a finger?

  Published: October 1, 2009 1:55 PM

• Michael Covel

  "I live near Westwood, and it's true, these people aren't "bad". They wouldn't mug you in the parking lot. But they will mug you at the ballot box, each and every election. They are kind enough to give to local beggars, but stonehearted enough to cheer violence against even poorer people around the world. What is "bad people"? An evil man is just a child grown strong. There are an awful lot of strong children in my neighborhood these days. Probably in yours, too."

  Point well taken.

  Published: October 1, 2009 2:01 PM

• Brian Drake

  "The people in that theater with me, including Moore, were not bad people. They just seem to all have consumed a lethal dose of Kool-Aid."

  Another poster remarked on this and I think it requires further examination.

  How would you define "bad people"?

  Because to me, those who literally seethe with envy and hatred, and are chomping at the bit to promote aggression as the first means to every end are.... bad people.

  How did they get that way? 12 years of forced State indoctrination, the media, well-intentioned compassion hi-jacked by Statist "morality", or something else? Irrelevant. Regardless of what brought them to their current condition, they are currently bad people.

  The "how they got here" is certainly cause for us to have compassion towards them, and strive to "convert" them. But unless we recognize them for what they are, we'll always lose.

  Published: October 1, 2009 2:05 PM

• Franklin

  "Why doesn't Michael Moore give 90% of his profit to the poor?"

  Because he prefers that YOU give 90% of YOUR profit.

  Published: October 1, 2009 2:25 PM

• Sean Amavisca

  I’ve observed that on this sight the articles receiving the most comments are often ones on fallacious ideology: articles on Keynesianism and Neo-Keynesianism (Krugman) and ones like this about a popular figure with less technical, yet equally misguided ideologies. The latter is in large, the result of the formers proliferation through formal education and its direct implementation into policy. Moore is a representation of this dependence on government in economic affairs, justified through government controlled curriculum. People educate themselves by what they deem to be validated knowledge and ideologies such as these being taught as truth in Universities works as validation. Hayek said that his biggest regret in a lifetime of writing was that he never wrote a book-length refutation of Keynesian economics. He didn’t think it could possibly catch on. His fallacy was failing to look at incentives: as in the massive incentive for government to take up such flawed “economics” because it provides a pseudo-scientific justification for more government control. We comment on these articles most because libertarians and Austrians know now more than ever that it is a mistake to simply believe logic will win out.

  Published: October 1, 2009 2:36 PM

• Victor

  Everything to the extreme is bad. Capitalism at the extreme is bad, as well as Socialism. What we need is a balance, a middle point. A balance where some Socialism is allowed to protect the people, and some Capitalism is allowed to stimulate growth and prosperity.

  Published: October 1, 2009 3:33 PM

• Terrance

  Okay Terrance,that is a very ,very idiotic comment.No offense. That's like saying we need a middle ground with Science and Voodoo.
  Protecting people is offered by both Capitalistic and Socialistic means.In the Capitalistic version,people choose for themselves how they should best be protected and may seek services of those who specialise at this,in exchange for a fee.
  In the Socialistic version,one group of people(the state/government) chooses for everyone else how they should best be protected,and taxes everyone regardless of whether the service actually does what it is intended to do.
  How do you balance free will and coercion? You cannot.

  Published: October 1, 2009 3:56 PM

• DW

  Thanks to John and fundamentalist for answering my questions. Indeed, "mutual" is a far better way of describing that business model. This, of course, is not what people like Moore are meaning by Socialism, and I find it disturbing that the word has been mistaken for anything else than threats of violence over one's legitimate property. It's worse than Orwellian.

  Published: October 1, 2009 3:57 PM

• George

  "Socialism is used as a slur and a degradation - it is neither.
  In fact, Socialism is just as viable as Libertarianism - it is a choice to live under the same rules and principles as your fellow man.
  Libertarianism is more of a "anarchist" / "every man for himself"-way of thinking, which I find very distasteful when we're talking about society."

  Actually, I see it as the other way around. Let's take the principle of non-aggression, which libertarianism adheres to: nobody may initiate aggression against another; nobody may use force, commit fraud, or injure another. Essentially, people need to get along with each other and participate in voluntary relationships.

  Doesn't this sound more like "it is a choice to live under the same rules and principles as your fellow man" rather than "every man for himself".

  Then consider the alternative; which set of selfish attributes leads one to vote for the expropriation of revenue from one group to give to another; which selfish countries subsidize their farmers at the expensive of another, and which organization grants special privileges by decree to a privileged part of society? That's right, Socialism and socialistic policies, not libertarianism.

  The truth is you actually have your definitions backwards. Socialism is the selfish ideology which disguises itself as altruism, whereas libertarianism is actually an egalitarian ideology in the sense that there are no arbitrary constraints placed on you by somebody else's decree, only fair constraints based on the principles of voluntarism and restraint against the initiation of aggression.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:03 PM

• iamse7en

  Great article. I just watched the entire Donahue show, and it was EXCELLENT.

  I may not agree with everything that he says in relation to monetary policy, but his defense of freedom in markets is imperative to U.S. prosperity.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:08 PM

• tlpalmer

  Concerning Michael Moore, I am confused why anyone would listen to a person who appears incapable of working the order window at McDonald's.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:10 PM

• Caley McKibbin

  Moore is definitely a bad guy. His presentations are obviously dishonest. Stupidity or ignorance is no plausible defense.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:28 PM

• fundamentalist

  Victor: "Everything to the extreme is bad. Capitalism at the extreme is bad, as well as Socialism."

  Extreme capitalism would be the rule of natural law, respect for others' property, justice, honest courts and police, peace and prosperity. What's bad about that?

  Extreme socialism is NAZI Germany, communist China or the USSR. I can see the bad in that.

  But what about the middle road? Less capitalism and more socialism would mean less of the rule of natural law, less respect for others' property, less justice, honest courts and police, less peace and prosperity. Where is the good in that?

  Probably what you're thinking about is having more charity, not socialism. Socialism is the state taking by force the property of one person who has earned it and giving it to someone who hasn't earned it. Charity is the acting of giving of one's own property to help out someone less fortunate. Capitalism encourages charity; socialism destroys it.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:35 PM

• Brad

  The article hits the nail right at the point where no background is ever given as to WHY people are in the situation they are in - e.g. foreclosure etc.

  In fact it is nearly forbidden under socialism to even ASK the question "why?". It is merely to force equality of outcome. If no one produces a thing and there is just one Hershey Bar left, that will be subdivided amongst everyone until there is nothing left. And NO QUESTIONS ASKED. WHY is there only one Hershey Bar left?

  That is the sickness and the diagnosis all in one - the system that asks no questions and forbids even considering it. And thus a goodly portion of reality is expunged from the ledger even before the "cure" is considered. So HOW is a logical, rational answer to problems supposed to be found when a huge chunk of reality is ignored and investigating it is suppressed?

  Socialism is the heartwarming, semi-logical growth from a soil base of illogic and fact suppression. It makes some degree of sense, staggered toward feeling and emotion that most everyone has a capacity for, only after half the ledger of facts has been ignored or destroyed. And those who dare to present all the facts, present all the debits and credits to a transaction, find all the yangs attached to the yings, are dismissed as cold-hearted brutes. As a CPA I've been dismissed a goodly chunk of my life by idiots when I've had the temerity to present ALL the relevant facts in a discussion. I'm only supposed to think of the Good and Positives don't you know? "Dragging us down with the costs and reality, is like, you know, a bummer."

  How do win against those who choose to be ignorant and attack those who do not? How long do you wait to be consumed by the State Machinery made by the well-coordinated minorities of half-thinkers - half of one's labor carted off, soon to be much, much more? If only it were so simple to form a community of the productive off in the mountains somewhere and wait for the inevitable collapse of the system made by sleepwalkers. Unfortunately the real world version is going to suck down the productive and blame them and stone them to death once and for all. It would be interesting to still be alive just to see what the moribund, half-witted, unproductive left behind will do once there is only them left. Who is going to be the villian then?

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:36 PM

• Sean A

  "Everything to the extreme is bad. Capitalism at the extreme is bad, as well as Socialism. What we need is a balance, a middle point. A balance where some Socialism is allowed to protect the people, and some Capitalism is allowed to stimulate growth and prosperity."

  Ok, Victor; straight out of the neocon/liberal handbook (essentially one in the same: one pretends not to be for social welfare and one pretends to not be a war monger). This is a good description of the current political philosophy and inevitably with monopolist control, control will shift towards the monopolist--the government. Extreme's are bad is just the same vague phrasology spewed second hand out of the mouth of the political demagogue. People cling to these cliche's that are so unclear they can be interpreted in many ways. What is too much capitalism? who decides the arbitrary line to draw? The government? With that power, would self-interest not necessarily exploit? Or perhaps the leader feels he knows enough to dictate what is to everyone's benefit (which is again a movement towards an "extreme"). The chances of sitting back and maintaining an arbitrarily set implicit line is ZERO--this ideology may even be more naive than the socialist.

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:48 PM

• Michael Covel

  Everyone here, regardless as to whether they can stomach it or not, should sit through this film. I have only hit some of the manipulation, but there is so much more. This entire film should be dissected and used as teaching tool for understanding and recognizing propaganda. A great video:

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9opv_xYnmw

  Published: October 1, 2009 4:52 PM

• Franklin

  Juxtaposition of the challenge and the futility:

  Ref. Sean:
  "We comment on these articles most because libertarians and Austrians know now more than ever that it is a mistake to simply believe logic will win out."

  Ref. Victor:
  "....What we need is a balance, a middle point. A balance where some Socialism is allowed to protect the people, and some Capitalism is allowed to stimulate growth and prosperity."

  Sigh.

  And finally, the author:
  "Everyone here, regardless as to whether they can stomach it or not, should sit through this film...."

  Heh, you don't ask for a lot, do you, Michael?

  Published: October 1, 2009 5:58 PM

• Michael Covel

  Franklin, fair point. One of the reasons I say in my piece that we my have passed the point of no return. Personally, I think we have and I plan accordingly.

  Published: October 1, 2009 6:03 PM

• Poptech

  "Everything to the extreme is bad. Capitalism at the extreme is bad, as well as Socialism. What we need is a balance, a middle point. A balance where some Socialism is allowed to protect the people, and some Capitalism is allowed to stimulate growth and prosperity."

  Wow, someone never studied economics.

  Published: October 1, 2009 6:14 PM

• Poptech

  "As FDR concluded and the film ended, I was shocked at the reaction. The theater of 400-plus spectators stood and cheered wildly at FDR's 1944 proposal"

  Scariest part of the piece. If only they knew that FDR helped create the Great Depression.

  Published: October 1, 2009 6:48 PM

• Russ

  tlpalmer wrote:

  "Concerning Michael Moore, I am confused why anyone would listen to a person who appears incapable of working the order window at McDonald's."

  Hah! Moore working at McDonald's would eat all the profits!
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:16 PM

• Diane

  Poptech in reference to Covel's reporting that "the theater of 400-plus spectators stood and cheered wildly at FDR's 1944 proposal" said, "Scariest part of the piece. If only they knew that FDR helped create the Great Depression."

  I agree. The fervor of those spectators makes a person want to walk out those doors and lock them, leaving behind a note that says those trapped inside will be welcome to rejoin us once their own experiment with socialism is finished.

  Published: October 1, 2009 8:35 PM

• Tim

  Americans remind me of livestock cheering every time the butcher brings down the ax on another one of their kind.

  Published: October 1, 2009 9:10 PM

• Mike C,

  "The most successful accomplishment of socialism is the re-naming of all its failures as Capitalism." - Shelly Peterson

  You have that right Shelly; it is something that you might expect to see in an episode of the Keystone Cops where they lock up the victim and allow the villain to go free.
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:16 PM

• Libertarian Bullshit

  "He is an unapologetic socialist who really doesn't care why the poor are poor or the rich are rich, he just wants it fixed."

  That's right. The rich are rich because of the "PHR33 MARK3T" even though according to Austrian fascists we have never had a free market. So how did the rich get rich, IF WE HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY HAD A FREE MARKET, YOU FUCKING MORONS? Because they were the primary beneficiaries of government COERCION (for example, just happening to be born to people who owned the printing press). But "libertarian" Nazis will never admit that.

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:23 PM

• Mike C.

  "I live near Westwood, and it's true, these people aren't "bad". They wouldn't mug you in the parking lot. But they will mug you at the ballot box, each and every election." - Timothy

  This is a connection that most people fail to make, most would not rob you personally, even if it was to pay for their own mother's heart surgery, but they see no moral problem with hiring some political hood to do their bidding for them.
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:33 PM

• bernardpalmer

  This ambiguity about the difference between Capitalism and Socialism has to be defined a lot better.

  I'm of the opinion that Capitalism does not exist with a fiat currency, in fact nothing does for very long so with that in mind I suggest that Capitalism = a gold standard economy. Therefore in the modern age we can possibly look forward to soon trying out Capitalism.

  As January 11th 1944 was my birthday I make this definition a proclamation.

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:38 PM

• Libertarian Nazis

  Because "Liberatarians "don't care about anything other than (RETROACTIVELY) justifying the CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, EVEN IF FORCE AND FRAUD WERE EXTENSIVELY USED TO CREATE THAT DISTRIBUTION.

  Libertarianism 101: Libertarians are a bunch of HYPOCRITES unless they immediately commit suicide or something, because they are the direct beneficiaries of FORCE AND FRAUD.

  American Indians were exterminated by European Genocidal Forces? Well I guess that's too bad for the American Indians; if they used HOMESTEAD they would have magically been safe from the European Genocidal Forces, like ancestors of Libertarians (who obtained their initial wealth/capital by using force against you). Since American Indians couldn't have used HOMESTEAD, (otherwise they would have magically been safe from the bullets of European Genocidal Forces had they been TRUE homesteaders), they deserved whatever happened to them, even if force and fraud were used against them by ancestors of Libertarians (who claim that force and fraud are no longer allowed. Why? SINCE THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL THE (STOLEN) LAND AND THEY DON'T WANT IT TAKEN BACK FROM THEM, SO THEY PRETEND THAT THEY HAVE THE MORAL HIGH GROUND BY FOLLOWING "LIBERTARIAN" PRINCIPLES).

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:39 PM

• Jero

  Libertarian Bullshit,

  First of all, do you even know what fascism is?

  Second, do you realize that in a mixed economy there are also ways to get rich by satisfying consumers? Not all rich people got rich via use of government force.

  Third, how can you hold such strong views when you are obviously so ignorant?
  

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:40 PM

• Jero

  Libertarian Nazi,

  You should learn about libertarian theory before you start ranting. You are making a fool of yourself.

  Your first sentence shows that you know nothing of which you speak. And from there it gets even worse.

  I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:43 PM

• Libertarian Bullshit

  "Second, do you realize that in a mixed economy there are also ways to get rich by satisfying consumers?"

  FUNNY. GOVERNMENT DOESN'T DISTORT THE ECONOMY BY MAKING BAILING OUT RICH PEOPLE AND MAKING MORE RICH PEOPLE THAN THERE SHOULD BE (BY SUBSIDIZING MALINVESTMENTS OF THE WELL-CONNECTED)? OF COURSE, ONLY A SOCIALIST WOULD THINK THOSE THINGS.

  THEOREM: ANY RICH PERSON IN A "MIXED ECONOMY" GOT RICH BY GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
  PROOF: A MIXED ECONOMY IS DISTORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, CONSUMER WANTS IN A MIXED ECONOMY ARE DISTORTED BY THE GOVERNMENT? ANYBODY WHO SATISFIES THOSE WANTS HAS EXPLOITED AND IS THE BENEFICIARY OF GOVERNMENT DISTORTION.
  Q.E.D.

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:50 PM

• Michael Covel

  Maybe I missed the connection, but the plight of native Americans, which was not my doing, is some kind of rationale that buttresses Moore's film?

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:51 PM

• Mike C.

  Some would do well to grow up, and read and study a lot more before actually posting and showing what a complete non-sensible twit they are… it has to be miserable and embarrassing to be them even on a good day... but then they are probably too ignorant to even realize what a confused little simpleton they appear to be in the eyes of people with functional brains.

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:55 PM

• BWM

  Great article. If you had included the words "blank out" after every rhetorical question (as my brain automatically did), it'd be nearly a tribute to Ayn Rand.

  Published: October 1, 2009 10:56 PM

• Ribald

  Jero,

  I apologize for not responding promptly. The comment section moves a bit quickly, and I tend to be less than attentive on weekdays. I've replied to your response there.

  Anyway, you make a good point about charity, although I disagree. Case in point: people without health insurance who can't afford it. Charitable organizations aren't large enough to deal with all of the needy. Why don't they pool their resources together in a nonprofit insurance fund? Why does everyone else buy limited, yet expensive private insurance rather than contributing to a nonprofit insurance fund (especially since the percentage of income used on it is so high)? Is there some law against it? An explanation is needed: What does a for-profit insurance company provide that a non-profit cannot?

  Furthermore...

  If there were no taxes, people would still have to pay for all the services that government used to provide. Perhaps not as much. Maybe not even half as much, but the impact would be dulled all the same.

  Some charity statistics:
  http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/639_charity_contributions_percent_of_households_contributing.html

  Ok, so about a third of households contributed an average of $234 to charity health providers in 1998, and 23% contributed to human services charities $250 on average (for our purposes we'll assume both charities give 100% of contributions toward healthcare for the poor). Assuming a mean income of $34000 a year (of which we'll assume 40% is taxed/inflated away), that comes out to about 2.4% of remaining income afterwards. 2.4% of the GDP in 2008 was 0.024 X 14.44 trillion ~= $350 billion. Just kidding! The charity statistic is for contributing households only, not overall. That means the numbers come out to....0.66% of remaining income X 14.44 trillion....$96 billion.

  Let's see...there are ~45 million uninsured. Since costs are at $2.5 trillion now (insurance + care), one can say the average cost is $8333 for all US citizens. With these assumptions (some quite generous), the cost of caring for 45 million more people in the current system is about $375 billion. Let's assume that the free market would cut that in half to $187.5 billion, because you know, it could maybe do that.

  Even with the generous assumptions that 100% of the charity funds go to health care (for the poor only!), that both health and human services are both health care, and that a totally free market would reduce total healthcare costs by a full 50%, charity contributions would likely still be less than half of what's necessary to provide care for the remaining population.

  Will people contribute a greater percentage of their income to charity in a totally free market? Perhaps. Double? Treble? We need to stretch it pretty far to give free healthcare to those who can't pay on charity alone.

  Hence, my skepticism.

  Published: October 2, 2009 12:04 AM

• Libertarian Bullshit

  THEOREM: Fractional Reserve Banking is not inherently fraudulent
  PROOF: Let X be a bank. Let Y be a depositor. Let Y sign a contract with X to deposit money in exchange for interest. In return, X is allowed to loan out Y's money for conservative investment projects. Y may or may not be able to get Y's money immediately upon demand: the terms are specified by the contract. Y may not have read the terms when he/she tries to get his/her money back, but that is only his/her fault (because he somehow thought that certain contracts that he/she signed are inherently fraudelent even if no force or fraud has been used by him/her or against him/her).

  
  THEOREM: Intellectual Property (such as Copyrights) does not require the use of force to exist.
  PROOF: Let X be an Intellectual Property. For force not to be used, let the government enforcement be replaced by a CONTRACT which has the exact same terms that the government automatically creates (such as, no unauthorized reproduction or whatever). Let owners of such property make it so that purchasing a copy of it requires signing that contract. In such a case, customers cannot reproduce or reverse engineer or hack such property (depending on terms), because they signed a CONTRACT forbidding them from doing so. The government (a contract by coercion) has been replaced by a voluntary contract (which allows intellectual property).

  Published: October 2, 2009 12:04 AM

• Libertarian Bullshit

  THEOREM: Any government service/monopoly/subsidy/protection can exist in a free market.
  PROOF: This theorem is a generalization of the Intellectual Property Theorem. The proof (which requires only slight changes) is left as an exercise.
  

  Published: October 2, 2009 12:07 AM

• Libertarian Bullshit

  THEOREM: A government/state can be created through voluntary contracts
  PROOF: Let X be a set of owners of property. Any x in X may be scared that y in X would use force or fraud against him, so all the x's in X sign a contract to set up a private security service. This private security service is allowed to collect an annual duty from each owner of property in proportion to the income of each owner of property, with certain deductions allowed (the initial terms are agreed to by the owners in X; the private security service is given the right by the owners to change those terms afterwards). The owners also give the private security service the right to set up a post office (by including that in the terms of the contract) and the right to coin money in gold or silver and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin (again, by including that in the terms of the contract). But then this private security service has all of the functions of a state. So a state has been created through voluntary action.

  Published: October 2, 2009 12:17 AM

• rwilson

  Great article Michael. I enjoyed it very much(I also enjoy your books). :).

  I plan on seeing the movie tomorrow.

  Published: October 2, 2009 12:25 AM

• Gil

  "I'm of the opinion that Capitalism does not exist with a fiat currency . . ." - bernardpalmer

  Hmmm, a real free market can't force people to accept worthless 'currency' through decree backed by force hence any paper notes or electronic digits will be backed by some sort of anchor, e.g. gold. Yep, I'd say that "there won't be fiat money in a proper Capitalist world" would be a pretty safe bet.

  Published: October 2, 2009 12:31 AM

• Libertarian Bullshit

  THEOREM: All property in the United States is owned by the Federal Government of the United States; any individual who owns property is merely renting from the Federal Government. Also, any "force" used by the Federal Government against renters of Federal Property was agreed to by such renters in signing a contract or oath of allegiance to the Federal Government. In the case that a renter has not signed a contract or oath of allegiance, then that person is obviously trespassing on Federal Property.
  PROOF: The Federal Government of the United States was created by voluntary action among the several States. The governments of the several States were created by voluntary action among individuals. Those individuals were implicitly homesteading on all land claimed by their respective States simply by the act of claiming such land as theirs. Therefore, by the rules of homesteading, those individuals were the proper owners of such property, which includes all land currently claimed by the Federal Government of the United States. The current people in charge of the Federal Government are the heirs to such property.

  Published: October 2, 2009 12:49 AM

• rwilson

  "Hmmm, a real free market can't force people to accept worthless 'currency' through decree backed by force hence any paper notes or electronic digits will be backed by some sort of anchor, e.g. gold. Yep, I'd say that "there won't be fiat money in a proper Capitalist world" would be a pretty safe bet."

  There won't be fiat money in a Capitalist society, but I still believe there will be fractional money or in other words all banks won't practice 100 % backed by gold banking.

  Published: October 2, 2009 1:20 AM

• Brian Drake

  Libertarian Bullshit,

  You are an ass. Your attitude is highly abrasive and it's obvious you come looking for a fight, not a genuine discussion.

  That being said, you are not ignorant as several other posters have written you off to be. Your arguments demonstrate a fairly good grasp of some of the concepts of libertarianism.

  I would prefer that people look past your abrasiveness and address the points you bring up, but such is human nature.

  It's 3:30am (trouble sleeping), so I won't respond to your arguments now. But I think in some of the cases you are correct in your logic, but incorrect to think your argument is counter to libertarianism (like contractual "IP", unanimous consent to a private "State"). In other arguments, you are blatantly wrong, and I'll try to address some of that tomorrow. For example, I'm not aware of a homesteading theory where "claiming" is all that is required (and thus we're all trespassers on Federal land).

  But everyone else, please look past his attitude and engage his arguments (which are much more sophisticated than the vast majority of attacks against libertarianism) if for nothing else, than an educational opportunity for those browsing this discussion.

  Published: October 2, 2009 5:40 AM

• Ivica2510

  This one is great:
  "We listen to Catholic priests who denounce capitalism as an evil to be eradicated. What would they put in its place and how would the new system work? The priests don't tell us."

  I live in Croatia. Recently I escorted my 10 year old nephew to the church. The priest was talking about the evil capitalist system that works in Croatia. After the mess, I asked my nephew exactly the same question as cited above: But, what should replace the current system? He answered, to my amazement:
  "Well, either the Fascists, or Tito and his communists!"

  Published: October 2, 2009 5:53 AM

• Ivica2510

  Just let me add something, in order to avoid confusion. I was amazed for such a smart answer from a kid.

  Of course, he has not read Mises' Bureaucracy in which it is explained that there is no "third way" possible: it is either capitalism or socialism. But, the priests should have read this book.

  Published: October 2, 2009 7:11 AM

• Libertarian Bullshit

  "For example, I'm not aware of a homesteading theory where "claiming" is all that is required (and thus we're all trespassers on Federal land)."

  Well, the Federal government has done a lot more than just "claim", wouldn't you say? It even sends guys with big guns to enforce its claim.
  You don't pay your annual duty like a good trespasser on Federal land? You do something on its land that it doesn't want you to do (like harming other customers and reducing the government's taxable wealth)? Then guys with big guns will come after you. They know where you live; after all, they were there before you were, since it's their property.
  Don't forget that your house can be turned into a tank factory whenever the Federal government (or your state puppet "government") feels like it. You quite literally are renting from the government (which is actually a private corporation that just happens to own all the land in the country). Remember a private corporation can do anything it wants on its property, including turning your house into a tank factory, condemning you to involuntary military servitude (they can break their own rules; it's their property), and taxation without representation (you're also renting its currency). If you still have United States citizenship (if you're a paying customer of the Federal government) then you clearly agree to those terms.

  Simple thought experiment: anything that the Federal government does now can exist just as easily when the government is "privatized" (but that doesn't mean that the Federal government is actually legitimate). Or maybe you actually don't have a problem with private taxation, private eminent domain, private conscription, etc.

  Published: October 2, 2009 7:32 AM

• fundamentalist

  "So how did the rich get rich..."

  According to Dr. Thomas Stanley's research, 85% got rich by growing a business over 30 years. 10% got it from their job, for example as a pro athlete or actor or CEO. 3% inherited it.

  Published: October 2, 2009 8:06 AM

• Peter Surda

  While I have not read in detail what "Libertarian ******" wrote, I have to strongly object to this:

  > For force not to be used, let the government
  > enforcement be replaced by a CONTRACT which
  > has the exact same terms that the government
  > automatically creates (such as, no unauthorized
  > reproduction or whatever).
  You misunderstand and misapply IP. IP is the right to sue parties that do not have a contract with you if they interfere with your monopoly. By definition, you cannot mimick such a relationship with a contract.

  Published: October 2, 2009 8:07 AM

• Franklin

  Phew, lest there is some effort at moderating these blogs (hopefully through persuasion instead of deletion) I fear that the tone, and hence the quality, of the discussion and posts will devolve into the sad state of affairs at reason.com.

  "Maybe I missed the connection, but the plight of native Americans, which was not my doing, is some kind of rationale that buttresses Moore's film?"

  Now THAT was funny. Thankfully.

  Published: October 2, 2009 8:25 AM

• Jero

  Ribald,

  Thanks for taking the time to give a thoughtful reply. You certainly make some good points. I still believe that you are missing some things, however.

  For one, you are omitting donations from corporations, corporate foundations, and bequests (just a quick browse on the net and it seems that this accounts for about 25% of charitable giving).

  As well, you are pricing the cost of health care as the price of insurance. Are you assuming that full-coverage insurance is needed to provide adequate health care? To me, there seems to be no reason why insurance need be connected to non-catastrophic health care. This is especially so if we are talking about health care provided by charities.

  ALso problematic are the assumptions implicit in using the stat that 45 million are uninsured. This seems to suggest that these people are just too poor to afford insurance even though they really want it. The Congressional Budget Office did a report a few years ago in which they found that about 45% of those who are uninsured at any one point in time get reinsured within four months. Their insurance was tied to their workplace, they left their jobs, then regained insurance when they regained employment. And it is government policy of not allowing tax deductibility of insurance when purchased privately while allowing deductions when it is purchased through an employer which makes insurance significantly more expensive for those who do not get insurance through employment.

  Additionally, a lot of people don’t but insurance because they deem it too expensive, not because they are too poor. (I’ve been told that when the California Medical Association looked at it, a few years back, they found that 30% of those without insurance had incomes of over $50,000). Young people, especially, don't see that need to buy insurance especially when it's so expensive.

  Thus we can significantly cut down that figure of 45 million uninsured.

  As for your "generous" assumptions, I don't find them particularly generous. SO much of the cost of health care can be traced to government intervention, from the FDA approval process to insurance regulations to the AMA's monopoly on the medical profession that your "generous" assumptions seem appropriate to me.

  As for co-ops, etc. You make a good point. I guess I just wonder why those types of organizations were so prevalent in the past (lodges, mutual aid societies, etc.). I guess that’s a larger question of the decline of civil society (of course I blame government intrusion).
  

  Published: October 2, 2009 10:06 AM

• Brian Drake

  Libertarian Bullshit,

  I'll try to address your posts in order.

  ------------------
  "That's right. The rich are rich because of the "PHR33 MARK3T""
  ------------------

  You are correct in pointing out that libertarians find few (if any) examples of sustained, truly free markets, and so, yes, a "mixed economy" makes it impossible to make generalizations of how people gained wealth. Did they steal it (directly, or through active participation in government) or did they earn it (by benefiting their fellow man through voluntary trade)?

  Any libertarian who claims all "rich" people earned their wealth legitimately is mistaken (and though some may state that glibly, I'd be surprised to find any that truly assert that). But it is also mistaken to claim "they [the "rich"] were the primary beneficiaries of government COERCION". Each individual case is...individual. Some "rich" are thieves, others are just better at trading with their fellow man.

  ------------------
  "Because "Liberatarians "don't care about anything other than (RETROACTIVELY) justifying the CURRENT DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, EVEN IF FORCE AND FRAUD WERE EXTENSIVELY USED TO CREATE THAT DISTRIBUTION."
  ------------------

  Justice has no statute of limitations and the "libertarian" who would deny a legitimate and supported claim of wrongdoing in the acquisition of wealth is not a libertarian. However, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Unfortunately, time, bureaucracy, and a myriad of other factors make the burden of proof very difficult to provide in many cases. Human beings are not omniscient, so injustice may go unrighted, especially with the currently existing States muddying the waters so.

  But injustice is not corrected by more injustice. Without "due process" establishing who was wronged and who did the wronging, justice cannot be served by collectively rewarding some at the expense of others on the general assumption of guilt.

  ------------------
  "they are the direct beneficiaries of FORCE AND FRAUD. "
  ------------------

  Being a beneficiary does not make one guilty. If someone breaks your window (acting on their own), you have been wronged and the window-breaker (and he alone) is guilty.

  If I sell windows and you decide you would prefer to trade with me to replace your broken window, I have benefited from your misfortune. That does not make me guilty, nor have I "exploited" you. Your situation (windowless) is not my fault and rather than "exploit you", by offering to trade I am actually benefiting you by providing you a new option (you don't have to remain windowless if you choose).

  I may be a "direct beneficiary" of force (in this case), but I am not a direct cause of the force so I bear no responsibility for it.

  ----------------
  SINCE THEY ALREADY HAVE ALL THE (STOLEN) LAND AND THEY DON'T WANT IT TAKEN BACK FROM THEM
  ----------------

  If my friend steals your car, and I knowingly buy it from him, I'd agree that I'm a criminal.

  But if a car thief sells to a used-car dealership, and I buy from the dealership, not knowing of the theft, I'm not responsible.

  The debt owed is between the thief (and his knowing accomplices) and the original owner. If the stolen item is uniquely irreplaceable (determined by the owner), then the thief must make every effort to legitimately re-acquire the stolen property to return it. If that means paying me 2 or 3 times the car's original worth, so be it. If I refuse to sell (or demand a price impossible for the thief to pay), the owner still only has a claim against the thief and the thief must make recompense to the best of their ability. A competitive market of "justice provision" would be the best available option to finding the balance between what is possible and what is just. Pure justice administered by fallible human beings is a stupid, utopian fantasy. But economics can inform us that the closest we can possibly come to true justice is best achieved through competition, not monopoly.

  Not all Native American land was taken by force or fraud either, some voluntarily traded for it. So like the general condemnation (or praise) of the "rich", it's dishonest to claim all North American land is "stolen property" and condemn all who inhabit it currently.

  ------------------
  "ANYBODY WHO SATISFIES THOSE WANTS HAS EXPLOITED AND IS THE BENEFICIARY OF GOVERNMENT DISTORTION. "
  ------------------

  Again, who is responsible for the distortion? That I benefit from your misfortune does not automatically make me complicit in it. Was I actively lobbying for that government intervention? If so, yes I am guilty. But if not, then I have no blame.

  ------------------
  THEOREM: Fractional Reserve Banking is not inherently fraudulent
  ------------------
  Your proof appears correct and I see no incompatibility with libertarianism. Your theoretical is not an accurate description of the current banking system, but it's valid in theory.

  ------------------
  THEOREM: Intellectual Property (such as Copyrights) does not require the use of force to exist.
  ------------------
  I don't know any anti-IP libertarian who doesn't agree that 2 parties can contract to keep an idea secret/exclusive. But as has been pointed out in another poster's response (and of course in much of Kinsella's work), if the 2nd party breaches contract and gives the idea to a 3rd party, ONLY the 2nd party can be prosecuted (for breach of contract). The 3rd party, not being a consenter to the contract, is under none of the contract's restraints. And since ideas are not scarce and therefore cannot be "property", it cannot be said 3rd party has committed theft. So the contract idea does not validate the idea of "intellectual property", it simply illustrates the use (and limitations) of contracts.

  -----------------
  THEOREM: Any government service/monopoly/subsidy/protection can exist in a free market.
  ------------------
  You'd have to be more specific, though I suspect I'd agree.

  ----------------
  THEOREM: A government/state can be created through voluntary contracts
  ----------------
  This is where the semantic difference between "government" and "State" comes into play (though admittedly, many libertarians, including myself, use them interchangeably). I will agree that in your example, the property owners have created a "government", but not a "State". A "State" is institution which claims a monopoly on the legitimate force in a declared territory.

  If all of the members of owner set X agree to only contract with one "government" agency, that is fine. But if any of them do not consent (contract), and the others persist in declaring their "government's" jurisdiction extends to the non-consenting owners property, they have created a State.

  Semantics? Maybe, but an important distinction. The main problem the libertarian has with any State (as I understand it) is the concept of jurisdiction by fiat. Jurisdiction by explicit, legitimate contract is compatible with libertarianism.

  I actually think contractual slavery would not only be possible in a libertarian society, but fairly prevalent at first since so many have been raised to be dependent on others to provide for them, protect them, and tell them how to live.

  ----------------
  THEOREM: All property in the United States is owned by the Federal Government of the United States;
  ----------------
  For this entire point, I would refer you to Lysander Spooner's "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" (available freely online). Your narrative of the formation of the States, the US, and their acquisition of land is a-historical and laughably false.

  --------------
  The governments of the several States were created by voluntary action among individuals.
  --------------
  Unless 100% of those who owned the property of the declared jurisdiction of each State, their formation of such governments was illegitimate. And again, Spooner demolishes the idea that any such contract forming a government ever existed.

  ---------------
  Those individuals were implicitly homesteading on all land claimed by their respective States simply by the act of claiming such land as theirs.
  ---------------
  You are incorrectly defining homesteading. As you pointed out earlier, much of that land was already owned by Native Americans and such claims of ownership were thus invalid. "Claiming" is not "first appropriation". Those claiming the land have no right to it until they appropriate it from nature. "I own Jupiter" is a meaningless utterance. Should future generations settle on that planet, if any of my heirs use force to "enforce my homestead" they are the aggressors and if they succeed, they are simply thieves.

  ---------------
  You quite literally are renting from the government...they can break their own rules; it's their property
  ---------------
  I agree with your depiction of the current state of affairs. Ownership is control and control is ownership. The government most definitely makes claim of ownership of all land in its jurisdiction, and in controlling that property, and those on it, they are claiming ownership of all citizenry as well.

  But is it legitimate ownership or simply thievery? Back to Spooner. At no point has there ever been a "social contract" granting such ownership. If such a contract exists, let it be produced and let those who have signed it declare themselves.

  ---------------
  Or maybe you actually don't have a problem with private taxation, private eminent domain, private conscription, etc.
  ---------------
  Nope.

  Published: October 2, 2009 7:20 PM

• Ribald

  Jero,

  You bring up more good points, but I don't think they adequately meet the shortfall.

  Including omitted donations, charity increases by 33% (if they are 25% of all donations).

  The average price of insurance is assumed to closely match the average cost of providing care, plus a small markup for profit and costs. We can assume for the sake of argument that insurance + care costs 20% more than the average cost of care.

  You're right to some extent that the 45 million uninsured are not all uninsured because they can't afford it. However, they require care regardless of whether they are insured, and the proportion that can afford to pay out-of-pocket for critical care, but don't want to buy insurance, is extremely slim. Given that more than 80% of bankruptcies are caused by the inability to pay medical fees, we can also presume that those who don't have insurance can't generally pay for critical care. Recall: a $50,000 salary is reduced by taxes and inflation. Factoring in cost of living (California...) and average cost of care without insurance can make that much money seem tiny.

  Regardless, we'll (for the sake of argument) cut the 45 million by 50%, because the cost of insurance is assumed to be halved by the free market, and more would be able to afford it.

  The numbers come out to $6,666 per person of 22.5 million people. $127 billion in charity vs $75 billion in costs. Hooray!

  Of course, I'd say that those numbers were massaged with a sledge hammer to get them to add up favorably, but I suppose I can't complain. Assuming the free market would provide care at half the cost, that health and human services are both healthcare (solely for the poor), that 100% of charity money funds patient care, that half of the current uninsured would be insured in a free market, and that insurance has a 20% markup are all...reasonable...assumptions, though they aren't backed up by real data.

  Here's something: Only the best charities are capable of close to 90% efficiency in providing money to their causes. Many charities give only around 10 to 20% (and you'd think such charities would never get any money. Weird, huh?). Of health charities, a significant percentage are charities for health *research*, not patient care.

  Also, how about considering those whose costs are currently born by the government? My initial calculation implicitly assumed that their care would be paid for as products by everyone else (bizarre), or that they would be able to afford care and/or insurance on their own (unlikely). That comes out to far more than half a trillion dollars, but if we assume it costs just $100 billion to meet this need, charity is *still* insufficient.

  Hence, more skepticism.

  As a final note, the "decline in civil society" due to government is a rather nebulous idea. Let's look at the top 16 countries in charity involvement to see how much government has destroyed civility.

  http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_mem_of_vol_org_cha-lifestyle-members-voluntary-organisations-charity

  The US is at #2 in charity involvement. Whoddathunkit? Apparently, we're pretty righteous, in spite of our government. How about that decline in civil society now?

  Strangely, the entire European Union seems to be in the top 17. Where are the free market economies? :'(

  Published: October 2, 2009 11:10 PM