Economics #2

No more Michael Moore!!! He is quite infuriating. Now, for the question: Why doesn't socialism work? The answer is simple: Human beings are corrupt. Yes, the idea of everybody living in harmony and sharing all the time and everyone having enough to eat and a warm bed and fulfilling their responsibilities to the community without monetary reward sounds perfect. Unfortunately, this is not possible. Human beings are greedy, lazy, selfish, and a slew of other unflattering adjectives. Within our society, there are plenty of people who are unwilling to work hard enough to sustain themselves, and rely on the government handouts to survive, or simply live in very poor conditions because they are too lazy to work themselves out of them. (This does not mean that all poor people are lazy, just a portion of them. There are plenty who are simply unfortunate.) These people would be unwilling to pull their weight in the socialist society, and would throw off the entire balance of taking and giving back that is necessary to maintain such a society. Furhtermore, a socialist society requires a government to delegate resources and ensure that everything runs smoothly and fairly. Now, when was the last time a government esixted completely without corruption? I don't believe that even happens in the movies. If the government was even the least bit poisoned by unethical and unfair attitudes, the entire system would be throw off. The government would become the new "corrupt, wealthy" class that Moore so despises. They would have complete control over the nation, including their food, clothing, money, everything. We would be completely reliant on the government's fairness for our livelihood. Now, if you trust your government that much, then I have no argument against socialism for you. But if you, like me, accept man's imperfection and weakness in the face of temptation, then please consider talking some sense into Michael Moore with me.

Economics #1

Michael Moore asserts in this speech that "Socialism is Democracy, Socialism is Christianity, and Judaism, and Islam, and Buddhism, because all the great religions say essentially the same thing that Marx said...the rich man is not supposed to come into the room and take 9 slices of the pie and leave the last piece for everyone else to fight over." This quotation exhibits a great degree of oversimplification, an is obvious and tasteless bathos, attempting to bring an audience with a less than perfect understanding of these different worldviews to the belief that all these very diverse ideas are the same so as to acheive more followers for his own personal beliefs. This statement cannot possibly be correct because, first of all, Marxism is not simple the idea that rich people should share. Marxism denies the existence of personal property in and of itself, and essentially takes by force that which belongs to the rich to give to the poor. While in an ideal situation force would not be necessary, due to man's sinful nature, human beings cannot acheive this perfect sharing communit, and marxism, which manifests itself in Communism, turns to barbarous force in order to acheive their "utopia." This difference in ethical beliefs sets Marxism and Christianity apart, because Marxism includes pragmatism, the idea that any action done to acheive the right end, the "greater good," is ethically okay. This difference, in fact, sets Marxism apart from most world religions, including Judaism and Islam. Furthermore, this statement oversimplifies not only Marxism but other worldviews as well. These four listed worldviews may believe in the merits of sharing, but that level of development is also found in kindegarted classes and daycares--it is not a basis by which to say all grown, opinionated, adult human beings are on the same economical and religious plain. Michael Moore should check his facts before making any more speeches, because his fervor for his beliefs is admirable, but his information is sadly off-base and incredibly misleading to anyone who takes what he says for face value. Instead of simplifying the issue and saying that we should have a happy economic system where we all get what we need, Moore should provide a solution to the problem he is bringing up, rather than talking around all of the incredible complexities of such a debate.