SiCKO

[HUbison]

A welfarist wouldn't have to believe in the state appropriation of the means of production and distribution of resources to believe that a graduated system of taxation is the most appropriate way of achieving their personal vision of social justice or a working welfare system.

True, not necessarily. However, a welfarist's graduated taxation would walk hand-in-hand with Marxism.

They would disagree with me however if I were to argue, as I do, that the most efficient way of providing state services is through low taxation to enourage individual aspiration and achievment that would reduce welfare dependency. They would definitely flatly reject any notion of a flat taxation system and the option of private sector service provision with rebates, which I have come more and more to consider as being suitable for a modern democracy with a large welfare system.

Will you marry me?

My own feeling is that Michael Moore can be controversial for the sake of it but then that might be the best way of drawing attention to causes he believes need it.

Attention? Yes. Results? Not so much. I read an article the other day (I think I even linked it here) that asked the same question. It said union membership didn't rise after "Roger and Me"; gun laws were not re-evaluated and implemented after "Bowling for Columbine". So are his movies social trumpets, or just clanging cymbols?

[Fat Pang]

Why HUb didn't know you cared

Still can't equate welfarism with marxism and a one-party state in view, but it's left of centre.

Thing about Moore I guess, is that he's one of those guys, who, love him or loath him at least challenges exisiting assumptions. Even if his pieces fail to achieve anything concrete, perhaps all he does is to shift the boundaries of the argument a little. To be honest, that's no bad thing.

After the furore this has caused though, I might get it on DvD.

[HUbison]

Why HUb didn't know you cared

Still can't equate welfarism with marxism and a one-party state in view, but it's left of centre.

Thing about Moore I guess, is that he's one of those guys, who, love him or loath him at least challenges exisiting assumptions. Even if his pieces fail to achieve anything concrete, perhaps all he does is to shift the boundaries of the argument a little. To be honest, that's no bad thing.

After the furore this has caused though, I might get it on DvD.

But isn't welfarism a component of marxism? Not as comprehensive in its view of production, but the distribution of resources is the same idea. Ahh, whatever, doesn't matter in the end.

On a similar subject, did you catch the Wolf Blitzer vs. Michael Moore tiff on CNN. That's when you truly know you're the far left when even CNN takes a swipe at you.