French socialist acknowledges his win will kill jobs

[Pandora]

to be fair, had the government taken the risk of developing the minerals then all aissies should share in the rewards. that didn't happen, theh government got the share it demanded. end of story.

Well sure I agree with that. The government represents the people so if the government has a profit then its the peoples profit but if a private company takes risks and makes money then people and government should keep their grabbing fingers off

 

[dogtowner]

Well sure I agree with that. The government represents the people so if the government has a profit then its the peoples profit but if a private company takes risks and makes money then people and government should keep their grabbing fingers off

that the rub, they cannot resist the lure of easy money. thats why you tred very carefully before agreeing to anything with the government.

 

[Aus22]

that the rub, they cannot resist the lure of easy money. thats why you tred very carefully before agreeing to anything with the government.

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]

No a worker can not be bought with Capitalist money. We just want our share of the profits of the country

no, you want your earnings from your employer. everyone who works for someone else gets bought every day.

 

[GenSeneca]

They did not make the minerals which belong to all Australians.

If the minerals are on private property that neither you nor the government own, then neither of you have a legitimate claim to the minerals on that property. The owner of the property is the only one with a legitimate claim to the minerals found on his property and any profits that result from the utilization of those minerals are rightfully his and his alone.

If the Mafia were to threaten the owner with a loss of life, liberty, or property unless he gave them a cut of his earnings, it would be considered extortion. However, when a majority of citizens votes for the government to enact laws that legally threaten the owner with a loss of life, liberty, or property unless he gives them a cut of his earnings, then it's called "democracy". Both are immoral, both trample the rights of the individual, both are examples of thugs using force to get what they want, the latter just happens to be legal.

 

[Aus22]

Most of the Minerals were found in the desert crown land. However in any case I belive in democracy Gen Seneca does not.

 

[Pandora]

Most of the Minerals were found in the desert crown land. However in any case I belive in democracy Gen Seneca does not.

So if a day comes when 51 percent of Australians agree that they shouldn't expect others to pay their way will you be ok with that and learn to take care of yourself? Or will you get mad and say democracy failed you and then perhaps turn to a dictatorship?

 

[Gipper]

Most of the Minerals were found in the desert crown land. However in any case I belive in democracy Gen Seneca does not.

So you think democracy is mob rule. Good for you.

 

[Aus22]

Gipper , If you think Democracy is bad you have not live under a dictatorship. Democracy might be the most difficult form og government but it is the only one that gives equal rights. It is not mob rule but ruled by an elected majority.

 

[dogtowner]

Gipper , If you think Democracy is bad you have not live under a dictatorship. Democracy might be the most difficult form og government but it is the only one that gives equal rights. It is not mob rule but ruled by an elected majority.

I think you are referring to a representative democracy while Gipper was referring to a direct democracy

 

[Gipper]

I think you are referring to a representative democracy while Gipper was referring to a direct democracy

Thank you. Direct democracy IS mob rule.

Direct democracy (or pure democracy)[1] is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, as opposed to arepresentative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives.[2] Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy.

 

[GenSeneca]

Whether it's a majority of a voting population (direct democracy) or a majority of elected representatives (representative democracy), any group that passes laws which violate the rights of some for the benefit of others is a mob, mere brutes, who rule by force.

Jobs, food, clothing, recreation(!), homes, medical care, education, etc., do not grow in nature. These are man-made values—goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?​

​

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.​

​

Any alleged “right” of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.​

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as “the right to enslave.” - Ayn Rand​

​

Again, if any individual citizen were to force another individual citizen into involuntary servitude the collectivists would be outraged. However, when it is a majority of citizens, or a majority of their elected representatives, who force individuals into involuntary servitude they celebrate the abusive use of force as proof of how "democracy" leads to an enlightened society.

 

[Aus22]

Gi[[er and Gensenca. I do not know what country you are referring to. No major western country has direct democracy. The French government wass elected in a election. It is a representative democracy not mob rule. It does not require any one to work for nothing so has no slaves.

 

[GenSeneca]

Gi[[er and Gensenca. I do not know what country you are referring to. No major western country has direct democracy. The French government wass elected in a election. It is a representative democracy not mob rule. It does not require any one to work for nothing so has no slaves.

Try reading my statement again, I'll even highlight it for you...

Whether it's a majority of a voting population (direct democracy) or a majority of elected representatives (representative democracy), any group that passes laws which violate the rights of some for the benefit of others is a mob, mere brutes, who rule by force.​

If a poor man is hungry, shouldn't the government tax wealthy people in order to feed him?
If he needs clothes, shouldn't wealthy people pay higher taxes in order to clothe him?
If he is homeless, shouldn't wealthy people pay higher taxes in order to provide that man with shelter?

I work just over 10 hours per day, how many of those hours should I be forced to work for his benefit rather than my own?

And please, don't be coy, actually answer those questions, they are not rhetorical.

 

[Aus22]

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.