A. K. A. Loose Canon
C'mon, Charly, be a sport: show some solidarity and a bit of generosity, like the man says. I suggest a donation of 50% of your net annual income: think of it as an "investment in the future". And don't hold the mayo on those taco de mierda.
If I raise taxe rate, I raise revenue ... except if tax base shrinks ? Oops. Plan B: allonzanfan-style flag-waving. Bad entrepreneurs reluctant to be skinned alive ? Terribly unpatriotic.
L'Arroseur arrosé, Charly. I keep telling ya.
What arroseur - you vote here too ?
Forget the vote, Charly. I'm talking about what you advocate for. And, evidently, that's the pinko Nanny State in all its glory. Fine. But when it comes time to pay the piper, just pay. And pay. And pay. Ain't that the obvious logic?
You need to lump everything left of Sarah Palin in an indiscriminate pinko Nanny State-loving bag to hold this line of reasoning Tecs. There are *fundamental* differences between your dems and our socialists though and the strange thing is that you know that perfectly well.
Actually -- honestly -- I don't see any *fundamental* difference between the two. I've had that kind of argument on and off with various people: some agree with me, others don't. If you can make the case, I'll listen. But color me skeptical.
In the US political battles are fought over matters of degree: dems want more industry regulation that gopers but you aren't going to argue that you are against any and all regulation. Surely you don't think chem companies should be abe to dump mercury in rivers if it's in their interest, that banks shouldn't have a fiduciary duty towards their clients that ought to supersede their own interest, or that your local butcher ought to be able to supplement his income performing brain surgeries. But while the GOP is certainly more business-friendly, mainstream dems don't question the very right to private enterprise: mostly they want to tilt the balance towards a more consumer-friendly environment.The debate is elsewhere in Europe, where there is this widespread notion that the state ought to take the reigns ; not just regulate, but run the show by nationalizing the means of production. How much to nationalize is the subject of debate between the center left & hard left, just like how much regulation is the subject of debate between dems and republicans. Here it is the right to private enterprise that is in question. To the hard-core lefties, the debate extends to the right to own private property. These are pretty fundamental notions aren't even on mainstream democrats' radar.European left-right cleavage takes place around the notion of freedom of enterprise. It's more mushy in the US (Nixon would be considered a fiscal LWN by today's standards) but nobody in the mainstream questions the right to do business or to own private property.
A pretty considerate response, I have to admit. And, if completely true, I could only bless my lucky star for being on the right side of the pond. But, alas, Charly, I think this is more a rosy view of the political divide *right now* in the US (although I'm sure you are by-and-large correct with respect to large chunk of Europe, and certainly as regards France). Perhaps this was the case in the 1980s and even the 1990s. But things have changed a lot in the 2000s: the US is much closer to the French model now. But without the wine and cheese.
So who are the Dem politicians who want to abolish entreprise and private property ? I don't mean fringe wackos à la Tom Hayden but mainstream politicians with an audience to show for. Do you now of statements or policy to that effect ?
Chanelling Charly, as if on cue. I say, We Are All French Now, he says, We Are All Moderate RINOS Now. So how to decide this dilemma?
Post a Comment