Mr. Moore's Socialism "argument"

Throughout the duration of the almost 3 minutes that Mr. Moore spoke, he made so many overarching statements that it was hard to keep up, so in my response I'll do my best to straighten some of his more prominent generalities…

          Moore's opening statement that socialism is democracy, Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism was quite interesting, considering there actual beliefs and worldviews. When he said this, one the first essays we read came to mind where it was the analogy of the 3 blind men exploring different parts of an elephant and each declaring what it was. If you take any idea or belief and dilute enough, he's right, it will match up with socialism or any other idea…but the key word here is diluting. There's a reason why they all can't seem to wholly agree or get along (in general), its because they don’t all advocate the same things. Furthermore, his statement (that wasn’t grammatically correct by the way J) that structuring an economy that "you and I run" by "we the people" are essentially the tenets of socialism blew me away. Firstly, he completely misquoted with what seems like no understanding of our constitution that supports society working independently and interdependently, to be self sufficient in order to achieve happiness, life and enjoying these liberties, not mooching off the hard work of another. That’s just laziness. Also, to use Moore's words, "you and I" can't fully structure anything because "you and I" will never fully agree or accomplish anything completely because "you and I" have different perspectives. That’s where independence  and work comes in.

          However, apart from all of this, I do have to give props to Moore for how he presented his point of view (I wont call it an argument because it wasn’t). He told his audience that socialism is about preventing the "rich man" from taking "9 slices of the pie and leaving the remains for the rest" and tying in all the trigger names: Christianity, founding fathers, islam, the common good and so on. Also, instead of pointing out the negative context of socialism or even mentioning in the slightest what would need to occur in order for socialism/communisim to take place, he literally says to not "box it up" and we "shouldn’t get caught up in the terms" which distracted the audience from the negative and focused them on the nice, happy- go- lucky things he was saying. He victimizes the "poor" and propagates that it’s the whole entire nation's goal to care solely for them and he in turn, criminalizes all the rest.

Clever, not original, but clever.