It is universally accepted that economics is a complicated subject. Even the brightest of minds admit they are not sure what makes the economy tick. People have dedicated their entire lives to studying economics and mankinds understanding of it is still very much limited. One running theme is that an economists is the only other profession besides weatherman that can be wrong 100 percent of the time and still keep their job. Just as nobody can accurately predict the weather all the time, nobody can predict the economy all the time. So why would people assume a lone film-maker could sum it up any better?

Michael Moore is no stranger to economics. For years he's spoken on the ills of capitalism. His latest film "Capitalism: A Love Story" is a breakdown of everything he feels is wrong with capitalism. He paints it as the greatest evil and the source of all social ills in society. He does this, of course, with a very rudimentary (and flawed) understanding of what capitalism is. Yet what he documents is not pure propaganda nor is it a portrait of everyone like him. Moore, like most people of his trade, sincerely believes what he says. He just doesn't understand certain parts of the issue that very few understand to begin with.

What's Micahel Moore Talking About?

The most glaring flaw is the way he highlights certain ills and attributes them to capitalism. In his movie he talks about greedy banks using public money for obscene profits and the growing hardships small businesses face when they try to compete with larger corporate entities. But what he fails to understand is that these events are not driven by capitalism. They are driven by collaborations between government and business. If he had talked to anybody with some background in capitalism, he would know that the reason these big entites like oil companies, drug companies, and banks make such extreme profits is because they get the government to help them out. They use laws, regulations, and various red tape to stamp out competition, protect profits, and socialize losses. That's why they invest so much money in lobbyists. It helps them make more money.

This isn't a failure of capitalism. It's a failure of limited government. The constitution of the United States never stipulated that the government should aid in any business. Businesses, like individuals, were all subject to the same laws. It's when the government gets corrupted by businessmen that these ills develop. Going back to the era of Robber Barons like Rockefeller and Carnegie, they used tactics to weed out competition that were without question illegal. But they got help from the government, allowing them to get special breaks instead of using their own merits to succeed. This is how near-monopolies developed in many industries. It wasn't capitalism, but a perversion of it caused by an intrusive government.

Moore also documents the struggles of the middle class in his film. He blames capitalism for their declining standard of living and makes the case that the government should do more to help them. But what he fails to understand is that government is the reason for the declining middle class in the first place. The most notable cause involves inflation of priceses and the decreased purchasing power of the dollar. That's not because of capitalism. That's because of big government, namely the Federal Reserve. Since 1913 they have been printing money without anything to back it up. That's what causes the inflation and that's what robs people of their purchasing power. It's been documented in history going all the way back to ancient Egypt. Yet Moore doesn't get this and to his credit, very few people do.

The most telling shortcoming of Moore's film is his solution to the problem. He says democracy is the antidote to all these ills. Again, he's confusing his terms. Democracy has nothing to do with government. It has everything to do with politics. The very word democracy means people rule. It is a system that has never succeeded and for good reason. When the people have the power to vote on the excise of power, that vote is subject to majority rule. So if the majority want to oppress a minority, there's nothing stopping them. If the majority want to surrender all authority to a dictator, there's nothing stopping them. That's why the Founding Fathers scolded democracy. America as a whole has never been a democracy. It is and always has been a constitutional republic.

A republic is rule by law where a fixed body of laws is enforced by a government whose power is limited. This means that issues of business and personal conduct are free for the people to enjoy. No one business should be granted any favors. All should be free to prosper and free to fail. That is the essence of a republic. Moore doesn't get that. He doesn't understand that government has been granting special favors to entities like banks, utilities, and various enterprises for years and that is what has perverted the system. It's when government steps back and let business stand on it's own two feet that true prosperity is possible. It seems counter-intuitive to some, but historically speaking it is the best system for governing man.

In terms of the big picture, not everything in Michael Moore's movie is to be scoffed at. He's not wrong on everything just as he's not right on everything. He does highlight some important shortcomings of the current system. He simply fails to understand the philosophy and history of that system. Most people do not get economics, but they do get freedom. That is why the most powerful message in any argument for these issues is freedom because when people are free, people are free to prosper.

It's an age-old mantra. You can't prove a negative. Reasonable people engaging in reasonable debates understand this. Irrational people engaging in baseless propaganda do not. Unfortunately, it's the irrational people in power throughout government and religion that abandon reason and spew nonsense to the masses with no basis in fact. This is all well and good in a free society. The problem is, uneducated and uninformed people believe it can lead to destructive policies.

First off, the idea of proving a negative isn't so clear cut. While the mantra is true for the most part, in a strictly philosophical sense it is in fact possible to prove a negative. But it is only possible when the claim is falsifiable. For instance, if someone asks a random person to prove that there isn't a rat in their left pocket, the person can prove that by reaching into their pocket and showing that there is nothing there. The claim stated was falsifiable, meaning it could be disproved.

Proving a negative with reason: Evolving Thought

Other claims made in this context are a lot more complicated and more often then not, they are impossible to prove. Many of the claims come across every day and are used as arguments. These include questions such as:

You can't prove Obama's stimulus package didn't help the economy.

You can't prove banks and customers didn't know the loans they were giving out were bogus.

You can't prove the drug war didn't contribute to the violence in Mexico.

You can't prove that god doesn't exist.

You can't prove that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of god.

You can't prove creationism didn't happen.

You can't prove homosexuality isn't a choice.

You can't prove gay marriage won't harm society.

You can't prove abortion isn't murder.

Every one of these claims has the same fallacy. Proving something isn't present just isn't reasonable. This is because proving negatives require that the entire domain of the argument is understandable, measurable, and verifiable. It must fit the test of falsification. But the breadth of these matters is beyond falsification because it is impossible to verify facts with esoteric and intangible factors.

That is why rational people making rational arguments ask that those making the claim prove it. Their mantra is positive claims require positive evidence (evidence that something is present). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Making the claim that a certain bill from the president did improve the economy can be verified by quantitatively measuring the changes of the economy in conjunction with the changes of the bill and verifying that there was a causal relationship. That is purely reasonable. The problem is, most people in the news and in politics don't do this. Obama famously said "We can't afford to do nothing." It is a negative claim that isn't verifiable, but most people didn't understand that and nothing could be done to stop it.

The same issues emerge in religion. Believers often put the burden of proof on the non-believers, saying they are the ones who have to prove their invisible deity doesn't exist. But the same fallacy applies. Richard Dawkins made the same argument by claiming you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. That is why reasonable people say unless you can prove there is a teapot there, then they don't believe it. It is the believers that are making the claim that there is a deity present, but they offer proof of it. They rely on other fallacies like anecdotal evidence, emotional appeals, and religious texts they allege were divinely inspired. None of this is proof. That is why it is assumed on faith. In a strictly reasonable context, it is impossible to prove any deity. One can only have faith that the deity is there. But too often people equate faith with truth or fact. It isn't. It is an unprovable claim that too many people avoid and pass off as truth and those who do not understand reason are prone to accept it.

Fearmongering, propaganda, and moral panics all emerge from irrational rhetoric. Religion and government use it all the time and so does the media because in many ways, it's easier than checking facts. In a free society people are free to believe, behave, and carry themselves as they wish so long as they do not impose on others. But to defend these freedoms, there needs to be rational policy with reasonable people. So long as religion and government stand in the way, the free society will constantly be challenged. And reason is the best weapon against nonsense.