15 votes

Oliver Stone going in circles on redistribution

Oliver Stone, Movie Director, going in circles on redistribution (literally and conceptually) but right on victimless crimes.

http://youtu.be/RFQLKn3UO8c



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jan Helfeld's picture

See CHRIS MATTHEWS "answer the same question

See CHRIS MATTHEWS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uanThmuJoJc

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

right on victimless crimes

Stone seemed to go along with me on victimless crimes.

Jan Helfeld

Because Stone is a real liberal.

He is not someone that gives lip service to being a good humanitarian, he actually is a good guy.

Your premise was the classic argument that using governmental force to take one person's money and give it to another is inherently immoral. In my opinion, I think Stone might be thinking along the lines that while using state force to tax might not be perfect, it is the lesser evil to someone having more money than they can ever spend, while others don't have enough for their basic needs.

I also heard Stone make reference to having elected representatives. I assume he was implying that taxation was the will of the majority of the people.

I notice a lot of people criticizing your method of conducting interviews. I have seen a few of your videos and I do notice that you repeat your questions exactly, as if they didn't hear you, when the thing is they don't understand you. OK, sometimes they are evading but rephrasing a question makes evading harder too.

Maybe ask the question this way:

If it is morally wrong for an individual to rob another individual, why is it morally OK for the Government to use force to take someone's money?

Or something like that.

Jan Helfeld's picture

A good question that I in fact ask

A good question that I in fact ask when they stick around. Watch my interviews with CHRIS MATTHEWS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uanThmuJoJc Also Congressmen McDermott , Engels and Byrne - Does illegality equal immorality.

Jan Helfeld

After this video I watched a

After this video I watched a few more on your youtube channel. I had to look up what the socratic method was after watching your interview with John Stossel.

if you watch real close...

... you'll see a little bit of smoke coming off his head at the end of the clip.

Plant the seed Jan, hell yeah!!

Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force
Forced Equality = Tyranny, Forced Equality = Tyranny, Forced Equality = Tyranny,
Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force, Taxes = Force
Forced Equality = Tyranny, Forced Equality = Tyranny, Forced Equality = Tyranny, ……….

kind people rock

uhhhh...what?!Question made

uhhhh...what?!

Question made no sense no matter how many times he repeated it word for word.

"Villains wear many masks, but none as dangerous as the mask of virtue." - Washington Irvin

Jan Helfeld's picture

It worked with Chris Matthews.

It worked with Chris Matthews. Watch it.

Jan Helfeld

Rephrasing might be helpful.

Cutting to the chase: So do you think the government should rob Peter to pay Paul?

Or, do you believe it is fair when the government takes money forcibly from one group and gives it to another? And why?

But when you keep repeating virtually the same words when someone is claiming to not understand I don't believe displays very good communication skills. Do you think that there is a victory when you keep using the same words and keep getting the same response? Do you?

I think you do because I have seen dozens of your videos and you have done the same thing over and over and over. So therefore I must conclude that you believe your method is correct and effective. I humbly disagree.

What if the conversation ended like this: OS says, "You know I never thought of it that way before. That it is wrong for me to forcibly take money from you. But it is okay for government to do it, when the government is simply my agent. I'lll have to think about that one..."

That result should be the goal of your communication, don't you agree? But we all know the reality that most people especially politicians are evil to the core and lying thieves and know perfectly well what they're doing is criminal. However, what you are looking for is the person who is just ignorant and yet humble and can admit when there is a logical fallacy that is pointed out to him.

And if your goal is not to persuade people but just to expose them. I would still suggest using a method of communication which doesn't have people scratching their heads and frustrated. And in your defense I have experienced plenty of times personally where people claim to not understand what I'm saying when I'm speaking plain English. So I know where you're coming from, but I just think there's a better way to communicate with these people.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your advice.

Thank you for your advice. Some times I do a better job than others. Did you see the CHRIS MATTHEWS AND JAMES FALLOW interviews? It is difficult when they are intent on evading.

Jan Helfeld

I don't think so. But would like to.

Jan,

How do you afford to be able to do these interviews through the years?

Are you wealthy and do this for fun and as part of a "mission"? What do you do for a living?

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a rEVOLution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

Don't rob Peter, but get the DICKs


> "...the government should rob Peter to pay Paul?"

The last time I checked, pure Anarchy (the absence of all form of government, and all public services) does not exist anywhere on the Earth. This means, yes you have to collect some amount of reasonable taxes.

Now who do you think should pay those taxes, the POOR people? Of course not.

The RICH Elites are the ones who should be paying the damn taxes, and the big problem in our Country is that the RICH elites get off easy, while the working folks get screwed.

If we stopped all the Corporatism, and all the Dirty Wars, and strung the Banksters up by their balls, we could then feed the entire World, and the injustice of this (otherwise hopeless) crying planet would be gone.

I choose not to battle Oliver Stone

he is obviously coming to our side and he obviously did not have his entourage help him dodge the question. I think he may not have understood completely the question, and it actually makes me a bit pissed that the reporter pulled this question out of his arse to catch Oliver off guard. The question the reporter asked needed more than 10 seconds to ponder and about 1 hour to reply. I don't know where Oliver Stone stands on the issues, but this was a cheap blow to a guy who I think is actually trying to grasp what is going on in this country. Most people would have walked away, which he almost did at one point, but he stayed and tried to figure out the question. Oliver Stone's intentions are the least of what we need to worry about. Let's let Oliver Stone be Oliver Stone, we don't need him, and he doesn't need us, well except for paying for movie tickets which is a given anyways.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!

Jan Helfeld's picture

Stone seemed to go along with me on victimless crimes.

Stone seemed to go along with me on victimless crimes.

Jan Helfeld

I didn't understand his

I didn't understand his question either. To clarify all he did was keep repeating the same words?????? too bad..a lost opportunity

Bad Interviewing Tacticts

I think the approach was amateurish and kind of rude to be honest. The director was giving the interviewer the time of day and respectfully answering questions, but the interviewer was trying to trap him in a logical fallacy rather than actually understanding any intelligent opinion he might offer to the debate.

I might understand trying to corner a politician on an ideological issue like this, but a film director, really? What would you gain if you force a film director into a corner about tax politics and get him to awkwardly agree that maybe there is a fundamental flaw behind the idea of taxes. It's unclear. The interviewer kind of seems more like a libertarian vigilante, but I'm not sure that is what the situation called for.

The questioner is the problem here...


Oliver Stone was quite clear. He is agreeing that (of course) there should be protection against somebody unlawfully stealing your money (crime).

But if taxes have been put into Law, then obviously taxes become a lawful activity and not a crime. His stated his position clearly that it is appropriate to have some reasonable amount of taxes that are implemented in a fair way.

Our current tax code though is not reasonable, and it is not fair (the RICH get loopholes, offshore accounts, and 400,000 pages of tricks, while the working class have to pay a large chuck of their paycheck or go to jail).

But the reporter is trying to equate All Taxation as being a crime. This is clearly an extreme and unrealistic position that does not exist anywhere in the entire World. There simply is no place on earth with 0% taxation (and no society could function that way).

So the problem is not with Stone, the problem is with this foolish reporter, and his completely non-realistic line of questioning.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Did you see the CHRIS MATTHEWS AND JAMES FALLOW in

Some times I do a better job than others. Did you see the CHRIS MATTHEWS AND JAMES FALLOW interviews? It is difficult when they are intent on evading.

Jan Helfeld

Wow

Any and all forceful and/or confiscatory taxation is a violation of individual liberty and is therefore a crime.

And just because something becomes law, does not mean it's magically not a crime against liberty. You don't appear to understand how this liberty thing works.

A people, if it wishes to remain free, should only make the violation of individual liberty a crime and nothing else. The moment that people move beyond this is when they become immoral and tyrannical. The income tax is the tip of the sword in this endeavor.

There is no government, there are only individuals, what they do, support and advocate for.

?


Name one single Country on the entire planet that has no Taxes?

It simply does not exist.

And all Countries also have some type of government. Pure anarchy would be a living hell.


TwelveOhOne's picture

Please define "put into law"

I never signed a contract with the IRS. Do you mean that a majority can vote my property away? That doesn't seem to align with liberty, baby.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

eh..

the line of questioning is aggressive. Its not OS first rodeo...

'Oliver Stone.. when do you quit molesting children??'

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

oh yeah

that's what i'm talking about

Oh Ollie...

another fine mess you've gotten yourself into.

Thanks Jan, that was fun.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and comment

Thank you for your support and comment

Jan Helfeld

Nice job!

Nice job!

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your support and praise.

Thank you for your support and praise.

Jan Helfeld

He knew what you were getting at right away.

He just didn't want to sound like a hypocrite so he said he didn't understand.

Yeah..

The income tax is every bit as immoral and unjust as those wars. And, of course, the income tax is the very thing which FUNDS THOSE WARS Stone is so vehemently against.

The consistent (and at times frustrating) application of principle is where I disagree with him. But it seems that Oliver Stone's own mind is in two halves.

Why crusade against all of these wars which he clearly see's as a violation of individual liberty, yet not defend our most basic right to keep what we own?