Michael Moore and Freedom

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

An interesting read and an opinion that I pretty much agree with.

[Stuart Mackey]

Moore undoubtedly realizes the evils of the military-industrial complex, and indeed sets out to prove it in his new film, but what he fails to understand is that this same formula also applies to the socialist government apparatus that he backs

Rigghht..no comparisons letalone evidence

A logical depiction of Michael Moore's ideal system, a socialist welfare state, marks out how misguided such aims are, what such a system would hold, and Moore's contradiction of supporting such a system in light of his supposed support of freedom and peace. State socialism, the epitome of modern left liberalism and the logical end of its philosophy, is the antithesis of free market capitalism and, hence, all of the freedoms afforded the individual in the natural order setting of capitalism

Never seen Britian? or Aussie or NZ or Canada or Germany......??

Socialism encompasses the absence of private property rights and the concomitant trade and markets that evolve from this propertied capitalist system. National socialism, the state-coordinated socialist system of Moore's sort, is the culmination of the state, a system wherein the individual has little if any choice but is rather regarded as a mere component of the state and granted rights and privileges to the state's property and resources

Black and white fallacy. So life is either rampant capatalism or national socialism? this cretin does not even point out where Moore evern supports extremism!

Until Moore and his like reconsider their stance on the many forms of welfare statism they support, they will continue to be everything but the advocates of freedom they would like the public to think they are, and the philosophical framework of their bantering will yield not freedom from power but merely a shift in the ideological justification for power itself.

So in other words the author of this dreck has used Moore {without any supporting evidence} as a whipping boy for a propaganda peice. What drivel, what a demonstration of unthinking extremism. Where did the author get his degree? the back of a cereal box?

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh..I only replied to a section of that bit of garbage.

[Patrick Degan]

On this:

Further, capitalism is the only system in which unprovoked, pre-emptive aggressions and rights violations committed by individuals or bands of individuals are prohibited.

—Mr. Mattei might want to have a chat with the indians about that one...

[Stuart Mackey]

On this:

Further, capitalism is the only system in which unprovoked, pre-emptive aggressions and rights violations committed by individuals or bands of individuals are prohibited.

—Mr. Mattei might want to have a chat with the indians about that one...

Or some South American governments, from a certain point of veiw..

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

—Mr. Mattei might want to have a chat with the indians about that one...

The native Americans? What are you talking about, they slaughtered each other all the time.

[Iceberg]

—Mr. Mattei might want to have a chat with the indians about that one...

The native Americans? What are you talking about, they slaughtered each other all the time.

Why don't we look at the long history of broken treaties, broken promises and casual aggression against the Indians by the United States Government, hmm?

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Never seen Britian? or Aussie or NZ or Canada or Germany......??

None of those nations you've listen are full blown socialist economies- however, Germany, which is the most socialist of those nations, is suffering from massive unemployment and miniscule economic growth.

Black and white fallacy. So life is either rampant capatalism or national socialism?

What are you talking about? He never said any such thing.

this cretin does not even point out where Moore evern supports extremism!

Its fairly well known and you don't have to look far to see hsi anti-capitialist mentality. His film Roger and me was on the "evils" of outsourcing. Another example is his view on Wal-mart, which he thinks is the devil's spawn.

So in other words the author of this dreck has used Moore {without any supporting evidence} as a whipping boy for a propaganda peice. What drivel, what a demonstration of unthinking extremism.

He's stating why socialism, a view that Moore obviously embraces, is flawed.

[Darth Wong]

Never seen Britian? or Aussie or NZ or Canada or Germany......??

None of those nations you've listen are full blown socialist economies- however, Germany, which is the most socialist of those nations, is suffering from massive unemployment and miniscule economic growth.

Irrelevant to the question of "freedom". And speaking of the author's moronic non sequitur that socialist government programs automatically reduce "freedom", perhaps you could explain why the US 11th Circuit Court just ruled that Americans have no right to keep the government out of their bedrooms. Osama would be proud.

[Stuart Mackey]

Never seen Britian? or Aussie or NZ or Canada or Germany......??

None of those nations you've listen are full blown socialist economies- however, Germany, which is the most socialist of those nations, is suffering from massive unemployment and miniscule economic growth.

These nations are sociallist welfare states you realise?. The article tend to wards black and whitism by suggesting that socaialism is only the extreme version when there are in fact many flavours.

What are you talking about? He never said any such thing.

Socialism encompasses the absence of private property rights and the concomitant trade and markets that evolve from this propertied capitalist system. National socialism, the state-coordinated socialist system of Moore's sort, is the culmination of the state, a system wherein the individual has little if any choice but is rather regarded as a mere component of the state and granted rights and privileges to the state's property and resources

Actually I was wrong, its a blatent strawman. The author describes socalism in a classical marxist/communist way and associates that with Moore as well as national socialism with out any evidence to show this.

Its fairly well known and you don't have to look far to see hsi anti-capitialist mentality. His film Roger and me was on the "evils" of outsourcing. Another example is his view on Wal-mart, which he thinks is the devil's spawn.

Appeal to popular opinion is not an argument, try again and post some evidence.

He's stating why socialism, a view that Moore obviously embraces, is flawed.

False: This block head his suscribing to Moore a beleif system without providing any evidence and moreover the dictiatorial form of socialism at that, without pointing out the other forms of socialism as praciced by nations like NZ, Aussie Britian, Canada, Germany, France, Denmark, Norway etc.

[Dahak]

Never seen Britian? or Aussie or NZ or Canada or Germany......??

None of those nations you've listen are full blown socialist economies- however, Germany, which is the most socialist of those nations, is suffering from massive unemployment and miniscule economic growth.

Which is not the problem of us being "socialist", but the fact the system hasn't been reformed nearly since its beginning to adjust itself to the current populaction structure in this country.
And the fact that our current government's economical policies suck donkey balls might have a thing to do with it, too.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

And speaking of the author's moronic non sequitur that socialist government programs automatically reduce "freedom", perhaps you could explain why the US 11th Circuit Court just ruled that Americans have no right to keep the government out of their bedrooms. Osama would be proud.

Yes, its a shitty ruling that never should have been made. A Theocracy (which is obviously the type of world view that these judges subscribe to) is perfectly capable of reducing freedom.

[Darth Wong]

And speaking of the author's moronic non sequitur that socialist government programs automatically reduce "freedom", perhaps you could explain why the US 11th Circuit Court just ruled that Americans have no right to keep the government out of their bedrooms. Osama would be proud.

Yes, its a shitty ruling that never should have been made. A Theocracy (which is obviously the type of world view that these judges subscribe to) is perfectly capable of reducing freedom.

But how can this happen? There's a Republican in office! That means FREEDOM!

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

But how can this happen? There's a Republican in office! That means FREEDOM!

Oh look, a person who automatically assumes that anyone critical of leftist economics must be kneeling worshipfully in front of the Republican party with an open mouth eager to recieve their "blessings".

[Elfdart]

An interesting read and an opinion that I pretty much agree with.

It just reads "Service Unavailable". You agree with that? Kiss my ass!

[Darth Wong]

But how can this happen? There's a Republican in office! That means FREEDOM!

Oh look, a person who automatically assumes that anyone critical of leftist economics must be kneeling worshipfully in front of the Republican party with an open mouth eager to recieve their "blessings".

The article certainly falls into that category. It equates corporate freedom with individual freedom, and there has been no government in recent memory more friendly to corporate freedom than the Bush Administration.

[Peregrin Toker]

It equates corporate freedom with individual freedom, and there has been no government in recent memory more friendly to corporate freedom than the Bush Administration.

Not even the Reagan administration?

The author describes socalism in a classical marxist/communist way and associates that with Moore as well as national socialism with out any evidence to show this.

Etymologically, "National Socialism" just means a political systems which combined elements from Nationalism and Socialism. Aside from the Third Reich, it can also be used to describe a variety of regimes from Juan Peron to Pol Pot and even Stalin.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

But how can this happen? There's a Republican in office! That means FREEDOM!

Oh look, a person who automatically assumes that anyone critical of leftist economics must be kneeling worshipfully in front of the Republican party with an open mouth eager to recieve their "blessings".

The article certainly falls into that category. It equates corporate freedom with individual freedom, and there has been no government in recent memory more friendly to corporate freedom than the Bush Administration.

No, the Bush administration is willing to benefit some corporations (namely the ones with connections to his buddies) with government favors at the cost of taxpayers, coporate and individual. Thats not the same thing as promoting freedom.

[Durandal]

Typical Libertarian trash. "If there is one social program in existence, you live in a socialist state (which of course, carries the connotations of Mother Russia, the Great Socialist Failure)." Give me a fucking break.

[Keevan_Colton]

If people dont have the freedom to die of poverty and ill fortune then you have NO freedom at all.

"Are there no prisons? No workhouses?" - Ebeneezer Scrooge, Libertarian Spokesperson.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And speaking of the author's moronic non sequitur that socialist government programs automatically reduce "freedom", perhaps you could explain why the US 11th Circuit Court just ruled that Americans have no right to keep the government out of their bedrooms. Osama would be proud.

What case is this?

[Iceberg]

And speaking of the author's moronic non sequitur that socialist government programs automatically reduce "freedom", perhaps you could explain why the US 11th Circuit Court just ruled that Americans have no right to keep the government out of their bedrooms. Osama would be proud.

What case is this?

Right here.

[Patrick Degan]

—Mr. Mattei might want to have a chat with the indians about that one...

The native Americans? What are you talking about, they slaughtered each other all the time.

Riiiight... The native Americans are the ones who stole the land from their red brothers for its gold —oh, wait, that was the whites when they invaded the Black Hills when gold was discovered there, violating the treaties with the Lakota Sioux. And of course those awful native Americans killed each other for the land to build their railroads —oh, wait, that was Union Pacific and Central Pacific. Not to mention how the native Americans exterminated the buffalo herds —oh, wait, Buffalo Bill and his fellow hunters were white. And of course there was the great Indian Oklahoma Rush —oh, wait...

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Riiiight... The native Americans are the ones who stole the land from their red brothers for its gold —oh, wait, that was the whites when they invaded the Black Hills when gold was discovered there, violating the treaties with the Lakota Sioux....

Not to mention how the native Americans exterminated the buffalo herds —oh, wait, Buffalo Bill and his fellow hunters were white. And of course there was the great Indian Oklahoma Rush —oh, wait...

All of which are irrelevant to the question of whether or not they slaughtered each other before the "evil" whiteman arrived. No one is defending the actions taken in the past- however I suggest you read up on the Aztec, Incas, and even the Mowhawk before you coronate the Indians with the "holier then thou" crown.

And of course those awful native Americans killed each other for the land to build their railroads —oh, wait, that was Union Pacific and Central Pacific.

Which is one best examples of the evil that results when you have corrupt bussinessmen with political connections.

[Howedar]

You'd have a point if anyone had said that the Indians were perfect. Of course nobody did, so you just look like an ignorant blowhard.