Tweet
[Moderator's Note: Any thread about a Michael Moore film is bound to get political, so I'm moving it to the lounge.]
I thought some other people on the forum might find this interesting, or at least enjoy an interesting discussion of this:*
Last night my wife and I watched a very thought-provoking movie that we can't stop talking about, Michael Moore's recent documentary 'Where To Invade Next'.** Contrary to what the title might suggest, the topic discussed has nothing to do with foreign policy or military matters. Instead its a survey of European social and economic policies. The survey touches on things such as education policy, maternity leave, work schedules, student debt, criminal justice, drug policy, and representation for women. A bit he does about school lunches in France had me dumbstruck.
What I can't stop thinking about is how the overarching goal of all of the policies he shows is a concern of the people of these countries for how to best optimize human happiness and strengthen the social fabric of their communities. Now of course, as recent news has shown, immigration in the last couple of years has really put new stresses on these social contracts, but I would argue that this is really a separate issue and is unrelated to the intregity of the policies and their potential applicability to us.
In our country, we increasingly live behind gates, put cameras on our houses, segregate our children in school based on wealth, and in general burden each individual (regardless of economic or educational abilities) to manage all the complications of modern living by themselves. Retirement, healthcare, taxes, and education are essential parts of the lives of every single person, and yet they are all complex, overly expensive, and therefore optimized for the highly educated and wealthy. The complexity of these systems also allow private enterprise to come in and profit off the inefficiencies to the detriment of citizens (this, for example, perfectly explains the school lunch discrepancy he shows). Why does this sound good or moral? Is this really financially efficient? Is this really the best way to optimize living standards in a society? Are we, as a country, happy? Is it surprising at all that demagoguery is so en vogue in the country at this moment?
*I promise my true intent is not political. I really don't like online political discussions. But it should be entirely possible to discuss socio-economic matters in frank, rational, non-political ways without aggravating people.
**I know, that alone is a turn-off for many people, myself sometimes included. But rather than knee-jerk a reaction, I would encourage even people on the opposite side of the political spectrum to consider holding their nose and try watching the film. If you object to what he presents, why?
I thought some other people on the forum might find this interesting, or at least enjoy an interesting discussion of this:*
Last night my wife and I watched a very thought-provoking movie that we can't stop talking about, Michael Moore's recent documentary 'Where To Invade Next'.** Contrary to what the title might suggest, the topic discussed has nothing to do with foreign policy or military matters. Instead its a survey of European social and economic policies. The survey touches on things such as education policy, maternity leave, work schedules, student debt, criminal justice, drug policy, and representation for women. A bit he does about school lunches in France had me dumbstruck.
What I can't stop thinking about is how the overarching goal of all of the policies he shows is a concern of the people of these countries for how to best optimize human happiness and strengthen the social fabric of their communities. Now of course, as recent news has shown, immigration in the last couple of years has really put new stresses on these social contracts, but I would argue that this is really a separate issue and is unrelated to the intregity of the policies and their potential applicability to us.
In our country, we increasingly live behind gates, put cameras on our houses, segregate our children in school based on wealth, and in general burden each individual (regardless of economic or educational abilities) to manage all the complications of modern living by themselves. Retirement, healthcare, taxes, and education are essential parts of the lives of every single person, and yet they are all complex, overly expensive, and therefore optimized for the highly educated and wealthy. The complexity of these systems also allow private enterprise to come in and profit off the inefficiencies to the detriment of citizens (this, for example, perfectly explains the school lunch discrepancy he shows). Why does this sound good or moral? Is this really financially efficient? Is this really the best way to optimize living standards in a society? Are we, as a country, happy? Is it surprising at all that demagoguery is so en vogue in the country at this moment?
*I promise my true intent is not political. I really don't like online political discussions. But it should be entirely possible to discuss socio-economic matters in frank, rational, non-political ways without aggravating people.
**I know, that alone is a turn-off for many people, myself sometimes included. But rather than knee-jerk a reaction, I would encourage even people on the opposite side of the political spectrum to consider holding their nose and try watching the film. If you object to what he presents, why?
Comment