Moore on Socialism (Pun Intended) :)

Micheal Moore says, "There's a ton of cash in this country... but it's a finite amount." He says we've "allowed" that "finite amount" of "cash" to be "in the hands of just a few people," who he says use it for themselves. They are not "helping you" with it, he points out.
Well, just to humor Micheal Moore... Let's imagine an America where people cannot use their money for themselves-- rather, the government will decide what is done with all of that excess money. Bad idea. Why? Because, when people no longer have the freedom to decide what they do with their money that they earn, the people no longer have rights-- which is completely contradictory to the essential purpose of Moore's socialism. He wants this money to be evenly distributed so that the lower and middle classes' rights are preserved through an increase in economic opportunity; but, in doing that, he actually abolishes all economic freedom and strips all classes (lower, middle, and upper) of their right to choose what they do with their money.
But that is the basis for socialism. The government evenly redistributes the wealth of the people to equalize the financial situations of the nation's citizens. The above irony that I pointed out (that, in trying to maximize the people's rights by redistributing wealth, the government actually destroys people's financial freedom and economic rights), is reason #1 why socialism would not work in our democratic society.
But why doesn't it work, in general?
Well, let me start out with an example of what Moore's suggestion of taxing the rich to give to the poor might look like. Let's say I am a single parent with no GED who works 50 hours a week for minimum wage to support my children, and the government gives me sufficient money from a tax imposed on the wealthy, ...I no longer will work 50 hours a week for minimum wage! Not if I can get by on money the government gives me! ...That is the main problem with socialism. If hard work is the only means by which a person can survive, that person will work hard. However, if someone is guaranteed a living regardless of the hours they put in, or their quality of work, both the time and quality of their work will decrease. Why work if it is unnecessary? It is in the natural character of man to think and act this way, which is why socialism would fail. The government can maintain control over what is done with the nation's wealth, but the government cannot maintain control over how hard people are working; and if people are not working hard, soon there is no wealth to redistribute, and your nation finds itself a pickle, impoverished and unable to escape poverty.

A Response to Moore's Socialism

In this video, Moore asserts that "the tenets of socialism" insure that "we the people have a say in how this thing [the economy, I presume...] is run" ...which is kind of funny to me, since the basis of socialism as an economic theory is that the government owns all property and has the absolute authority to distribute it amongst the people. This seems completely contradictory to Moore's assertion that the public would have a say in how the economy is run. It is actually the government who controls the economy in a socialist society. The people have virtually no say. The economy in which the people have their say would be an economy where they can choose where to send their business, where they have power as a consumer because companies are dependent on their business, where every man has an equal opportunity to sustain himself. Huh... You know... it sounds like I just described consumerist Capitalism, doesn't it? Now, don't get me wrong. Like Socialism, Capitalism can be corrupted. When people neglect the human responsibilities of charity, stewardship, and responsible, educated consumerism, the system can grow very corrupt. But it is much easier for socialism to be corrupted, simply because of the innate nature of mankind. But I'll get to that later. First, let me point out another contradiction I noticed. In describing criteria for a good economic system he posed the question-- "Is this for the common good? ...And [does it have] a moral and ethical core to it?" Well, the first question is compatible with socialist beliefs. Socialism works for the common good, but not for the good of everyone. Outliers and weak links are not helped in this economic system. Take for example the Socialist system of health care. A teenage girl with a torn ACL will recieve treatment before a grandmother dying of cancer because the government is willing to invest in a younger human with greater chances at survival. An elderly woman who will die anyways, however, is not seen as a benefit to society any longer, and the government chooses not to invest national health care money on her short-lived survival. Anyway, the point is, Socialism does indeed emphasize the common good. Ok, Micheal Moore, good job. You didn't contradict yourself! ...but... oh no... oh wait. Then he says, "is it moral and ethical?!" Oh boy... ...The very essence of Socialism is secular, which means there is no objective sense of morality or ethics. They become relative to the individual. So how can he determine that socialism is "good for the people," "ethical" or "moral" if such words have no objective meaning? ...But his contradictions are essentially beside the point. Which brings me back to my earlier assertion-- Socialism is much more easily corrupted than other economic theories simply because of human nature. In other words, Socialism won't work. Why? Because humans have a tendency towards greed, not selfless generosity. Yes, Jesus commands it of us, but when the government forces it upon people, it does not work. Moore referenced his distaste for excessive wealth, though I am confident he makes a reasonable salary as a film producer. And that is the essential root problem of Socialism. Everyone hates wealth for other people, but mostly never for themselves! People want equality. ...That is, for everyone else. The human tendency towards pride and greed motivates the individual to pursue his common interests in rising above the equal majority, not to pursue the common good (which, as we've covered is the main tenet of Socialism). That is the root of why Socialism would not work. Overall, my response to this speech by Micheal Moore was that I found it interesting how he tried to reconcile his very American sense of individualism with the communalist view of Socialism, and his philosophy's moral relativism with his personal view of what is moral and ethical. But even if he didn't contradict himself, Socialism still doesn't work, for the reasons I listed above.