mind your business

Tuesday, September 29, 2009

A Libertarian Review / Criticisms of Michael Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story

With the initial, limited release of Michael Moore's newest documentary, Capitalism: A Love Story, I have guest posted an article at Rise of Reason explaining how government intrusion, not free market capitalism, is to blame for the problems Michael Moore correctly denounces.

Here's an excerpt:

Capitalism, as the film’s title suggests, is the culprit and the target of Michael Moore’s misguided polemics. The free market is the problem and more government regulation is the solution. This common line of thought and rhetoric is so tragic not merely because it is mistaken, but because the mistake is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism itself.

Read the full article here (and Digg it here).

For an excellent article that clarifies just what capitalism is and why it is such an enlightened and prosperous political and economic system, read "The Truth About Capitalism."


  1. I loved your article and am linking to it!

  2. So do we actually have to pay for a ticket to see Moore's new movie? What?!?! You mean that we DO have to PAY to see this movie? That is so Capitalist! Is Moore trying to actually make money off this movie?

    Liberals constantly contradict themselves.

  3. I did take the time to read your complete article. I then went to the Wikipedia entry on Moore to get a better understanding of him. I mistakenly thought he was Canadian. Either way, great article as always. I agree with Forgotten Liberty in that it is interesting that a man who so dislikes Capitalism and his country benefits so much from it. Perhaps on his next visit to Canne to pick up yet another award. he should stay in France.

  4. Interesting piece. Generating prosperity is a complex task, and requires the confluence of many factors.

    Here’s a thumbnail of what it takes, in my view, for a society to be prosperous:

    1) An inventive / innovative class; people have to want to invent things and processes;

    2) Cross-culturalization, where multiple inventors get together and compare their inventions, and newer \ better inventions are created;

    3) Seaports or trade route intersections;

    4) Business flowing from invention / innovation;

    5) Decent Jobs flowing from business, so people can take care of their families with pride;

    6) A reasonably decent life flowing from more people having jobs; and

    7) Education encouraging the repeat of the process.

    Either some force in society sets this in motion, governs the process, and maintains it, or it does not. If you leave it to chance, you might be on top for a while but you will not be on top indefinitely. But that is a cost of freedom, when you do not direct people what to do with their lives.

    My suspicion is that China will be the next world power because they tell more people what to do, and they are more controlling. More free? Of course not. But more planning, organization, consistency, and coordination take place under their model. We in the U.S. use the “herding cats” model, and there are benefits and costs associated with it. One cost is its mercurial and uneven results, but it is the one that we have chosen.

    We’ve needed more inventors for years, and few in our country have paid attention to that issue. Simply look at the dramatic decrease in U.S. students studying engineering in this country, and the significant decline in basic research.

  5. CG- Thanks! I'm sure J.P. over at Rise of Reason appreciates you too!

    FL- Excellent point! Lol- it's like all those Che Guevara t-shirts making some t-shirt company lots of money!

    Dave- Again it is interesting that such a man with such a career and with such complaints against the bailouts- would disavow capitalism.

    That's why I hope instead of France, he takes a trip to Nashville so I can have a cup of coffee with him and change his mind.

    IC- I think that a spirit of innovation necessarily accompanies less, not more central planning.

    The freer we are to prosper in a country from the fruits of our creative energy, the more creative people will be attracted to that country.

    Additionally, the idea that a bureaucrat who lacks creative skill is competent to manage and encourage the creativity of true innovators, seems on the face of it to defy common sense.