The flaw in the pro Michael Moore version is the confusion of personal responsibility/spirituality with governmental responsibility.
When faced with the question of if it was right to pay taxes to Cesar, Christ said, well you know what he said.
What is an order of magnitude more telling is that he didn't say...that some misguided theocracy was the answer.
The points the second reviewer made about personal freedom and choice are IRREFUTABLE. It is the basis of Christs message and our salvation.
Lament all you want and use the sloppiest of definitions such as America is a "christian" nation but attempts to take away something that people acquired legally through the selfish method of voting it is no virtue.
If America had 3 people in it and 2 of us got together and voted that the 3rd person was our slave doesnt make it right.
If you make laws that everyone agrees on and some succeed more than those who dont feel they should, what biblical story is being described? The workers in the vineyard. Each made a personal unforced decision upfront. A certain amount of pay for a certain amount of work. The ones who came first were happy and the rate was fair. When did their discontent arise? When the pay for some went beyond what they percieved as "fair".
It wasn't their money the owner was spending. When greed was expressed it was expressed by those who complained.

So the first reviewer is wrong IMO not only for his confusion between spirituality and government, but also about the spiritual principals involved themselves.
Its ironic that the founders knew all about this.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Michael Moore and his ilk believe the solution is punishing those who succeed legally with more legislation, hence even more power in the hands of those who already abuse it and get away with it.
The solution is actually the opposite. Empower the people with everything the government fears. Everything the government knows threatens it. Term limits, Gun laws, not bailing out bloated buisnesses and even the threat of a little revolution now and then.

Justin Woods will have us believe that the freedom of Jesus is "free people exercising free will." The freedom of Jesus, however, is the freedom from our bondage to sin. That is quite a different matter. Further, the ministry of Jesus is replete with exhortations to do good, assist the poor, help the downtrodden and share the gospel of good news. I don't see that limited to individual responsibility in scripture.
That was also the mission of Israel long before Christ was born, a societal mission, if your wish, not to be limited to individual persons behavior. Incidentally, it was a mission they failed miserably, just as we are failing it today.
I believe Mr. Woods would benefit from a more neutral reading of his scripture. With neutral I refer to an open-minded reading without preconceptions. Then he might find more common ground with Moore's film.

To Michael, I would like to suggest a consideration of the German theologian, Rudolf Karl Bultmann's famous statement, "No human society can have permanence in history without regulations." That was true of Israel before Egyptian enslavement, it was true of true of Israel in the desert (Moses' regulations and the 10 Commandments), and it is true of the US today. Just consider for a moment the financial collapse causing the depression of the 1930s and the similar experience 2007-2009.
We have much to learn from history. In fact a much smarter person than me said "those who do not learn from history are destined to relive it."

Justin didn't see the same film I did. Don echoed my sentiments and the family with me saw what Don did.

Michael exposed the soft underbelly of capitalism. While it has been the engine powering the growth of the U.S., now that the growth is fast reversing, it is time that we took a hard look at the detritus of humanity that has been left in the wake of all the successes of this system. Any system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer is a flawed and unsustainable system. (Has the Crash of '29 been forgotten?) One need only look at the wealth centered in a very small portion of the U.S. today: Wall Street, and then see the rapidly growing number of unemployed to realize that change must be made if we survive. This is the results producing eventual anarchy. Workers produce; Wall Street shifts paper and money that produces nothing but insatiable greed.

When did it become our job to force "Christian" principles down other people's throats through the government. Sure, I believe in Christian principles and strive to live by them, but our job as Christians is not to FORCE people/companies through legislation but to coax them through other means.

Having the freedom to CHOOSE God's principle's also mean's having the Freedom to Go against them even if it's to our moral detriment. Let God take care of it... not the government (I don't trust human's anyways...think of all the other socialist countries that turned evil).

In a democracy, it is the right and duty of all citizens to make rules and regulations that will ensure the best good of society. Do we give people the freedom to choose whether to murder, steal or lie?

Justin wrote that Moore’s goal in this film seems to be to equate capitalism with corruption. I would submit, however, that capitalism equals freedom.

The capitalism of Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers was individual owners of small businesses or small groups of partners that were the owners & managers of the businesses. Adam Smith wrote at length on the subject of the likelihood of corruption and mismanagement of "joint-stock" and public stock corporations. Michael Moore is attacking the corporate capitalism of the 21st century, not the capitalism of the small business owner model.

The "freedom" of individuals, and religious or philosophical positions about personal freedoms and religious freedom of conscience, should not be confused with the freedom or regulations of large public corporations of today. The Supreme Court ruling from the 1800's giving "person-hood" rights to corporations while allowing them to live indefinitely shifted the balance of power in our capitalism from the small business owner with everything "on the line" in the success/failure of that business to the managers of large corporations whose managers are personally risking a limited amount of their personal assets while having the opportunity to make extraordinary sums of money for themselves by risking the capital/assets of the company and its shareholders.

If you want to talk about corporate freedoms and corporate duties to God and corporate duties as citizens then discuss them. That is what Moore's movie is about. What obligations do corporations have to their employees if they underfund their pension plan, then go bankrupt? etc. This is not about personal freedoms but entities licensed and regulated by our government and the way they treat shareholders, taxpayers, and customers.

Should we get rid of the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies? Should municipalities start approving medical hospitals that will create huge over-capacity in beds? Should we get rid of the governments ability to legally deny mergers between companies that would create virtual monopolies in vital parts of the economy? How about shutting down the Public Utilities Commissions and let the electric bill shoot to 100% of your income? Why not let drug companies skip the silly FDA and just put any drug they want straight to market? Why not give food manufacturers the freedom that was taken away to put out any product they wanted without sanitary inspections by the FDA?

McCain's Economic Advisor was the lead sponsor of the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. That legislation rescinded many of the banking regulations put in after the market and banking collapse of the Depression era. All of a sudden banks could own stock brokerage firms, mutual fund companies, insurance firms, etc. Throw on 30-1 leverage, and a 50% drop in the value of a small 6% portfolio of the bank's assets wipes the bank out. Then have that scenario happen to a bank like Bank of America or Citigroup and the whole financial system of this country (and possibly the world's) has a high risk of complete collapse.

Christianity is a socialist or communist philosophy. Capitalism is survival of the fittest, evolutionary. The corporate capitalism that was allowed to get out of control through deregulation over the last 30 years is bordering on fascism. Re-regulating vital parts of this economy is not going to affect our personal freedoms one bit unless you are a CEO, CFO, or Chairman of a large corporation.

Those arguing against the premise of Moore's movie would argue against a Moore movie if the FDA was shut down and he exposed the filth that would be sold as food in this country.

IMO, of course.

It is surprising how the comments and positions above on the commentary on capitalism fail to refer to the simple stories of the "The Red Hen" and "Animal Farm". Whether it is Communism, Socialism, or Capitalism or a mixture it is all dependent on the human foibles and frailities of the political leadership in power. As long as man's sinful nature exists, there will be defective social, political, and financial issue with all isms. Michael Moore is fortunate to be able to take potshots under a political, social, financial freedoms afforded by captialism. I highly doubt he would have survived under a polical, social, finanical system of communism or even some of the political, social financial systems of many of the African states or of the polical, social, and financial systems of states of the middle east. For those who feel capitalism is "immoral" or "unchristlike" or "unfail" or "unequal" fail to accept ALL political, social, and financial systems are "immoral" to the extent of how deeply human foibles have affected them. The lower the values of the human condition, the worse any political, social, and financial system will be. Michel Moore feels it is easy to take advantage of the low hanging fruit of the foibles of capitalism. That is his freedom to do so. Let us see if he can survive any criticism of political, social, and financial system of how the moslem world deal with their system which currently is estiamted at 25% of the world's population?

We have to go back as far as Teddy Roosevelt to find the control system for Capitalism's laiser-faire--FDR took several pages out of Teddy's book to level the playing field.

We had an early warning with Enron but it wasn't heeded--now we have a full blown mess.

Certainly the Christian Ethic and ethos is contrary to the Wall Street mantra. But then greed and the struggle for power was present even among the twelve.

What Michael Moore is doing is making money off of the greed and foolishness of the free ride system.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Tom

"Certainly the Christian Ethic and ethos is contrary to the Wall Street mantra." (Tom)

Of all the insults added to the injury of the people that Michael Moore is standing up for, none is more offensive than the sight of Christians casting their lot with the Darwinian forces that survive so well at their expense.

It used to be said that a society without faith would be a society without values, that it would destroy civilization and return us the heartless struggle for selfish survival. Well, we've accomplished that with faith left over to yawn at the suffering that's not our own.

Michael Moore is a Christian. That doesn't mean a whole lot to me given how empty of content that label tends to be. What matters to me is that here we have a man who crying out in the desert of our faith-based nihilism in a seemingly hopeless attempt to rally people to embrace once again the values of civilization and decency--and the Gospels.

What Keafan said!

Beats me how removing gov't interference in capitalism is going to make things better for anyone but those in power.

I think it would be a great social experiment to take all the libertarians, give them a state (Utah would work nicely), and let them have at it. We've seen the pluses and minuses of different applications of capitalism, socialism etc. because someone has actually tried them. Whenever we move towards libertarianism though and things go to hell, libertarians always complain that it's not *really* freedom - still too much interference. Well boys and girls, here's your state, bring your gun, last one alive turns out the lights. (Or I should say blow out your candle because electricity needs community cooperation and someone is going to rebel against electrical wires running through HIS property.)

I haven't seen the movie yet and I don't know Moore's actual political yearnings (although I know they are left) but exposing problems with the system we have doesn't automatically mean he wants to scrap capitalism for strict socialism. We can modify some of the excesses without interfering too much with the benefits. Pointing out a problem doesn't mean you hate the whole thing.

It is amazing how much of this discussion is caused by comparing one extreme against another, without consideration of the possibility that the middle ground might be better than either.

A monopoly over a vital service will usually result in an inefficient provider - whether than monopoly is 'a government dept', 'a large corporation', 'an informal coalition of suppliers', or a powerful small organization is irrelevant.

Often the consumers of the vital service will voluntarily agree not to use force to remove that inefficient provider IF the provider agrees not to charge too much for their services. When the provider fails to live up to their side of the agreement, they should not be surprised when the consumers don't live up to that side either.

Right now the lawyers, insurance companies, health care providers, and medical supply companies are acting as an informal coalition that is being very inefficient. They should expect to be disrupted by the consumers.

The foolishness of the 'too big to fail' situation is apparent to almost all. Unfortunately raw capitalism is an unstable boom-and-bust engine, and the bust's can be very spectacular.

The government should not be involved in stopping them from busting, but rather in educating consumers about the risks they take when involved in such companies, so that risk analysis alone will be sufficient to stop such single sources of failure from developing.

/Bevin

Moore has made how much money in the capitalistic system he excoriates? He says he is Catholic, but he dissents on issues like abortion. I guess unborn children don't factor into his alleged "concern" for the poor. They man is a poser and a hypocrite.
Fr. Jim

Not everybody agrees with the Catholic's irrational position on fetuses.

However, I agree that Moore exagerates and misstates many issues.

/Bevin

Fr. Jim: have you found a perfect man yet? Everyone of us has "warts" that could be excoriated. Each individual chooses which are his highest values and judges all others by his values.
Is there anywhere the perfect Catholic? Who?

Is it sinful to make money? Sometimes, money flows as a result of one's actions, not simply because that has been the first objective. Is the Catholic church poor? What about any system:
capitalist, socialist, communist, dictatorship is unflawed?

I have yet to know in my mid-80s, anyone who could not be rightfully called a "hypocrite" by the criteria of others. No, Moore is neither infallible or inerrant, and a human, just like us.
Nor, do I believe that all the wealthy from Wall Street are hypocrites (though there may be a higher percentage). We are all responsible for our own choices of profession. Does a surgeon who makes lots of money, compared to a very poor person, become a capitalist and hypocrite based on his wealth?

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54833

The buffoonery of Michael Moore is documented here where he claims he hasn't benefited from capitalism.
Perhaps someone should make a movie about how much of the 21 million that Disney paid him made its way to supporting all those poor people he knows or the 25 million he made from his share of the take on the movie Sicko or the DVD sales following?

Perhaps one shouldn't take Moores commentary to seriously considering he is too stupid to even admit he has benefited from capitalism?
For example he said Disney tried to kill the film farenheight 9/11 when actually they were footing the bill to make it in the first place and paid him 21 million for it!
How stupid must he be to think someone like disney who pays millions to make the film including Moores 21 million, whould then turn around and try and kill it?

Michael,
He isn't stupid - he knows what sells movies and what creates buzz and controversy. I have little doubt that he knew saying he didn't profit from capitalism would generate press and outrage. Like a less loathsome Rush if you will ;)

While I find him untrustworthy (just like most public figures, especially those in the entertainment industry), he still has something worthwhile to say if you can wade through the hyperbole. He has a knack for poking at our vulnerabilities and shining a light on our dark places, even if the way he goes about it makes me roll my eyes sometimes.

Sadly, much of the foregoing comments (including mine) deteriorate into ad hominem attacks on Moore, the two authors and other commentators. There has been a great deal of heat and very little light. The most sensible (my opinion) and reasoned suggestion is the one that says that we are dealing in extremes without ever considering the middle ground. Having said that, compromise is not necessarily the best solution either. It often means that everybody looses.
Every system will fail, be it capitalism, communism, socialism, libertarianism, etc. for one single reason: human greed. I don't believe we have a human answer to that; it afflicts us all.

As Ole Kristensen points out, Christian punditry is not any different from what the ad hominem cabel chanels deliver. Let me remind you of Michael Moore's stated concerns in his various movies:

1. Profitable companies fire people and devastate communities to deliver even higher profits (Roger and Me)

2. The American love affair with guns inflicts terrible damage on society (Bowling for Columbine)

3. Cynical politicians used 9/11 to wage war on a country that was not involved in the misdeed (Farenheit 9/11)

4. We, as a nation, refuse to do what every industrialized nation in world does automatically: provide health care for all. (Sicko)

5. The US government is being unduly influenced by Wall Street, which is more interested in the welfare of billionaires than that of the American people (Capitalism, a Love Affair)

I don't see much attempts at dealing with these issues. Or are these unworthy of attention from Christians busy with the project of saving themselves from the coming apocalypse?

Forget about Michael Moore! What about the issues he raises?

1. Profitable companies fire people and devastate communities to deliver even higher profits (Roger and Me)

(Profits to who? People who invest in 401k's? People who invest for retirement? Ever heard of stockholders? Do you own stock? If so YOUR culpable. Average Joe citizen should write them a letter and tell them they expect NO dividends.)

2. The American love affair with guns inflicts terrible damage on society (Bowling for Columbine)

(Wrong and stupid. American society doesnt do crime, people do crime. The same mental flaw as the 1st reviewer. The inability to distinguish between personal and societal action.)

3. Cynical politicians used 9/11 to wage war on a country that was not involved in the misdeed (Farenheit 9/11)

(Wrong. The attack was on terrorist networks and the countries who sponsor, train and provide safe havens for them.)

4. We, as a nation, refuse to do what every industrialized nation in world does automatically: provide health care for all. (Sicko)

(We as a nation have spent untold trillions and countless lives saving europe from her local tyrants in 2 world wars and keeping them from having to speak russian for 60 years. We keep Israel from being exterminated on an ongoing basis. We carry out the military resolutions of the UN since the lazy european nations are to busy to send more than a squad of men, because everyone needs to work in europe when you only work 20ish hours a week. We have forgiven more debt than europe has money. We have provided more aid than europe has food.
JFK'S Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, was in France in the early 60's when DeGaule decided to pull out of NATO. DeGaule said he wanted all US military out of France as soon as possible.
Rusk responded "does that include those who are buried here?
DeGuale did not respond.
When in England, at a conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building by George Bush.

He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'
At a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break, one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help
the tsunami victims . What does he intended to do, bomb them?'

A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck. We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?' My friend worked at Boeing for years. Perhaps Europe and its sicofants need to pull their head out and see who is caring for more people.)

5. The US government is being unduly influenced by Wall Street, which is more interested in the welfare of billionaires than that of the American people (Capitalism, a Love Affair)

(A classic misdiagnosis of the problem. Of course its infulenced by wall street and every other lobbiest with a sawbuck to donate. Do you really think the solution is to give the government MORE power so that lobbiests and fat cats with money need to bribe them even more?
Perhaps its to adult a puzzle for Moore to realize the problem is the government in the first place.)

Posted by: Aage Rendalen (not verified) | 11 October 2009 at 1:20

I appreciate Justin Woods' strong affirmation of free will. It is, as Justin suggests, the ideal. The notion that capitalism is the only economic system inherently free of evil because it "follows naturally when individuals in a society are given the freedom to make choices about their lives" is a powerful argument.

A reality that seemingly rebuts or at least unsettles the idea that capitalism is inherently free of evil is that a large portion of people in the system do not have meaningful(that is to say, legitimate) choices about their lives.

Circumstances--location, upbringing, education or lack of it, gender, sexual orientation, physical makeup (including handicaps), ethnicity and other factors beyond control impact the choices a person will be able to make.

Libertarian economic systems without government regulation would likely work in an ideal society where individuals are perfectly just, not exploitative.

There is no such society.

Rather, unrestricted free-market economics has given us the multi-billion (or trillion) dollar transnational corporate titans that Dan Blair referenced in his analysis of the film.

The bottom line is turning a profit, as Dan noted. Without imposed governmental safeguards to protect employees, corporations will generally provide as sparingly as possible for their employees in order to remain as profitable as possible.

Regulation is absolutely necessary, it seems, in order to ensure equitable conditions for people whose "choices" were limited from the outset.

Fair wages, limits on work weeks, compensation for work related injuries, health care...the things people need to survive (nevermind thriving) will generally be restricted as far as possible in order to increase profit margins.

Then there are the case studies that Moore provides in his "Love Story."

"Dead Peasant" insurance policies, predatory lending masked by incomprehensible legal jargon, the dismantling of labor unions...all mechanisms corporations employ against their employees in service of the Bottom Line in the current incarnation of capitalism.

In a world populated by people who at least from all appearances seem inherently selfish, can there really be such a thing as a value neutral economic system?

For a take on how these corporate vultures make money and destroy a company:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/5/business/economy/05simmons.html

"Simmons says it will soon file for bankruptcy protection, as part of an agreement by its current owners to sell the company — the seventh time it has been sold in a little more than two decades — all after being owned for short periods by a parade of different investment groups, known as private equity firms, which try to buy undervalued companies, mostly with borrowed money."

Thousands lost long-held jobs; unemployment ranks gained; an old established company became bankrupt, and the corporate buyers made out like vultures feeding on carrion.

This is the epitome of Capitalism, American style: The one with the most gold wins.

The above link seems inactive. Here is one of many letters on this debacle:

"Re “Profits for Buyout Firms as Company Debt Soared” (front page, Oct. 5), about the demise of the Simmons Bedding Company:

This is a classic but sad example of a prized derby-winning horse being euthanized after a fall in the race. In this case the horse is the mattress maker Simmons, which will soon file for bankruptcy and be sold for the seventh time. It is now a financial casualty, leaving its investors in a lurch and employees on the unemployment rolls, while making private equity firms flush with sale profits.

It would be wise to have regulations that ensure that every time a business is being bought and sold by such private equity groups, their profits are tied to the financial survival of the company. The firms should also be held fully accountable if the company becomes bogged down by unsustainable debts.

It’s a shame that this profit-making dash by private equity firms runs parallel to the subprime mortgage crisis that has rocked the global economy.

JARED,

You listed education as a circumstance, implying to me that the education level one achieves is beyond ones’ control. So your degree wasn’t earned?

You may have a point regarding limits on the work week. I’ve been submitted to some long, pointless sermons on occasion. Maybe the gov’t could put a stop watch on those.

Elaine, I don't mind that he isn't perfect. But he claims capitalism and wealth are evil. Yet he is a capitalist and has made 50 million dollars on his films. He likes to dress up as if he were a regular guy, but he doesn't really live that way. He has many homes and scads of money. Why doesn't he give it all away if he says that wealth is evil? I just want him to be consistent. Moore is a hypocrite.

Michael wrote > He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.'

Let me list SOME of the land the USA has taken by force, or attempted to

Successfully - ie: still occupied by us or someone who is inordinately friendly towards us and is propped up by us

Texas
Hawaii
Guantanamo Bay
The Phillipines
Israel
Taiwan

Attempted - ie: we gave it our best shot and failed

Canada
North Korea
Viet-Nam, Cambodia, and Laos
Panama
Iran

Works in progress - final outcome unclear:

South Korea
Iraq
Afghanistan

Michael wrote> "Perhaps Europe and its sicofants (sic) need to pull their head out and see who is caring for more people"

Perhaps you need to go and work out the answer for yourself, Michael. In Malawi - the poorest country in Africa, where I spent 6 weeks and my daughter 2 years, the answer is not clear cut - but it is probably "China".

A lot of the USA 'aid' is poorly disguised subsidies for American farmers, mixed in with military control and political bribery.

/Bevin

Elaine, you wrote/quoted "It would be wise to have regulations that ensure that every time a business is being bought and sold by such private equity groups, their profits are tied to the financial survival of the company. The firms should also be held fully accountable if the company becomes bogged down by unsustainable debts."

I disagree. The laws today are clear. The stock holders own the company - they should be allowed to sell their stock as they wish. The people who loan companies money need to loose it if the company blows it.

/Bevin

Bevin
Your list in the last post is just insane.
I can only conclude your grasp of history is inadequate.

How wise our Creator God was when he gave land to the families that had to be returned every 50 yrs. Who commanded a 7 yr. debt release among the children of Israel (not applied to lost land) and warned about false balances in wts. and measures which could also apply to "clipped coinage" by rulers and merchants who were cheating others in removing purchasing power.
People were free to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

All systems are "capitalistic" it is a matter of who owns the capital. All of today's systems fail when compared to God's system above.

Perhaps that is His longsuffering lesson that will be part of why we will praise Him from saving us from the present and coming ever growing oppression.

The system of Smith was flawed without the 50 yr. release. The other collective "isms" are flawed by their treatment of the whole at the expense of "the one."

Follow the historic effects of the Federal Reserve fractional reserve system , Going off the Gold Standard to assure sound money…making debasing much more difficult, Abandoning the Glass Steagal act by the bi-partisan Rep.Dems in the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 to create the recent Wall Street financial leveraging debacle, Progressive taxation associated with tax lobbyist for pet projects at advantage to manage the economy and you will begin to see some of the half truths presented by many various factions including Michael Moore’s.

I am thankful for America and believe historically it offered the most individual’s the most opportunity to succeed based on their efforts. (The slavery issue the exception not uncommon to all systems in history) It has now due to some of the above become "financially controlled" by a select few empowered by "facist government economics."

The lesson I see in history is that we need a righteous King and he dwells not among men … His name is Jesus.

The self autonomy of the “democratic rule of man” apart from God’s methods (assuming one could even obtain to perfection) by all “gentile systems” always fails…thus the rise and fall of nations.

If righteousness could come by any law then Christ has died in vain. Our systems all fail at some point…including the OT theocracy because of sin.

That is what I see…along with today’s beautiful sunset that reminds me despite all… HE STILL REIGNS over the affairs of man.

Regards,
pat

Fr. Jim, wealth and riches are all relative. To at least half of the world's population, you and I are very wealthy. Is the fact that someone becomes wealthy because consumers "buy" his product, suddenly a hypocrite?

There are many wealthier people all around in the city where I live. Most have become wealthy by hard work (harder than most people are willing to work) and reinvesting in enlarging their business and employing additional people. Others (Wall St. is an example) produce nothing but become increasing wealthy by buying and selling, using other people's money in a "heads I win, tails you lose" scheme.

A business person may risk everything if his business fails; the typical Wall Street "gambler" makes a profit whether a business gains or loses simply by betting with other people's money.

If you don't see the difference, study econ. 101. BTW, how about all the movie and sports and rock stars that are millionaires many times over? It is the consumer who gives it to them, isn't it? How are they to be controlled? A few, like Bill Gates, Bono and others are outstanding in their distribution of wealth for helping humanity and setting a wonderful example for others.

10/20/2008
Rupert Murdoch Dead Last In Charitable Giving
Filed under: General — Mark @ 10:30 am
Conde Naste’s Portfolio Magazine has compiled a list of billionaires ranked by their charitable donations. The Generosity Index itemizes fifty of the wealthiest individuals as donors, relative to their wealth.

Coming in fiftieth is the miserly media mogul, Rupert Murdoch. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that an uber-conservative, Republican monopolist, should finish last in expressions of charity. The Republican me-first ideology that values greedy self-centrism predictably drives people like Murdoch to the bottom of these lists.

At the other end of the spectrum, the top five most generous billionaires (Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, George Soros, and John Kluge) are all reliable supporters of Democrats and most have contributed to the campaign of Barack Obama.

This news bite is just a little more evidence that Republicans tend to be selfish, social Darwinians and Democrats tend to have more compassion and concern for the well being of others.

As the author of the dissenting viewpoint in this article, I have really appreciated the vigorous and (mostly) respectful discussion of the issue that has taken place here. Thanks very much to Jared for providing a forum for the conversation to take place.

I can't hope to respond to every comment, but I would like to share a few thoughts that I've had since writing the peice.

One is that economic systems need to be evaluated within appropriate contexts.

For example, I would venture to guess that the intra-family economic system practiced in most US households is "socialism". Mom (and / or) Dad earn money, share it with each other and implement social programs, like free housing, food, and health care for those unable to support themselves: the children.

Another example would be the two fine companies that Moore profiled. One was an engineering company, the other a bread factory. Both use a system of governance and profit distribution that some might call socialistic. Still, I think that what both companies are doing is simply fantastic. In fact, I wish more companies would choose to operate that way.

The good news about our system of free enterprise is that businesses have the choice. Within a capitalistic system, businesses can choose from many different models of operation, including "socialism".

My objection to a socialized government and economic system is that, in my opinion, that choice would no longer be available. Systems of production would be controlled by the government, and those who wanted to do things differently would not be given the choice.

In short, a capitalist framework allows socialist companies, but a socialist framework does not allow capitalist companies. That's what I mean when I say I want the system that will allow the most freedom of choice possible.

Dab,

What I wrote about education being dependent on circumstance is accurate, as far as I can tell.

Many (some might say most) children have no say in the child development center (if any) that they attend or do not attend. Children have no choice when it comes to the preschool they attend or do not attend. Same is true of elementary school, and in most cases high school. Even college, for many people, is not a matter of choice. Circumstances dictate whether or not people attend college, and circumstances also, to a large degree, what sorts of programs people enroll in when entering college.

This is why I feel it is accurate to say that education (at least during many critical, formative stages of development) is beyond most students' control.

In most cases, it would be inaccurate to say that students have meaningful choices.

Justin, you commended the two companies Moore filmed, and while recognizing they are "socialist," yet find fault if the government is also socialist. Is it the scale that is worrisome: a small "socialist" company is fine; on a larger scale (government) it is bad. Does size really make a difference?

Should free enterprise operate without any government controls? FDA, FDIC, and a whole host of alphabetic soup have allowed consumers a measure of safety in their purchases. Who should regulate: the individual business or the government? Can we trust the large pharmaceutical companies to develop the best drugs and the best price without controls? What amount of controls are necessary in a large nation? Most all companies are requlated by the government in some form today.

Are you against "socialized" Medicare? You should look forward to both that and Social Security to give you some security when you are no longer able to work. Can any private company guarantee the same amount of protection?

Do the private health insurers operate as economically? How can they when by their very nature they are in the business to make a profit, and by denying claims or denying insurance for people, they make a larger profit.

Our Congress, both parties, have taken so much $$ from the lobbyists that it becomes a nation operated by their intere$t$ rather than for the consumer. How many consumers presently on "socialized" Medicare are willing to forego it for private insurance? How many are saved from poverty by Social Security--both are very socialized services.

Free enterprise is developed for one primary thing: to make a profit; that is the most important; without a profit the business folds. We expect that of some businesses, but should every service received always operate on a profit motive? Do teachers make a profit? Do social workers make a profit? Do city, county, state and federal employees work for a profit-making entity?

Whether we like it or not, the largest employers today are employed by government. If you want to call it "Socialism" it is far better than what is next.

Michael - tell me about

1) The War of 1812

2) How Hawaii changed from being a sovereign country to being a US state

3) Why the USA has Guantanamo

then we will decide who has an inadequate grasp of history

/Bevin

Jared,
You wrote – “circumstances also, to a large degree, what sorts of programs people enroll in when entering college.”
When you wrote programs, do you mean that circumstances determine what majors are chosen?

Bevin
Why those 3 examples?
What happened to the rest of the loony ones on your list?
Canada?
North Korea?
Laos for pete's sake?
Some sort of intellectual turrets syndrome where you meant to say the first 3 but turrets caused you to throw in the rest of the nonsense?

The immediate causes of the War of 1812 were a series of economic sanctions taken by the British and French against the US as part of the Napoleonic Wars and American outrage at the British practice of impressment, especially after the Chesapeake incident of 1807. In 1812, with President Madison in office, Congress declared war against the British who, guess what? Just happened to be in Canada.

Your point about Hawaii is nutso since the Kingdom of Hawaii only existed from 1810 until 1893 when the monarchy was overthrown by resident American and European businessmen. Not the American government. Even under the Hawaiians own rulers there was constant war until 1810 when Kamehameha subjugated all of the inhabited islands under a single ruler. Through a series of deaths (not caused by the American government) of the Kings, who left no successors such as The death of the bachelor King Kamehameha V — who did not name an heir — which resulted in the popular election of Lunalilo over Kalākaua. Lunalilo died after only one year and 25 days in office, also without naming an heir. After the fraudulent election by the legislature in 1874 caused riots and threatened to american expat community did the landing of U.S. and British troops to keep the peace. At which time governance was passed on to the House of Kalākaua not the US Government. Perhaps you should have added Grenada to your list. Why dont you also add the Vermont Republic (1791), and the California Republic (1846)?

Michael wrote> "Why those 3 examples?"

Micheal, for your information, included in The War of 1812 was included an attempt by the USA to take over parts of Canada - and the forceful expansion of the USA further west.

The takeover of Hawaii by American businessmen was made possible by the US Navy

And you didn't dare address Guantanamo

/Bevin

Bevin,
Hmm... couldn't agree more, except you failed to include Guam and Puerto Rico in your list of lands and people the U.S. occupied.

I have just been reading a recent work that claims to balance the dominant social Darwinist, economic-imperialist view of American international relations. In contrast, the author offers a social constructivist explanation regarding U.S. determination to exert her influence abroad.

See Paul T. Mccartney, Power And Progress: American National Identity, the War of 1898, And the Rise of American Imperialism (Political Traditions in Foreign Policy Series),
Louisiana State University Press, 2006.
http://books.google.com/books?id=LZqM5r6R84cC&dq=American+National+Ident...

Hi Elaine, you asked whether it was scale that was worrisome when it comes to the implementation of socialism.

To me, it's not the scale of implementation but the inherent restriction of choice that I disagree with. A socialist system enforced by the government would preclude individuals from choosing to implement any other system in their own lives. That's the point I was trying to make.

Am I against socialized Medicare, Social Security, etc? Short answer: Yes, I am.

I am personally planning to never collect a single cent from any of these programs at retirement, even after having paid into them for my entire life.

Long answer: Yes, I am against socialized government programs, ideally. However, I also understand that because of the culture of entitlement that we have created in our society, it would be disastrous to abolish them overnight.

Justin,

It is unusual to see someone so magnanimous. In rejecting Medicare and Social Security for yourself, are you willing that everyone else entitled should follow your example?

I am old enough to vividly remember the Great Depression when there were no safety nets. Those who are now independently wealthy have no need for those safety nets, but even those who might have thought those pension and retirement funds were secure are unpleasantly surprised to find they have shrunk considerably.

As a retiree enjoying those "socialized" benefits, in addition to IRAs an other funds, few have been able to secure their old age with a rapidly decreasing deficit.

If you are able to look forward to retiring without need of any of these, you are a rarity. Still, to expect other to do so is most unrealistic.

As for "socialism" every governmental function is a form of socialism. Would you suggest that private enterprise for-profit would function more efficiently and better? Where can that be demonstrated?

In years past, there were mercenary soldiers, and private security firms. Surely, you are not suggesting that we have private defense for this nation (we have seen how "economically and efficient" that has proved). Perhaps, private education for everyone with no government standards? What governmental bodies would you eliminate?

Socialism, that dread word only to Americans, is practiced in nearly all of the industrialized nations of the world, with the exception of the U.S. Because the U.S. was founded by rugged individualists, they are very opposed, by nature, to anything that would deprive them of this independent streak. But "no man is an island" and like it or not, we are all dependent on others for our daily livelihood. Do you grow all your own food? Do you pave all the roads you travel? Do you teach your own children? Ever day, you are the recipient of "socialism."

Justin,

the USA has a sliding tax scale. Lowest level incomes, no tax - high level income, high tax.

When you retire, I am assuming you also intend to pay the same percentage of your income in taxation as those in the highest brackets pay.

I mean, you wouldn't want to use other people's money for your roads, police, fire, military, etc. would you

/Bevin

Bevin,
Using your definition you also left out France, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Japan, all of whom where occupied by the U.S. military. This doesn't include the North Africa campaign during WWII.

Regarding Korea, unless I missed something in history class, I believe it was the North Koreans that invaded South Korea. The UN then voted to send in a multi-national force.

Elaine, I'm not exactly certain what you mean by calling me magnanimous. I'd really like to have a conversation in this forum without name-calling, facetious or otherwise.

In my own personal life-planning exercises, I have made the conscious decision to not plan on a windfall at retirement. And I'm not alone. Many people my age, no matter their worldview, are not planning on Social Security or other entitlements when they retire.

Your statement that every governmental function could be viewed as form of socialism is quite correct.
I think we may be beginning to overgeneralize our terms a bit, though.

To state it succinctly, I'm against a system of government that controls the means of production and allocation of resources.

Another angle that I wish I had time to include in the original article, was what has been called the"Economic calculation problem". I won't go into it further here than to give you a link to a Wikipedia article, but it is quite interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

"Ludwig von Mises argued that a socialist system based upon a planned economy would not be able to allocate resources effectively due to the lack of price signals. Because the means of production would be controlled by a single entity, approximating prices for capital goods in a planned economy would be impossible. His argument was that socialism must fail economically because of the economic calculation problem – the impossibility of a socialist government being able to make the economic calculations required to organize a complex economy."

Bevin, I must admit that I don't understand your question. I certainly will pay taxes as long as I earn an income.

If you think I'm confident because I'm rich, you would be quite mistaken. In fact, I probably fall into one of the lowest tax brackets. I count as a direct blessing every dollar the Lord provides. But I'm doing what I can to provide for the future.

I am investing in a Roth IRA which, Lord willing, by that time will allow me to retire comfortably. As you know, you pay taxes on Roth IRA investments up-front, so that when you retire, you don't pay taxes on the money you take out.

Of course, there are no guarantees of anything in this life, but I feel that I have done everything that I know to do to be able to support myself at retirement. I don't want to be a burden to my family or to my society.

"Ludwig von Mises argued that a socialist system based upon a planned economy would not be able to allocate resources effectively due to the lack of price signals."

Good job Justin...

Facist economies try to keep a lot in private hands but control it by regulations that gives some price direction though it is also skewed.

I would be careful to state you will never use SS, Medicare etc. The state may control most everything by the time you retire at the present rate.

regards,
pat

In other words, Justin, you are already collecting some subsidized services and will continue to collect them after you retire - police, fire, roads, military, justice system, etc.

I agree with your general sentiment of doing what one can for one-self - but there is no reason not to collect on medicare and social security. Both of these are no different to the other services you will be using.

Basically you don't need to play half the game. A USA citizen has given up various claims in exchange for other claims. The government sold access to land, usage of minerals, of water, of ideas to companies - in short, it sold assets that in which you, me, and our fellow citizens had ownership. It taxes corporate profits.

Having let the govt sell what is yours, it is generous of you to renounce your share of the income.

Be very aware, however, that the interest on IRA's etc. is not that different to the inflation rate. I saw an article recently on how to retire a millionaire - but what they did not mention is that the million dollars that you will have when you retire will only cover about 5 years expenses.

In short, if you work for 50 years, saving about 10% of your income each year, you will have about 5 years income in the bank when you retire.

It will be even worse as the boomers retire, because they will all be selling off their homes and their shares at about the same time, into a smaller population of buyers and the shares will be of companies whose intellectual assets and physical plant are obsolete.

/Bevin

Justin, I meant no disparagment by calling you magnanimous. Would generous be more appropriate? It seemed that by refusing the benefits that you have paid for and the government promises, was going a little overboard by refusing what is offered. I'm not sure that anyone reaching 65 can refuse Medicare, but there may be some who do.

Relying on a 401(k) because it has already been taxed, does not mean that it will always be secure. Perhaps you have read the latest Time article "Why It's Time to Retire the 401(k)" and that a catastrophic illness or accident might destroy all the savings? Unless one has huge amounts in retirement funds, it is when one reaches the retirement age that many conditions occur. One surgery or hospitalization can easily wipe out savings if there is no health insurance.

I can testify that being a life-long vegetarian, I have much better health than the average person my age. However, orthopedic surgery was required 3x, and the costs would be close to $100k, without Medicare. This condition had nothing to do with lifestyle.

From the Time article: "The ugly truth, though, is the 401(k) is a lousy idea, a financial flop a rotten repository for our retirement reserves....From the end of 2007 to the end of March, 2009, the average 401(k) balance fell 31%....During the market downturn,the 401(k)s of 55-65 years olds lost a quarter more than those of their 35-45 year-old colleagues...The longer you hold a 401(k), the more market ex-exposed it becomes. It's a twist that breaks the most rule of financial planning."

It may work for you, and that would be good. It also depends on your having no dependents for which you must also provide. I am no financial expert, but regularly watch my investment pensions and am happy to see that recently, after some losses, they are slowly rising. Even so, stats show that the largest health care is used in the last six months of life.

Michael Moore makes a strong point. It is true that capitalists have been greedy and have used a disproportionate share of the earth's limited resources. I believe that the greed in capitalism will finally backfire and bring about its own punishment and perhaps its own destruction.

The current pope as well as previous ones has called for "sharing of resources." Another phrase is "redistribution of wealth." The fact is that if this sharing is not done voluntarily it will be done involuntarily. There is a strong tendency in history for involuntary sharing to occur from time to time, one way or another...and the results are generally not good.
This kind of enforced economic reform was done not many years ago in South Africa. Farmland was taken away from farmers and given to people who did not know how to farm. Many of these farmers were either killed or committed suicide. The result has been increased hunger for many of the poorest people in that country. Similar economic reform was imposed in Communist China after the second world war,and people were executed for even owning small pieces of land and the simplest farm equipment. Redistribution of wealth was also practiced by Lenin and Stalin after the Russian Revolution in the years following 1917. Millions of people died and the poor became even poorer. Similar processes were in operation during the French Revolution and its subsequent Reign of Terror.
Our country is coming under the influence of Roman Catholic principles. This is illustrated by the use of torture by our government, which is a principle defended in the Catholic Encyclopedia. You may remember that President Bush said that he wanted to implement the principles of the Catholic Church in the United States. And very few people have even batted an eye.
Countries that are predominantly Roman Catholic are among the poorest in the world, with the widest gap between the rich and the poor. Consequently, it seems inconsistant for the leaders of the richest church on earth to call for others to redistribute their wealth. All or most of Bush's advisers were Catholic. Is there a connection between those advisers and the current economic problems? In this country the gap between rich and poor is growing wider each year. Secular economists comment on that trend from time to time. The situation is the same in Islam, which has principles similar to Catholicism.

One facet of our situation is that capitalism has produced wealth that the non-capitalist world covets. "From each according to his capacity and to each according to his need" was the mantra of communism. Under communism everyone was equal...equally poor, that is, (except for the ruling class, who lived in luxury.) And, more people were actually hungry than in capitalist countries,
It seems a paradox that the principles of the Bible, when practiced, lead to prosperity ....which leads of love of riches and greed...which leads to an unstable society...which leads to poverty. A welfare state is not the answer, nor is an externally forced economic reform. What needs to be shared is more than just wealth. What the rest of the world actually needs, and what we should be sharing, is capitalism, but neither completely unregulated nor overregulated capitalism.
David Rowland

Teddy Roosevelt saw the troubles. Taft didn't we have been on a Taft binge with only short lived drying out periods. We can't tell the difference between a flood and a fire so we pour water on a flood and oil on a fire. Only the rats seem to survive. Tom

An Ellen White comment related to capitalism submitted by David Rowland

A Perversion of an Original Faculty

The desire to accumulate wealth is an original affection of our nature, implanted there by our heavenly Father for noble ends. If you ask the capitalist who has directed all his energies to the one object of securing 149 wealth, and who is persevering and industrious to add to his property, with what design he thus labors, he could not give you a reason for this, a definite purpose for which he is gaining earthly treasures and heaping up riches. He cannot define any great aim or purpose he has in view, or any new source of happiness he expects to attain. He goes on accumulating because he has turned all his abilities and all his powers in this direction.
There is within the worldly man a craving for something that he does not have. He has, from force of habit, bent every thought, every purpose, in the direction of making provision for the future, and as he grows older, he becomes more eager than ever to acquire all that it is possible to gain. It is natural that the covetous man should become more covetous as he draws near the time when he is losing hold upon all earthly things.
All this energy, this perseverance, this determination, this industry after earthly power, is the result of the perversion of his powers to a wrong object. Every faculty might have been cultivated to the highest possible elevation by exercise, for the heavenly, immortal life, and for the far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. The customs and practices of the worldly man in his perseverance and his energies, and in availing himself of every opportunity to add to his store, should be a lesson to those who claim to be children of God, seeking for glory, honor, and immortality. The children of the world are wiser in their generation than the children of the light, and herein is seen their wisdom. Their object is for earthly gain, and to this end they direct all their energies. O that this zeal would characterize the toiler for heavenly riches!--R. & H., March 1, 1887. 150