The Institute (協会)

So I guess this also signals and end to Freedom Fries?

...socialists took 47% of the vote. I just can't freaking believe it. GET A CLUE PEOPLE; IT DOESN'T WORK...IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH RESEARCH TO FIGURE THAT OUT!!

shawn, the deception of socialism is a very compelling story. It's sad!

I don't know, man... They are still french... Just because they have a new president doesnt mean their culture is any different (by that I mean, the European culture of America-hating).

But I DO have a few French weapons for sale if you are interested. They've never been fired, and only dropped once.

;-)

I couldn't help myself...

I think a healthy dose of America-hating is probably good for us. Not so much to cause deep-seated contempt, just a Goldilocks dosage to keep us evaluating what we're doing.

Do you think part of the deception of socialism is just that it's different? Sometimes it seems like people that are having it rough are just ready to support anything different in hopes it'll improve their plight.

worth a look:

http://tinyurl.com/ywffgd

66--With a cool simplicity inspired by Film Noir posters of the 1950s (when Frenchmen were, well, men) the Sarko-Tee is a tribute to France’s straight-shooting man of action, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The man they call Sarko took some heat in the press for suggesting he’d use a Kärcher (a high-powered street-cleaning hose) to clear the banlieues of their criminal elements, but we admire his frankness. Whether you’re for or against him, you’ll look hotter than a blazing Citroen in one of these items. --99

From www.rebelsell.com

The appeal of Socialism is the idea of a new man, an alteration of human nature as a vehicle for changing the human condition. It presents an idea of humans the appeals to people who already think they are good, and that self-interest (i.e. responsibility) is evil. It is pagan at its root, as all statism is, because it sacrifices the individual to some nebulous collective.
Conservatism is just as dangerous in its form of statism, which is why I'm not quite ready to visit France.

Anthony,

I'm not sure the people of African descent who live in the suburbs around the big cities in France, quite share your joy.

For anyone who is interested, it is worth looking at the situation of 'minorities' in France - beyond the pictures of teenage boys masked up burning buses.

The centre of Paris is beautiful place though ...

Colin

PS, I love all your descriptions of socialism - can I take it that it is not very popular in the US ?

Colin

I'm also finding the discussion of "socialism" here interesting. Are we just attacking this label we've attached to Segolene Royal or is there something particular in her platform we are attacking? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm honestly asking.

"Socialist Segolene Royal took 47 percent of the vote."

it was that first word.

Colin...what *is* the situation of blacks and other minorities in France? And are you saying that it is the government's job to move them out of their situation?

jn: "Conservatism is just as dangerous in its form of statism..." Fascism?

shawn:
Yes, conservatism trends towards fascism in its expression of statism. We take aim at straw men when we opt for one expression of statism over another. The problem is not the expression, it is the premise that the state exists as a vehicle for good. It does not.

The state does not collect taxes to pay for good programs. It creates "good" programs as a justification for collecting taxes. Every program managed by the state, with the possible exception of the courts, could be more efficiently and more justly managed privately.

Yes, I understand that the word "socialist" was attached to her in the article and she probably welcomes the term - but is there a gap between what she actually stands for and what is being attacked here in this thread? That is my question. That word can mean any number of things.

Shawn,
As requested (google 'BBC' and 'French Muslims face job discrimination') and yes I do think that the government should intervene in a no of ways. As for 'move them out of their situation' , I think this would take a restructuring of society, which is fairly unlikely to happen.

Colin

"France has countless bodies dedicated to helping immigrants - a High Council for Integration, a Directorate for Populations and Migrations, several regional commissions for the insertion of immigrants, and so on.

Despite this, France's integration policy has failed, the Court of Accounts, a government watchdog, concluded last year.

The situation could lead to "serious social and racial tensions", the court warned prophetically."

Colin...that taken from the BBC article you're mentioning. I'd suggest you look at some research/articles about how minimum wage laws/hiring standards (which France, if I'm not mistaken, has a LOT of) can and will harm the lower, less employable factions of a society. Also, look at how white South African labor unions STRONGLY pushed for minimum wage laws *in order to exclude black workers*.

Your desire for the government to intervene will *not* help the situation. If Sarko's promises to cut hiring/firing restrictions/regulations (and thereby costs) end up happening, that will be a great opportunity for minorities wishing to get their foot in the door.

"While he has said he will not end France's 35-hour working week, Mr Sarkozy proposes allowing staff to work overtime, as well as cutting restrictions on hiring and firing staff." (From BBC)

The government can do very little good (as you can see by the numerous 'bodies' within the government which do little for actual poor people), but it can refrain from doing bad. Sarko's moves to remove hiring restrictions is a move to rescind some of the bad (done under socialist aims, with good intentions but bad results) that the French government has done.

Colin:

"Discrimination, prejudice and preferences"
http://tinyurl.com/l3d73

and, for good measure:
"Should we copy Europe?"
http://tinyurl.com/y86x6j

Shawn,

'If Sarko's promises to cut hiring/firing restrictions/regulations (and thereby costs) end up happening, that will be a great opportunity for minorities wishing to get their foot in the door.'

I hope for the sake of the people in France, this is the case - I doubt it though. Lets be real, the cutting the of the hiring / firing regulations is not aimed to help those at the bottom - it is for those at the top. If it was that helpful to those at the bottom, with any loss for the top, Sarko wouldn't of got in.

I am no expert on economics - I have just seen little evidence that policies aimed at the top benefit the bottom - and I remember well the Reagan / Thatcher years.

And yes there are all kinds of arguements against the minimum wage - but these are not generally heard from people who have benefitted from it.

Which is why I favour some kind of redistibutive tax system (shock horror) with the money spent wisely.

Colin

colin...i've tried 5 times to post my comment here...it's on my blog...

http://tinyurl.com/27e3ek

colin,

If you'd like to read some discussion on the minimum wage:

http://tinyurl.com/2c8jvk , which was particularly helpful to me in summing up things I'd been reading elsewhere

The cutting of the hiring/firing regulations is PRECISELY aimed to help those at the bottom. Directly and 100%. They may THINK that it isn't, but given the fact that people will ALWAYS buy less for higher prices, and more for lower prices, if you raise the price of a worker, an employer will buy less of him.

http://tinyurl.com/2djc95

While I understand your concerns, and can sympathize with them as you care for the lower-wage-earners and minorities who are left out in the cold, I'm afraid that your socialist ideals of redistributing income have not worked in the past. Ever. Legislation can not erase economic facts, and the fact that a worker is only worth to an employer what he is willing to pay WILL mean that if the employer is forced to pay more, he will simply not hire that employee. And, then, in France, he's got a harder time FIRING that employee if he happened to take a chance on him. So, and you can see this pretty clearly, I'd think, it's a VERY costly proposition to hire a new employee, especially a new or non/underskilled one.

With that being the case, a business will choose to not grow, in order to not have to hire new employees, and end up paying more to existing, skilled employees in order to keep them.

Or, worse yet, they'll move their businesses to other countries which are not so restrictive.

On each of these counts, France loses, and its citizens lose. So, by seeking to care for both of them with socialist legislation against "greedy business owners", you're actually hurting them. This has been the lock-step pattern of socialism throughout history.

...there we go! I had to break that post up into all of those separate pieces to get it to work.

whoo hoo! :)