Skip to comments.Depardieu Move to Belgium Divides France
Posted on 12/24/2012 10:36:28 AM PST by SeekAndFind
If people like Paul Krugman get their way, we will be having this debate in America too.
And actually, it’s not much of a debate. One of the benefits of being free is you get to go wherever you want without government interference. Evidently in France, this freedom may be in jeopardy as some wealthy citizens, refusing to give the government 75% of their income, have fled France for friendlier climes.
Actor Gerard Depardieu is only the most visible individual to choose to leave. The mini-exodus has sparked a fierce debate involving “greed,” “patriotism,” and “solidarity.” Some have even questioned the actor’s morals.
The tax row sparked by Depardieu’s departure has divided France and not simply along traditional left-right, north-south or rich-poor lines. Fans and critics have spent the last week fretting over the morality of his decision and whether concepts of patriotism and solidarity outweigh those of personal gain and perceived greed.
Even after weeks of speculation, the announcement a fortnight ago that Depardieu, 63, was moving to Belgium to take refuge from Socialist president François Hollande’s planned “temporary supertax” on earnings of more than 1m (£815,000) came as a shock to fans.
The prime minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, described the move as “shabby”, provoking a furious response from Depardieu (“who are you calling shabby?”), and from Philippe Torreton, a leftwing, César-winning actor who lambasted his colleague in the pages of Libération. In the article, published last week, Torreton, 47, wrote: “You no longer want to be French? You are leaving the French boat in the middle of a storm? Did you think we would approve? What did you expect? A medal? An honorary César from the finance ministry?
“The prime minister considers your behaviour shabby, but you, you consider it what? Heroic? Civic? Altruistic? Tell us. We would like to know.”
Why characterize it at all? Depardieu is acting in his self-interest. Does he now need permission to do so? And in what universe is it considered greedy to want to keep your own money, your own property? He isn’t coveting anyone else’s money. How can that be considered “greed” except by someone who believes the fruits of one’s labor belong to the government?
And why is it considered “patriotic” to pay taxes? How did a concept that refers to the love one feels for country become twisted to mean love of one’s government?
It is a strange and wonderful world inhabited by leftists. An entirely new and exciting nomenclature has been created that makes forced altruism into a civic religion, government a near god-like entity, and the expression of individual liberty into a mortal sin. Depardieu probably still loves France. But the pain administered by the government of President Hollande on successful Frenchmen goes beyond any concept of patriotism. That’s because the reason for confiscating wealth relates to the incompetence and mismanagement — and miscalculation — of the welfare state. Supporting this ineptness and horrible policy making is too much for some.
And thus it will always be.
Didn’t Johnny Depp move back to the states to avoid paying the high taxes in France. Seems to me, these actions are just the beginning of things to come.
Let's add that the reason for confiscation of other people's wealth (redistribution) is arrogant accumulation of coercive power among those who advocate such tyranny over their fellow human beings!
The point about Depardieu's personal freedom to leave a country where "approaching tyranny" threatens him is one of the underlying principles embraced by America's founding generation. See below:
Perhaps American citizens are getting a belated lesson in economics and an American History lesson as a result of the shocking policies of Congress and the Administration during recent months and days. If the citizenry is awakened, and if they will go back and review the philosophy of the Framers of the U. S. Constitution, they may perhaps begin to understand how America became the symbol of liberty, opportunity and prosperity for millions throughout the world. The following essay, is reprinted with permission from "Our Ageless Constitution." See
If you have read the following on another thread today, just skip it, but it's message is important.
"Agriculture, manufactures, commerce, and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise." - Thomas Jefferson
"The enviable condition of the people of the United States is often too much ascribed to the physical advantages of their soil & climate .... But a just estimate of the happiness of our country will never overlook what belongs to the fertile activity of a free people and the benign influence of a responsible government." - James Madison
America's Constitution did not mention freedom of enterprise per se, but it did set up a system of laws to secure individual liberty and freedom of choice in keeping with Creator-endowed natural rights. Out of these, free enterprise flourished naturally. Even though the words "free enterprise' are not in the Constitution, the concept was uppermost in the minds of the Founders, typified by the remarks of Jefferson and Madison as quoted above. Already, in 1787, Americans were enjoying the rewards of individual enterprise and free markets. Their dedication was to securing that freedom for posterity.
The learned men drafting America's Constitution understood history - mankind's struggle against poverty and government oppression. And they had studied the ideas of the great thinkers and philosophers. They were familiar with the near starvation of the early Jamestown settlers under a communal production and distribution system and Governor Bradford's diary account of how all benefited after agreement that each family could do as it wished with the fruits of its own labors. Later, in 1776, Adam Smith's INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and Say's POLITICAL ECONOMY had come at just the right time and were perfectly compatible with the Founders' own passion for individual liberty. Jefferson said these were the best books to be had for forming governments based on principles of freedom. They saw a free market economy as the natural result of their ideal of liberty. They feared concentrations of power and the coercion that planners can use in planning other peoples lives; and they valued freedom of choice and acceptance of responsibility of the consequences of such choice as being the very essence of liberty. They envisioned a large and prosperous republic of free people, unhampered by government interference.
The Founders believed the American people, possessors of deeply rooted character and values, could prosper if left free to:
Such a free market economy was, to them, the natural result of liberty, carried out in the economic dimension of life. Their philosophy tended to enlarge individual freedom - not to restrict or diminish the individual's right to make choices and to succeed or fail based on those choices. The economic role of their Constitutional government was simply to secure rights and encourage commerce. Through the Constitution, they granted their government some very limited powers to:
Adam Smith called it "the system of natural liberty." James Madison referred to it as "the benign influence of a responsible government." Others have called it the free enterprise system. By whatever name it is called, the economic system envisioned by the Founders and encouraged by the Constitution allowed individual enterprise to flourish and triggered the greatest explosion of economic progress in all of history. Americans became the first people truly to realize the economic dimension of liberty.
Footnote: Our Ageless Constitution, W. David Stedman & La Vaughn G. Lewis, Editors (Asheboro, NC, W. David Stedman Associates, 1987) Part III: ISBN 0-937047-01-5
Deciding to keep more of your own money, makes you thrifty.
The Big D can do as he pleases. His money his choice. I now understand why the French Revolution was so brutal. The corruption was systemic and the protected classes needed to be be removed one by one for equality for the common man who only wanted to live and work in peace.
Being self-less — means taking stuff from working people.
Being selfish — means trying to keep the stuff you worked for.
Why isn’t a paycheck an entitlement? Why should strangers have a superior claim over those who earn a wage? When Obama said “you didn’t build that” what he really meant is “it’s okay if we take it”.
Especially funny is the quote from the lefty actor who chastises GD as “leaving the French boat in the middle of a storm”, when in fact GD knows he leaving a sinking ship.
How long until the new Berlin Walls go up to keep the makers from escaping from the takers?
About 50 years ago Elizabeth Taylor wanted to become a British citizen because their taxes were less than the US. That was after she got paid for CLEOPATRA.
Great slogan for our side.
75% LOL! I can’t stop cracking up everytime I read that. Why not 100%? Freakin’ insanity,
“It is a strange and wonderful world inhabited by leftists. An entirely new and exciting nomenclature has been created...”
As Orwell so dramatically exposed, manipulating language is one of the left’s greatest talent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.