French socialist acknowledges his win will kill jobs

[Gipper]

Gen Seneca if you live in France or Australia you would be force to help the poor. This policy of social security does not violate the rights of others as much as crony Capitalism in which the rich get most of the income the rest get nothing or little This is the situation in the USA since 1970 where the upper income earners of people win 4,999 times that of people on the lowest income .Compare to 3.o5 in OECD and 3.33 in Australia. Besides this inequality being wrong in justice it leads to lower productivity as shown in Freeman article. Optimal inequality for economic growth stability and shared prosperity has been exceded in the USA.

So, lets see if I can summarize your position.

In a democracy of your liking, if the people (or the elected politicians for that matter) wish to TAKE something that is NOT theirs, they can take it as long as their elected representatives vote for the taking.

Please let me know if I have properly summarized your position.

 

[dogtowner]

Gen Seneca if you live in France or Australia you would be force to help the poor. This policy of social security does not violate the rights of others as much as crony Capitalism in which the rich get most of the income the rest get nothing or little This is the situation in the USA since 1970 where the upper income earners of people win 4,999 times that of people on the lowest income .Compare to 3.o5 in OECD and 3.33 in Australia. Besides this inequality being wrong in justice it leads to lower productivity as shown in Freeman article. Optimal inequality for economic growth stability and shared prosperity has been exceded in the USA.

crony-ism has been the standard in governments since governments came about.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is not easy money for the Government. It provides most of the intrastructure, railways and roads, ports . Also defensce and a stable economy that allows private firms to flourish. It often gives subsidies in the early stages of the mine. It just wants on behalf of its people a fair return .

Dogtowner said that the gov can't resist the lur of easy money - talking about how easy it is for the gov to just take what it wants.

Your response only discusses how the gov will use the money after it is taken. Did you intend to show that the money was not easily taken?

 

[Dr.Who]

Gen Seneca if you live in France or Australia you would be force to help the poor. This policy of social security does not violate the rights of others as much as crony Capitalism in which the rich get most of the income the rest get nothing or little This is the situation in the USA since 1970 where the upper income earners of people win 4,999 times that of people on the lowest income .Compare to 3.o5 in OECD and 3.33 in Australia. Besides this inequality being wrong in justice it leads to lower productivity as shown in Freeman article. Optimal inequality for economic growth stability and shared prosperity has been exceded in the USA.

The rich do get most of the income and the poor get little of the income. That is true by definition and is equally true in all countries capitalists or not.

But if the law is followed just how is that a violation of anyone's rights?

P.S. I understand that you are a lone crusader arguing points that no one else here agrees with and I know that is a difficult position to be in. But bear it out. If you have good points you will win us over and if you listen you too can be won over as needed.

 

[dogtowner]

P.S. I understand that you are a lone crusader arguing points that no one else here agrees with and I know that is a difficult position to be in. But bear it out. If you have good points you will win us over and if you listen you too can be won over as needed.

what he said

 

[GenSeneca]

Gen Seneca if you live in France or Australia you would be force to help the poor.

It is the same here in the US, we too have a Welfare State based on the transfer of wealth. The real point is that you agree with the policy of forcing some people into involuntary servitude for the benefit of others... How is forcing someone into involuntary servitude not slavery? How do you justify a policy that intentionally violates someones rights as being moral?

This policy of social security does not violate the rights of others as much as...

I have highlighted "as much as" because you are admitting the policy does violate the rights of some for the benefit of others.

crony Capitalism in which the rich get most of the income the rest get nothing or little

Pointing to some other policy as being a more egregious violation of rights is a red herring. The policy you support violates the rights of some for the benefit of others. No matter how you rationalize support for a policy of forcing people into involuntary servitude, such a policy is immoral.

This is the situation in the USA since 1970 where the upper income earners of people win 4,999 times that of people on the lowest income .

Your unsourced stats are way off (it's 281%) but even if your stat were true, so what? It certainly wouldn't justify violating the rights of anyone.

Besides this inequality being wrong in justice it leads to lower productivity as shown in Freeman article.

I disagree that the existence of an income gap is unjust but putting that aside, the claim that it has lead to lower productivity is demonstrably false:

That is a near linear line showing a very consistent increase in productivity, even during the period in which you claim the explosion of income inequality has lowered productivity. Again I would like to point out that even if your statements about income inequality lowering productivity were accurate, it would still not be a moral justification for violating the rights of anyone.

Optimal inequality for economic growth stability and shared prosperity has been exceded in the USA.

Your conclusion is erroneous and based entirely on demonstrably false premises but, again, even if it were entirely accurate, it would still not justify violating the rights of anyone. The main point I hope you come to realize during the course of this discussion is the fact that you support an immoral policy of violating the rights of some for the benefit of others. At some level of conscience thinking you know I am correct, only cognitive dissonance prevents you from admitting it to yourself.

 

[Aus22]

Dogtowner said that the gov can't resist the lur of easy money - talking about how easy it is for the gov to just take what it wants.

Your response only discusses how the gov will use the money after it is taken. Did you intend to show that the money was not easily taken?

Dr Who and Dogtower. I will continue to debate this question even if alone. It is a pity that someone like Dawkinsrocks is still not here. I am surprised to find most of the contributors are right wing even some are apparently tea baggers. This is not the case in the world or even the USA where Obama is still favour to win the next elections.

However keep to the topic. We are talking about France. There is no hope of a right wing government being elected there let alond a tea bagger. The solution in France must come from the left.

Even in a left wing government it is not easy to defy the vested capitalist interests. They have the money to lobby and campaign against you. Our Labor government here has just passed a moderate mining tax after five years. To take some money from the rich is not easy but necessary.

 

[Gipper]

Dr Who and Dogtower. I will continue to debate this question even if alone. It is a pity that someone like Dawkinsrocks is still not here. I am surprised to find most of the contributors are right wing even some are apparently tea baggers. This is not the case in the world or even the USA where Obama is still favour to win the next elections.

However keep to the topic. We are talking about France. There is no hope of a right wing government being elected there let alond a tea bagger. The solution in France must come from the left.

Even in a left wing government it is not easy to defy the vested capitalist interests. They have the money to lobby and campaign against you. Our Labor government here has just passed a moderate mining tax after five years. To take some money from the rich is not easy but necessary.

We are glad you are still here too. We enjoy debating the issues with lefties.

The problem I see with your many posts is they are not based in facts or reality. We have disputed your opinions many times using FACTS. See Gen's post directly above as a perfect example. He clearly proves that many of your conclusions are incorrect. Does this mean anything to you?

And it is apparent regarding France, that should France fail to revive it's economy under a socialist leader, you will blame the 'capitalists' were responsible. How convenient of you. Socialism certainly could not be the cause...right? What will it take to prove to you that socialism is not only a terrible failure, but is most unjust and immoral?

I must say I find it funny to say France and captialists in the same sentence. France has been a socialist nation for DECADES and this is why their economy sucks.

 

[Dr.Who]

. How is forcing someone into involuntary servitude not slavery? How do you justify a policy that intentionally violates someones rights as being moral?

how is even the smallest most justifiable tax not also involuntary servitude?

 

[GenSeneca]

how is even the smallest most justifiable tax not also involuntary servitude?

The size of the tax only matters if you consider the violation of rights to be a sliding scale of degrees rather than a matter of right or wrong.

If the tax is used to transfer wealth from my pocket to the pockets of people who do not provide me with a product or service in return, it is involuntary servitude. Police, military, fire, and the courts provide me with services in exchange for my tax dollars, Octo-mom does not.

I hope that has answered your question.

 

[Dr.Who]

The size of the tax only matters if you consider the violation of rights to be a sliding scale of degrees rather than a matter of right or wrong.

If the tax is used to transfer wealth from my pocket to the pockets of people who do not provide me with a product or service in return, it is involuntary servitude. Police, military, fire, and the courts provide me with services in exchange for my tax dollars, Octo-mom does not.

I hope that has answered your question.

So you would have no problem with a 100% tax that stopped Iran from certainly dropping a nuke on you but you would have a problem with a one cent tax added on to your phone bill that was used to fund the "Friends of Obama Foundation"?

Even though both are involuntary and both involve forcing your servitude?

Might this be less about the involuntary nature of taxes and less about your loss of time and money and more about following the constitution?

But lets add one more example to seek clarity: Suppose the gov decided to take one dollar from your pay every week and in exchange they were going to give you, not someone else, one dollar's worth of cheese every week. You have no choice but to pay it and you have no choice but to work the time. How does this tax sit with you?

 

[Aus22]

So you would have no problem with a 100% tax that stopped Iran from certainly dropping a nuke on you but you would have a problem with a one cent tax added on to your phone bill that was used to fund the "Friends of Obama Foundation"?

Even though both are involuntary and both involve forcing your servitude?

Might this be less about the involuntary nature of taxes and less about your loss of time and money and more about following the constitution?

But lets add one more example to seek clarity: Suppose the gov decided to take one dollar from your pay every week and in exchange they were going to give you, not someone else, one dollar's worth of cheese every week. You have no choice but to pay it and you have no choice but to work the time. How does this tax sit with you?

DR who , I am not sure you are saying that there be no transfer of income via tax from the rich to the poor or are you saying it is allright if it is not high. I believe in progressive tax so are in favour of some tax on the rich to help the poor. as well as on defense and other public services. If you don't want any progressive tax , I suspect you would want to destroy the american government system and the constitution which both provide for this

We are glad you are still here too. We enjoy debating the issues with lefties.

The problem I see with your many posts is they are not based in facts or reality. We have disputed your opinions many times using FACTS. See Gen's post directly above as a perfect example. He clearly proves that many of your conclusions are incorrect. Does this mean anything to you?

And it is apparent regarding France, that should France fail to revive it's economy under a socialist leader, you will blame the 'capitalists' were responsible. How convenient of you. Socialism certainly could not be the cause...right? What will it take to prove to you that socialism is not only a terrible failure, but is most unjust and immoral?

I must say I find it funny to say France and captialists in the same sentence. France has been a socialist nation for DECADES and this is why their economy sucks.

I never said the French government in the past was not responsible for economic problems. But the Socialist government has just been elected. This will happen in all European government if the conservatives only offer austerity. These are the facts if you want a solution in Europe you have to work with the left.

 

[GenSeneca]

So you would have no problem with a 100% tax that stopped Iran from certainly dropping a nuke on you but you would have a problem with a one cent tax added on to your phone bill that was used to fund the "Friends of Obama Foundation"?

Even though both are involuntary and both involve forcing your servitude?

Might this be less about the involuntary nature of taxes and less about your loss of time and money and more about following the constitution?

But lets add one more example to seek clarity: Suppose the gov decided to take one dollar from your pay every week and in exchange they were going to give you, not someone else, one dollar's worth of cheese every week. You have no choice but to pay it and you have no choice but to work the time. How does this tax sit with you?

Under capitalism, the only legitimate role of the state is to protect the individual rights of its citizens and nothing else... That means no cheese. And since the military would be a Defensive force, not the world police and not tasked with nation building, the costs would be a fraction of what they are today.

As for the Constitution, you know as well as I do that Leftists see whatever they want to see written in the Constitution, even so called "Conservatives" believe the welfare state is Constitutional, or at least a necessary evil. Arguing against oppressive taxation on the grounds that it's unconstitutional doesn't seem to get any traction outside of Constitutionalists - who actually understand the purpose of our Constitution. The population in general views the Constitution, at best, as a purely subjective document open to interpretation or, at worst, some quaint suggestions that are too old to be relevant in today's society.

Capitalism is the only moral system of government and I'm prepared to defend it such. Collectivists believe their twisted ideology is morally superior, that's why, despite the countless examples of it failing miserably, people are drawn to it and blame anything but the ideology for it's inevitable failure. Once upon a time in America, Communism and Socialism were rightfully recognized as being immoral ideologies and it was universally opposed by both parties. Today, that is not the case. The policies haven't changed, still the same old nonsense it always was, but the public perceptions about the morality of Marxism has changed, that is why I believe morality is at the very heart of the issue.

 

[dogtowner]

I never said the French government in the past was not responsible for economic problems. But the Socialist government has just been elected. This will happen in all European government if the conservatives only offer austerity. These are the facts if you want a solution in Europe you have to work with the left.

well as a lack of austerity (unsustainable spending) has caused the problem how is more of the same supposed to fix it ?

 

[Gipper]

I never said the French government in the past was not responsible for economic problems. But the Socialist government has just been elected. This will happen in all European government if the conservatives only offer austerity. These are the facts if you want a solution in Europe you have to work with the left.

I never said you said "the French government in the past was not responsible for economic problems." Why would claim I did?

It does not appear we are communicating with each other. You have made many assertions and we have shot down many of them with facts, which apparently you chose to ignore.