Dr. Paul will be on CNN's Larry King Show tonight at 9:27 pm ET to repsond to Michael Moore's interview and attack on capitalism in the shows first half. Should be terrific!
Although there is a lot that Michael Moore and Ron Paul would disagree upon, I think there is also common ground. For one thing, Michael Moore misinterprets the libertarian understanding of capitalism.
A couple areas of common ground between Ron Paul and Michael Moore would be the war on terrorism and corporate bailouts. Though they probably have different views on why these issues are problems, as well as, differing solutions.
In the end I think they simply disagree upon what freedom is. Michael Moore feels that a free person has free access to medical care, education, etc. While Ron Paul feels that a free person is free through less government involvement.
Michael Moore stands for entitlement.
Ron Paul stands for liberty – personal freedom.
At the end of the day, I think even though we disagree with Michael Moore's idea of government, we should respect what he has to say. Just like Ron Paul has respect for someone like Dennis Kucinich.
I think stating Michael Moore stands for entitlement is a good summary of the situation. As I reflect on this I would like to point out a few things and maybe it can help us understand an angle to reach these people. Just from watching interviews from Michael Moore on his new book, and even Dennis Kucinich's viewpoints I have learned that these attitudes of entitlement seem to stem from an attitude of victimization. Perhaps the following people feel victimized by the special interests, various results of corporatism and how it oppresses pretty much all of us. When those who feel victimized realized they are being conned, anger seems to be the direct reaction.
Instead of attacking what is enabling these events to happen those feeling victimized want to gain even ground instead. They want to be entitled to the same privileges or equal to something similar. It is not at all far from how some high school students would get sucked into bullying freshmen once they became seniors, even though they too were freshmen not too long ago. Instead of just rebuking the practice all together, they participate in it to become some warped version of what they think makes them equal. Therefore, we need to enforce the viewpoint from an angle that shows that continued resistance at Corporatism, special interests through use of their same tactics just enables them even more, and that the best course of action is to disable their very tactics. Perhaps we could take even the unexpected (Michael Moore) to understand our cause and the best course of action to stop our dreaded growing leviathan.
I hurried this thought out, so if anyone can make my thoughts more elegant or just think it is total bunk let me know.
Will they actually be debating back and forth? Because that would be amazing! Even still, if the clip is posted on here, can we see the Michael Moore parts too as well as the Ron Paul parts. It really hurts the quality of the response when you don't see what he's responding to.
"...even though we disagree with Michael Moore's idea of government, we should respect what he has to say."
Absolutely not. We should respect his right to have an opinion, but his opinion alone does not warrant respect.
See Jonathan Rauch's "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought":
"Let us remember, then, that the proposition "We must all respect others' beliefs" is nowhere near as innocent as it sounds. IF it is enshrined in policies or practices giving "rights" to minority opinions, the damage it causes is immediate and severe. Liberal science cannot exert discipline if it cannot use its tool of marginalization to drive unsupported or bogus beliefs from the agenda."
"...even though we disagree with Michael Moore's idea of government, we should respect what he has to say."
Absolutely not. We should respect his right to have an opinion, but his opinion alone does not warrant respect.
See Jonathan Rauch's "Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought":
"Let us remember, then, that the proposition "We must all respect others' beliefs" is nowhere near as innocent as it sounds. IF it is enshrined in policies or practices giving "rights" to minority opinions, the damage it causes is immediate and severe. Liberal science cannot exert discipline if it cannot use its tool of marginalization to drive unsupported or bogus beliefs from the agenda."
Paul just diminished Michael Moore's definition of capitalism... Although, corporatism is evil.. its funny how Moore still cannot understand the difference.
Notice in the interview how Paul spoke about the similarities between himself and Michael Moore, but then went on to discuss where Michael Moore was simply misunderstanding a libertarian's idea of capitalism.
This is one of the main reason I have such high respect for Ron Paul, and what I was trying to get at in my previous post.
The Seven Commandments, Animal Farm's original Constitution:
Whatever goes on two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes on four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
The Seven Commandments, after the pigs' "revisions":
"Four legs good, two legs better!"
No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.
No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.
No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Thanks for the info, now I gotta look for it because I missed it. Have any of you seen the video on YouTube when a college student pointed out to Moore at some kind of assembly, where the student pointed out that the problems we face are the result of the collusion that takes place between government and corporations, Moore said something to the effect of, "Well, let's not put any labels on this." Interesting, since by using the word "Capitalism" in his new movie, that's exactly what he did.
Michael Moore and Larry King are both products of the Liberal Elite mentality, where they believe in Utopian Socialism, that is a mystical form a socialism where wealth is taken from the rich and powerful and given to the poor and powerless. And they have unicorns there, and Santa Claus.
There is always a group of people who view egalitarianism as an ideal. Equality sounds like a good idea to most people. Say it's not and you'll be branded a radical. People don't look beyond the immediate to "what is unseen," as Bastiat described it. They are blind to the inherent immorality, foolishness and futility of their goal.
It wouldn't be a problem if people didn't also view the State as a legitimate means to accomplish their ideals by force. They say they're not violent people, but they are. Once again, they don't see this to be the case because they don't view the indirect use of force through government as inherently violent. This hasn't been explained to them.
Also, People have been subversively conditioned to believe capitalism cannot produce equality, even though it would effectively do just that if it were allowed to. You cannot explain this to them because they have a dogmatic belief which says otherwise. They will laugh at you or deride you. Elites fear capitalism because they believe it will exhaust our resources. At least, this is their justification. In reality, they are just evil and greedy. This is why they try to destroy or control it.
Finally, someone like Michael Moore will never understand that capitalism is really the only economic system in existence. You either have laissez-faire or you have State-run capitalism (socialism). Under the latter, equality is not even possible. This is because, as Mises explained, they try to achieve equality through price control, which is not possible. Resources cannot be allocated arbitrarily through government fiat. It has been tried in the past and it has always, ALWAYS failed.
The left lacks a moral compass and the right is complicit because they like war. The Constitution does not provide for economic or social equality. It only provides for equal justice and equal rights.
Although with good intention but it is sad that Mr. Moore is "completely" misunderstood capitalism vs. corporatism.
It is sad that his movie can misguide some people the true meaning of the subject.
Power can equal to party but can Never equal to principle!
Posted 10/30/09 12:30 AM VictimOfFeds San Clemente, CA
Michael Moore contradicts himself.
"The stimulus is working and we need more of it." - "If a company is too big to fail, it's too big to exist."
He also claims he's against capitalism which supposedly favors the wealthy, thus implying that he supports the poor and middle class. He supports the stimulus which favored the rich.
Furthermore, if his argument is true, then why ever wait for crisis for stimulus. We could just stimulate constantly(say $100 trillion) and we'd have no problems.
I guess everything needs a name, so corporatism is as good as any to describe the collusion between business and government. Competition is an essential ingredient in capitalism; and it is this more often than not that drives business to run to congress to gain an advantage over the offending competitor. Check out the dairy industry and its appeal to government when oleo came along.
Regarding Michael Moore and equality, his view seems to be everyone shares the wealth equally whether deserving or not. In a free market, everyone enjoys equal opportunity and does as well as he can. That is real equality.
As long as the government has fiat currency and legal tender laws they will do whatever they want - stimulus - nothing more than inflation that sticks the people with the bill for bailing out the elite.
Posted 10/30/09 04:09 AM LeeDobbs santa barbara, CA
Where is my share of the profit from Moores movie?
Posted 10/30/09 07:42 AM TheeVagabond Abingdon, MD
Thanks, JohnF! I absolutely loved The Law and you just reminded me why. Read your bio and find your raising pretty freaking awesome too!
Please send a "Thank You" to The Larry King Show for having Dr. Paul. The more positive emails they get, the better. This is the address:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.lkl.comment.html?75
If corperatism is one of the problems, how can you leash the problem without usig government??? Ron Paul is right, you need free markets. Consumers need to be more empowered to stretch their dollar.
@shaun61 Hayek discusses how the progressive movement twisted the definition of freedom (to mean, essentially, "power") in The Road to Serfdom: a great book that Ron Paul cites for turning him on to both liberty and economics.
Posted 10/30/09 10:01 AM sweetliberty San Rafael, CA
Dr. Paul, that was brilliant, nice job!
And a(nother) big thank you for sticking to your principles and standing on your ideas. :)
Knowing Michael Moore, it's probable that he'd make it a shouting match if he was pared with Dr. Paul. Then again, given the similarities between the two, I think they may just get along.
That being said, I trust Dr. Paul to actually give a coherent argument over Moore any day.
Ron Paul gives me hope. Moore is unwittingly sided with corporate interests and government power(corporatism). Moore of the same is opposite of change. Socialism has never enjoyed historic prosperity, freedom works.
Had Moore when infant listen to those 'Baby Einstein' tapes ?
Incidentally, the makers of the tapes have been sued for false advertising the product.
Posted 10/30/09 3:47 PM BruceKoerber Cedar Rapids, IA
http://educationandethics.blogspot.com/
Friday, October 30, 2009
Michael Moore, Larry King, And Ron Paul!
Out of the quagmire of imprecise understandings of what liberalism means comes the great scholar of liberalism - Ron Paul.
To those who claim to be liberal but don't know its origin, they know that justice and mercy are important but ignorantly choose socialism which is nothing but the road to serfdom.
To those who claim to be liberal but don't know the true meaning - the philosophy of classical liberalism - they know that wars are immoral and they speak selectively about peace but ignorantly choose to align themselves with nationalistic propaganda and throw their support behind the warmonger of their choice.
Ron Paul clearly elucidates the principles of classical liberalism and, yes, justice and mercy are held in the highest regard and, yes, peace and non-interventionism are held in the highest regard.
The peace and prosperity and justice and mercy that comes from the free market is the exact opposite of the socialism and corporatism (fascism) that is causing all of our problems.
Michael Moore is either an ignorant 'liberal' (in name only) or he is a tool of the unConstitutional coup deliberately trying to confuse people about the free market as a viable alternative to the economic terrorism of the unConstitutional coup.
Moore's statement: "The stimulus is working and we need more of it." - "If a company is too big to fail, it's too big to exist."
I love this argument. It is the best possible argument for decentralization and limiting state power ever.
If Goldman Sachs is too big to fail, the federal government is much, much too big to fail.
Essentially, it's a risk-management argument. Since all organized systems have failures, we shouldn't put too much faith in any one. This is the unplanned genius of decentralized (free-market) capitalism. If one organization fails, another competing one takes its assets and tries again. It's a great balance of experimentation, customization, and risk prevention.
I believe in the coming years, the argument that the federal government is TBTF--and yet it will clearly be seen as failing--will be a powerful point for decentralizing state power and restoring markets. I think the argument can even be extended to political "markets" of state and local governments as a way to convince people who just love the government.
I believe it was Adams that said the states were laboratories of democracy. If there ever was a "big tent" issue for Republicans--this is it. A decentralist Republican can effectively say: "You know, instead of all of these messy compromises, why doesn't <insert your local/state gov't here> get ALL of the tax dollars and spend it on YOUR priorities..." Ultimately, I think the polarization of America into ideologically rigid geographic enclaves almost make this type of localism inevitable. Any further centralization is just pissing people off, and letting go of the centralized reins of power just makes it more likely that slightly more localized (and therefore more popular) legislation is enacted. The political costs of decentralizing are low and the benefits are high; the opposite applies for centralization.
While no doubt this does nothing to wean people from love of government, the constant, fine-grained policy experimentation would provide enormous quantities of empirical ammo for believers in liberty.
As an aside, the health care "opt out" provision is hilarious. If that horrendous bill somehow manages to pass with the "opt out" provision, limited government types need to go to the mattresses with that language. For every piece of legislation, we should ask if it has an "opt out" provision until people wonder why America is centralizing policy at the federal level in the first place.
To echo the sentiments of others, Dr. Paul was absolutely AMAZING in that interview!
It's also encouraging to observe the degree to which Michael Moore and Dr. Paul actually AGREE. I think that Moore, and a lot of people from the political left are as angry and frustrated about this whole bailout/corporatism/special interest government policy as most free market advocates, but they mis-label corporatism and corruption as "capitalism".
I rarely agree with Mr. Moore, but I do think that he has principles and a degree of sincerity. What folks like him don't seem to grasp is that big central government is a failed and inherently corrupt institution. They falsely believe that if we could only get the right people elected, big government would work. Well, now they've finally elected their knight in shining armor (Mr. Obama) to save them from the evil Republicans ... yet we're still involved in two major wars, still condoning and covering up abuses of civil liberties, and still engaged in massive corporate welfare. My sincere hope is that 2009 and 2010 will be a lesson for them. You can sense the frustration of Mr. Moore and many other left leaning folks about the fact that hardly anything has "changed".
To echo the sentiments of others, Dr. Paul was absolutely AMAZING in that interview!
It's also encouraging to observe the degree to which Michael Moore and Dr. Paul actually AGREE. I think that Moore, and a lot of people from the political left are as angry and frustrated about this whole bailout/corporatism/special interest government policy as most free market advocates, but they mis-label corporatism and corruption as "capitalism".
I rarely agree with Mr. Moore, but I do think that he has principles and a degree of sincerity. What folks like him don't seem to grasp is that big central government is a failed and inherently corrupt institution. They falsely believe that if we could only get the right people elected, big government would work. Well, now they've finally elected their knight in shining armor (Mr. Obama) to save them from the evil Republicans ... yet we're still involved in two major wars, still condoning and covering up abuses of civil liberties, and still engaged in massive corporate welfare. My sincere hope is that 2009 and 2010 will be a lesson for them. You can sense the frustration of Mr. Moore and many other left leaning folks about the fact that hardly anything has "changed".
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
—Thomas Jefferson
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
