Socialism In France -- People Flee. What?

[Bean Bag]

Looks like the French Commies maybe realizing they went up against the wrong dude...
France warms to Gérard Depardieu, the heroic exile
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/9750510/France-warms-to-Gerard-Depardieu-the-heroic-exile.html

"For a few hours, the government spin doctors thought the French... would join in the public shaming. It did not happen."  Apparently, the poll numbers said differently.   

The wrong dude indeed...
"Depardieu is excessive in every way, but he’s never been a hypocrite: there have been no stints in rehab after one too many drunken brawls; no staged acts of contrition at any moment of his chaotic private life; no tabloid-monitored diets or fitness regimes. A working-class boy with no formal training but a miraculous gift for bringing to life the most complex nuances of almost every character he has played..."

This should be a lesson in dealing with these creeps.  Unapologetic, fearless -- there's no "negotiating" with tyranny.  None.  They're whacked!  Unfortunately we don't have people like that in Congress... we got John Boehner.  Good man, I'm sure... but he doesn't understand the thugs we're up against.  Nor did Romney.  Nor did McCain.  Nor does the Republican Party.  And unfortunately nor do a lot of people.

[Dunderhead]

I don't really understand the bitterness, if the argument is that millionaries who enjoy the benefits and security of the society they live in are obliged to contribute to the upkeep of that society, shouldn't proponents of taxation be completely satisfied if someone decides to forgo those benefits in order to not have to pay for them? He decided not to pay his fair share, and he left the country because in his mind the taxes weren't worth the right of living there. How is that anything other than a completely fair exercise of freedom?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't really understand the bitterness, if the argument is that millionaries who enjoy the benefits and security of the society they live in are obliged to contribute to the upkeep of that society, shouldn't proponents of taxation be completely satisfied if someone decides to forgo those benefits in order to not have to pay for them? He decided not to pay his fair share, and he left the country because in his mind the taxes weren't worth the right of living there. How is that anything other than a completely fair exercise of freedom?

Well said.

[Jason]

I don't really understand the bitterness, if the argument is that millionaries who enjoy the benefits and security of the society they live in are obliged to contribute to the upkeep of that society, shouldn't proponents of taxation be completely satisfied if someone decides to forgo those benefits in order to not have to pay for them? He decided not to pay his fair share, and he left the country because in his mind the taxes weren't worth the right of living there. How is that anything other than a completely fair exercise of freedom?

Tell that to the Parisian pinkos and their cumstained copies of Marxist pamphlets.

[Dunderhead]

I don't know how much currency Marxism really has among the higher ranking members of the political establishment. My point in a lot of these threads has been that they are all very unprincipled people, capitalism is just a scapegoat, and Marxism is just a word that tests well with the public sentiment. I don't agree with Marxism, but the types of people we're talking about have complex motivations beyond intellectual adherence to any ideology. They're narcissists and manipulators that are more than willing to sell out their people and, with a straight face, brand their actions as egalitarian and progressive.

[hypehat]

I don't really understand the bitterness, if the argument is that millionaries who enjoy the benefits and security of the society they live in are obliged to contribute to the upkeep of that society, shouldn't proponents of taxation be completely satisfied if someone decides to forgo those benefits in order to not have to pay for them? He decided not to pay his fair share, and he left the country because in his mind the taxes weren't worth the right of living there. How is that anything other than a completely fair exercise of freedom?

Of course.

But, calling him 'heroic' is dim. He's a hero because he wants to move?

[hypehat]

Socialism...an idea so good that John Bull forces you to do it.

Paying taxes = socialism?!

Did you even READ my post? Britain hasn't had anything remotely close to a socialist in a Cabinet position since 1979. Its been free market ideologues for over 30 years. Your kind of people, right?

So you think nothing of the tax gap I refer to?

[Bean Bag]

I don't really understand the bitterness, if the argument is that millionaries who enjoy the benefits and security of the society they live in are obliged to contribute to the upkeep of that society, shouldn't proponents of taxation be completely satisfied if someone decides to forgo those benefits in order to not have to pay for them? He decided not to pay his fair share, and he left the country because in his mind the taxes weren't worth the right of living there. How is that anything other than a completely fair exercise of freedom?

That's exactly the right question -- why all the bitterness?

Well... it's because, not only did he not play along -- he published a letter.  Woohoo!    A very popular actor, who is known for being unafraid and fearless of "public opinion" called these jive turkeys out.  He didn't move away in the middle of the night.  He didn't play around with lawyers and loopholes.  Like Han Solo, he turned this mother out.

They rang his doorbell during brunch and told him he wasn't paying enough (85% apparently wasn't enough).  So he -- dressed in nothing but a "loosely fitting" bathrobe and a cigarette, munching a croissant -- spit his remaining brunch in their powdered faces and kicked them in their pantaloons.

So all the Statist are pissy because they got served in the public square.  You see, they're not supposed to get served -- we are.  We're supposed to kiss their rings and thank them for the tough job they have of stealing other people's money, so they can get credit for caring, thus winning more votes.  That's their "schtick."  That's their little party.

[Bean Bag]

I don't really understand the bitterness, if the argument is that millionaries who enjoy the benefits and security of the society they live in are obliged to contribute to the upkeep of that society, shouldn't proponents of taxation be completely satisfied if someone decides to forgo those benefits in order to not have to pay for them? He decided not to pay his fair share, and he left the country because in his mind the taxes weren't worth the right of living there. How is that anything other than a completely fair exercise of freedom?

Of course.

But, calling him 'heroic' is dim. He's a hero because he wants to move?

"Dim?"

People who stand up to bullies -- the biggest bullies we can face, mind you -- and show no fear in the face of what was "expected" to be overwhelming public criticism -- his public and his career, mind you -- and leave your life and home behind ... yeah bro, that takes stones.  Massive stones.

Therefore, thinking that he's simply moving to a new neighborhood for better schools... well, eh-hmm.  My aim is to make sure everyone understands that that perspective is severely lacking in, shall we say "proper illumination?"   

[hypehat]

If you classify the state and the laws of the land as a 'bully', sure, that holds water.....

Man, someone should ring Bob Dylan up - this man's a real folk hero for moving house.

[Bean Bag]

If you classify the state and the laws of the land as a 'bully', sure, that holds water.....

Man, someone should ring Bob Dylan up - this man's a real folk hero for moving house.

Don't hold your breath!  Dylan's probably too far down the beaten path to come to any new realizations about the world.  However, he could certainly live long enough to see things unfold that may change his mind.  But again... Depardieu is not just moving house, which I covered.   

But yes... Government 101 -- the State has enormous power over the individual.  But it's not just the State.  There's the media, entertainment, education, religion, business and family too.  It's not inconceivable to assume one would use these pillars to get their way -- but rather inconceivable to assume otherwise.

As for bullying... one uses bullying tactics to get people to do things against what their own common sense tells them is to their benefit.  The Statists are relying primarily on their friends in the media, education and entertainment to get their way -- which is to steal money.  They are not happy and are quite embarrassed when one so publicly displays the courage to shine common sense.

[Bean Bag]

French Court Says 75% Tax Rate on Rich Is Unconstitutional!!!
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-29/french-court-says-75-tax-rate-on-wealthy-is-unconstitutional.html
 

[hypehat]

Hey Bean Bag, no comment on the fact that Gerard, libertarian messiah, sticking it to the state, has just got Russian citizenship?




Why, I'm almost shocked 

[SMiLE Brian]

Such a freedom fighter.....

[Bean Bag]

Oh, I know!  Crazy, isn't it??!!  Rock, rock roll!!  Not only him... but bridget bardot was also flirting with becoming Russian (not for taxes... but for, get this... "elephant treatment."  Yeah...)

Depardieu's puzzling love for Russia
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/opinion/fraser-depardieu-putin/index.html
"Depardieu's love for Russia cannot be indifferent to the country's flat 13% income tax rate, measurably lower than the 75% rate that France's socialist government will impose this year..."

What's so puzzling about it, CNN?  Flat rate 13%.  Or a staggering 75% rate?  Now... I didn't go to one of them "big fancy journalism schools" in the northeast... nor do I possess a degree in comparing numbers and percentages.  But... well... you know.

[Jason]

The libtards at CNN can't bear the fact that people want to pay less in taxes...they probably wonder what butthurt the Obama regime will be feeling as a result.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The libtards at CNN can't bear the fact that people want to pay less in taxes...they probably wonder what butthurt the Obama regime will be feeling as a result.

In fact, that's typically untrue. According to a recent poll taken by Quinnipiac, about 65% of US voters are in favour of increasing taxes on the wealthy:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail/?ReleaseID=1821

[Jason]

So just because the majority says so means it should be so? I wonder what European Jews circa 1939 would think of that!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

So just because the majority says so means it should be so?

Well, it mostly means that your claim that "people want to pay less in taxes" is misleading and doesn't bear up to the facts.

But since you shift the goal posts, yes, I do believe democratic values are important values.

I wonder what European Jews circa 1939 would think of that!

I think you're being disingenuous suggesting that there was anything like a democracy in Germany in 1939. There was a great deal of support for the Nazis internally in Germany in 1939 (as well as externally, for other reasons) and according to the statistics, the Jewish population was not remarkably different.

Take a look, for example, at this article from the New York Times from around that time:

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0819.html

It suggests that in some Jewish communities, about 65% endorsed Hitler, sometimes higher. And what we can conclude from this is that in this society no poll would have correctly or accurately indicated what anybody in Germany thought, whether it was a blonde blue-eyed Aryan or a Jewish person. The population was largely coerced into supporting the tyrannical regime in power to the extent that the leading internal victims of the regime claimed to be in favour of it. You simply can't make a plausible correlation between the two examples because it is comparing apples to oranges.

[Jason]

I'm glad you find the "tyranny of the majority" (which is all democracy is, has been, and ever will be) to be an important value. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, right? I'll take the individual over the angry mob any day of the week AND on Sundays.

Elections in 1933 seem to paint a different picture when it comes to the Third Reich...the NSDAP received the majority of the votes. Sorry, but "the people have spoken" does not necessarily lead to good results.

http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/RT8.html (in German, but I'm sure everyone here can read it)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm glad you find the "tyranny of the majority" (which is all democracy is, has been, and ever will be) to be an important value. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, right? I'll take the individual over the angry mob any day of the week AND on Sundays.

Well, the concept of a "tyranny of the majority" is kind of like Orwell's doublethink - structurally it simply doesn't make any rational sense and there's a good reason for it. It's basically a term dreamed up by elitists (and propagated by the dutiful followers of elitists like yourself), like some of the founding Fathers, who very clearly feared that their own very real control over the majority of the population could crumble. So it was understood by people like James Madison that the government should function to "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." And John Jay noted similarly that "The people who own the country ought to govern it." And it's no surprise that the "tyranny of the majority" phrase should come out of this same mindset and from the same type of public figure who felt that it was crucial to keep the power amongst the elite owners and out of the hands of the people at all costs, even if resorting to nonsensical cliches is a necessity. This is the very premise behind the phrase "tyranny of the majority". The fact is that genuine democracy has nothing to do with the scenario that you are drawing out (and importantly, you are forced to construct some cartoonish situation and vilify that rather than anything in reality) because in reality a genuine democracy would have all parties being able to talk things out and come to a consensus that could take into account all points of view.  See, when people (not wolves or sheep) decide in a group what they are going to have when they have dinner together, there is going to be a variety of opinion but you will end up eating something and you wouldn't say that that is a result of a tyranny within the group, unless you are truly that fanatical.

Elections in 1933 seem to paint a different picture when it comes to the Third Reich...the NSDAP received the majority of the votes. Sorry, but "the people have spoken" does not necessarily lead to good results.

See, here you have to understand your history. None of the votes in the first two elections that Hitler ran in gave him a majority. In fact, even in the election which led to him getting the Chancellor position, he lost to Marshall Hindenburg who received a majority but through politicking, Hitler was eventually appointed  Chancellor by the elected Hindenburg despite losing the election. After Hitler was appointed he called for an election in 1933 and a week before the election, the Reichstag building burned down which Hitler claimed was a communist conspiracy so he called for Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree which curbed civil liberties and allowed Hitler to go on a spree of jailing communists. Doing that, along with surpressing the Communist vote gave the Nazi Party the election, giving them the most votes but still not enough to have absolute majority in parliament. So Hitler devised the Enabling Act which required 2/3rd parliament to vote in favour of it but this was not too difficult since several of the Social Democrats were unable to take their seats due to arrests and intimidation. The Act passed and this is what gave Hitler legislative power.

Importantly, none of this had to do with democracy. When Hitler followed the traditional democratic route, he lost. The only way he was able to gain power was through appointment and then systematically changing laws to curb civil liberties and throwing dissidents and political opponents in jail. Otherwise, it seems, he wouldn't have stood a chance.

[hypehat]

Oh, I know!  Crazy, isn't it??!!  Rock, rock roll!!  Not only him... but bridget bardot was also flirting with becoming Russian (not for taxes... but for, get this... "elephant treatment."  Yeah...)

Depardieu's puzzling love for Russia
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/07/opinion/fraser-depardieu-putin/index.html
"Depardieu's love for Russia cannot be indifferent to the country's flat 13% income tax rate, measurably lower than the 75% rate that France's socialist government will impose this year..."

What's so puzzling about it, CNN?  Flat rate 13%.  Or a staggering 75% rate?  Now... I didn't go to one of them "big fancy journalism schools" in the northeast... nor do I possess a degree in comparing numbers and percentages.  But... well... you know.

A 75% rate that didn't pass, natch..... Finally, conclusive proof he's a moron.


TRBB, you don't want individualism. You want a corporate state. Your solution to anything has always been free-market ideas, and you essentially want to have absolutely no say in how your life is run, instead leaving it to businessmen who don't give a f*** about you, would never give a f*** about you, and would make it their business to ensure that they are absolutely not accountable (somewhat like now, in fact, but the baffling thing is that you want MORE). On the other hand, democratic government IS accountable.

And you couch it in idiotic 4chanism like 'libtard' and chatting about the Nazis like some common room dunce.  I can't believe people still argue with you.

[Jason]

A "corporate state"? Let's cut the political correctness. It's called a "fascist state".

Exactly what have I posted here would lead you to the conclusion that I advocate fascism? Corporations exist BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it. I don't push for a society run by corporations and certainly not one in which corporations and government work hand in hand, which is otherwise known as a fascist state. I don't believe in socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. I don't believe in capitalizing gains and socializing losses. I believe in capitalism for EVERYONE. I believe in HUMAN rights. You will NOT find those qualities in a fascist state.

A democratic state will only go as far as what the angry mob wants and damn the rest of them. That's not accountability. Democracy is not to be envied and certainly not to be desired. I'm an atheist in a predominantly Christian United States - those people see me as undesirable. Why the hell would I want to put faith in a majority to ensure my rights are protected? Sorry, but "consent of the governed" doesn't cut it.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Corporations exist BECAUSE of government, not in spite of it.

That's untrue. There are periods where the government has less control over corporations and this typically works to strengthen their power. The government works to reduce the inherent tyranny of corporate power.

A democratic state will only go as far as what the angry mob wants and damn the rest of them. That's not accountability. Democracy is not to be envied and certainly not to be desired. I'm an atheist in a predominantly Christian United States - those people see me as undesirable. Why the hell would I want to put faith in a majority to ensure my rights are protected? Sorry, but "consent of the governed" doesn't cut it.

You can't use a dysfunctional democracy as an example in order to write them all off. That's like saying filmmaking is a job not to be envied and certainly not to be desired - because, after all, look at Snakes on a Plane.

Again, you have misunderstood the term "tyranny of the majority" - it was a term evoked in order to support a tyranny of the minority.

[Bean Bag]

A 75% rate that didn't pass, natch..... Finally, conclusive proof he's a moron.

I think he just "had it up to here" with the buttplugs in France -- to be "frank." 

Whatever France's current rate is, it sho'as hell ain't no 13%.