A millionaire complaining about the rich.
nothing new but you got one hit to your site
Why do we even consider a professional entertainer to be a person of significance?
I can’t get the video to load, what is he doing now?
There’s a lot here that resonates … that communism and serfdom, fascism and slavery are ALL evil … and that we, the people, have the right to alter or abolish tyrannical government.
When he says that obedience is the problem, it is evocative of the words of Jefferson, “it is the right, no the duty of the people.” Or, the expression, resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
But, the confusing part is Matt Damon denigrating the rule of law, and his ignorance of the real progress that is occurring in the world with the spread of liberal, democratic capitalism (even while it is atrophying in the US).
Apparently, Damon thinks that in some prior time man lived in peace and prosperity and then something happened whereby a few enslaved the many. No, before the modern era, man lived at the edge of survival; indeed, all of life lived at the edge of survival. The survival of fittest was the rule. Even societies based on slavery were an advance, as despicable as slavery now is.
Then, with the development of the rule of law, slavery was made obsolete. Slave-based societies and even centrally-planned economies cannot achieve the level of productivity that free people can achieve. This, really, is the shame to our country of not ending slavery peacefully, because it had become obsolete and we should have figured out a way other than by civil war to free the slaves.
Today, with the rule of law, the ordinary person lives better than the kings and queens of the past, and more is available in charity - whether family-based, church-based or government-based - for the poor. Think of it: schooling for the children of poor families is not controversial. What is controversial is whether this must be secularized, government-run schools, or could schooling reflect a degree of parental choice?
With regard to ending poverty in the world (using the UN definition), in the past thirty years, thirty percent of the human race moved from poor countries to middle income countries. Today, the last region of poverty - Sub-Sahara Africa - is on the threshold of middle income. Soon, only isolated places, whether by geographic remoteness like Afghanistan or by political remoteness like North Korea, will be poor.
But, Matt Damon suffers the left-utopian delusion of “the noble savage.” It is a cult-religion and is contradicted by reason and observation.
What I saw and heard was a hard core leftist who called for using civil disobedience (”we have to go outside the law”) in order to achieve what they want, which he said was life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He lauded the aims of the Constitution, but I saw nowhere that he praised the American form of government, a representative republic, or advocated that it abide by the Constitution. He advocated overthrow of the established order (which I agree with) but I think he wants to overthrow capitalism and the American way—not progressivism and socialism.
And the final seconds when he wrapped up his speech they flashed a Howard Zinn for president graphic. Anyone who has read the pseudo historian Zinn, knows what a socialist radical America-hater he was.
People who read and support Zinn are no friends of Conservative, Constitutional, Christian Americans. They are our enemy.
This looks to me like Damon was giving a public speech with hidden meaning, and that the people applauding him are radical progressive socialists, just like he is.
Sounds kinda like a OWSer whose discovered that evoking the constitution is a powerful rhetorical tool.
I don't get the title, what's different from what we have know about him for a long time?
Matt uses a well written essay to say something that sounds like he agrees with us, just like Obama did. However, those of us who are truly educated in the truth know that like Obama, Matt does not believe a word of what he read, but his reason for reading it was to get the uninformed listener to think he cared about our constitution.
If you listen to what he read, you will hear that he did not say anything that we don’t always say, but the difference between him and us, is he supports the current power of taking away wealth from the worker and giving it to the lazy. He also supports the means of which the left has been using to take away the rights we have, while supporting those who claim the constitution has rights in it that never existed.
He supports the ones who lie about their compassion for the poor, and instead supports those who want to redistribute the wealth of those who earned it legitimately and give it to those who do not deserve it because they refuse to work for it. Yet in reality, the only ones who end up with that wealth are the ruling class. Look at DC, the ones getting wealthy are those whom he supports.
Matt does and always will support the same side that uses well written essays to confuse the masses into giving up their rights in the name of a constitution they themselves do not understand.
Matt would rather America be a Socialist state where he could still be wealthy, but the rest of us would all be equally miserable.