Filmmaker Michael Moore, who is currently suing movie producers Harvey and Bob Weinstein in hopes of collecting another $2.7 million for himself, says that people's jobs and cash are something "that we collectively own as Americans."
Yes, you read that correctly. Here's a clip of him making this wild claim.
Great! Then cough up your own "cash" Mr. Moore!
Now of course, Michael Moore isn't about to hand his personal finances over to the government, er, collective, any time soon. And I have a sneaking suspicion too, that if any one of us helped ourselves to his "collectively owned" refrigerator, he'd quickly have us arrested as thieves.
Moore's Fatal Flaw
It's mind-boggling how much is wrong with his economic analysis. To start with, Moore doesn't even understand what money ("cash") is. But that for now, is neither here nor there. Because his major flaws are found in his philosophy.
I will give him one point though, and it's on a subject that most people on the "right" refuse to take seriously (because the "left" is constantly yapping about it based on flawed analysis). But Moore does have a point when he says that "a vast majority of [wealth is] concentrated in the hands of just a few people."
Why do I say he has a point? Because "wealth concentration" is exactly what happens when the government "provides" bailouts, subsidies, no-bid contracts, backdoor deals, etc., and inflates the money supply. In other words, anytime the government takes money out of the paychecks of hardworking Americans in order to fund their favored groups, constituents, and/or corporations, wealth really does become "concentrated" in the hands of a select few.
So, while it doesn't work the way Moore thinks it does, "wealth concentration" does happen, and it's a legitimate complaint too.
For example, George W. Bush's bank bailout program gave $700 billion to a handful of bankers who despite destroying their businesses, took home record "bonuses" to the tune of $145 billion in 2009 alone. Barack Obama's $787 billion "stimulus" package gave billions of dollars to major corporations like General Electric, as well as billions more to large foreign corporations under the guise of "green energy." And don't even get me started on the auto (aka UAW) bailouts.
As you can see, hundreds of billions of dollars do get "concentrated" in the hands of a select (politically-connected) few, and yes, those select few get that money at the direct expense of the rest of us (mere taxpaying mundanes). But this should surprise no one, because this is how corporatism works. And contrary to what he may think, it's how Michael Moore's beloved communism works (in the real world) too.
What folks like Michael Moore fail to understand is that, the "solutions" they advocate for are, in reality, the very root of the problems they're hoping to "fix." Whether it's socialism, communism, fascism, or whatever, doesn't matter. Because inherent in all collective ideologies is, the "concentration" of wealth and power in the hands of a select few. Intentionally or not, this "concentration" is necessary by their very design. You don't really think Joseph Stalin and General Mao "shared" the wealth with those measly peasants, do you?
Too extreme? Well, I've got news for you. There is no such thing as a benevolent "leader." Would Michael Moore give up his personal millions if he were president of a communist America? No fat chance! He won't give up his millions now, as a mere peasant. So why on Earth would anybody believe he'd give them up to the collective after gaining the power of the presidency? Talk about believing in fantasy. No politician, ever, has handed his personal wealth over to the collective, and no politician ever will.
But the most fatal flaw in his theory, and I mean that literally, is the gun in the room, something both sides of the political debate in our country needs to start dealing with honestly.
Inherent in the idea that people's jobs and cash are something "that we collectively own as Americans," is the threat of, and use of violent force. Because in order to "redistribute" anything, you must first take it away from someone else.
Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group (to "society," to the tribe, the state, the nation) and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force -- and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism. -- Ayn Rand
The institutionalized exertion of violence is the only possible way to compel individual human beings to behave contrary to their natural predisposition of self-interest. As an example, Michael Moore won't voluntarily give up his wads of "cash" to the collective. That is, not until it's taken at the point of a gun.
There is no voluntary action in the collective either, because you are forced to take or use whatever the government monopolies tender. If you encroach on its monopolistic territories or deny it's edicts, it will lock you in a cage, garnish your paycheck, kidnap your children, or take your property away. All of which are violent acts, enforced down the barrel of a gun.
So whether he realizes it or not, Michael Moore is advocating theft and violence against the masses, carried out by a select (concentrated) few.