French Establishment Up in Arms at Depardieu

French actor Gérard Depardieu elicited a barrage of criticism for leaving France and settling in Belgium on the grounds that he has had it with “redistribution” and “paying, in 2012, an 85 percent tax-rate on my income tax.”

Writes Forbes: “The actor was heavily criticized. The Prime Minister called him a ‘pathetic’ character; the minister of labor, Michel Sapin, said he went into ‘personal degeneration’; the minister of culture, Aurélie Filippetti, was ‘totally scandalized’; the minister of the relations with the parliament, Alain Vitalies, was ‘shocked’; and the head of the Socialist Party, Harlem Désir, was ‘saddened.’”

French citizenship, added the outraged minister of culture, “is an honor,” partly because it gives one the opportunity “to pay taxes.”

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/ Brown Supremacism

zombie, you are only ranting on just one aspect of social sciences – economics.

but before economics, you should study group evolutionary psychology. psychology is the science of the soul (suke), a study of human nature. before you rant like a zombie on economics, which comes AFTER a thorough understanding of group psychology and political science.
Anonymous

I have. There is no contradiction. The concept of property is the result of natural and social evolution. The morals most of us share (don’t rape, don’t steal, don’t kill, help a fellow human in need) are endowed to us by our ancestors as a result of human and social evolution. Societies following unproductive norms smothered themselves into evolutionary oblivion either by literally killing each other or spending too much time and energy on inefficient conflict resolutions and not enough on peaceful division of labor and production. The wisdom of your genes is whispering to your subconscious that voluntary cooperation with a fellow human would yield you more of what you want than killing him and taking it away from him by force. You catch more flies with honey.

The political parasites from the coercive realm have a vested interest in perpetuating the Hobessian myth that your fellow human being is your enemy — that if it weren’t for their oh-so-neccessary protection racket, your fellow neighbor is going to sneak up on you at night and slit your throat without blinking. You find the parasite government’s existence — your deal with the coercive-realm devil — necessary purely because of this fear. Grow some balls. Don’t give into it.
Anonymous

You think the American “Not so Wild” West was homogeneous? Tom Woods explains why the Hollywood movies about the West being wild are wrong here:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/779740

Concerning the lack of homogeneity, he says:

“Here is a place where you would think: this is a disaster waiting to happen. People are rushing out there by and large because they want to get gold. It was announced that there were gold discoveries there and people are rushing out there. Americans are going out there of all races: there are people from Europe going to California, there are people from China going to California to get gold. No one intends to make his home there. People are going to get their gold and get out.

Now the US hadn’t even set up a territorial government in California at that time, so you’d think, OK, so we’ve got potential racial animosity, you’ve got greed, you’ve got the fact that nobody intends to stay there so there isn’t going to be any longevity, none of these people know each other so there’s no pre-existing community camaraderie to build on. This is a freakin disaster waiting to happen!

And yet, through basically free-market institutions, people voluntarily established organizations that defined and defended property rights, that adjudicated disputes, and historians looking back on this can’t really believe this: that in the absence of an overarching coercive institution somehow people made this thing work. And it is quite an interesting story.”
Anonymous

The problem of immigration is a problem only when you have an overarching monopolist institution that is based on unjust coercion. If immigrants are able to take over that monopolist institution, then yeah that might create problems. But this isn’t a problem for anarcho-capitalists because they don’t believe that being ruled over by such an institution is legitimate. They see taxation as theft, whether the rulers in government are white, black, hispanic, etc. See “George Ought to Help”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

Governments are more vulnerable than people think. They can collapse in an instant—when consent is withdrawn. The extortion racket could NOT be continued by brute force alone. Yes, they have armed thugs to squash the occasional rebel. But MOST people pay up because they imagine themselves to have a moral obligation to do so. If the majority stopped imagining that, no amount of thuggery would keep the extortion racket alive.

See “The Tiny Dot”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6b70TUbdfs
Anonymous

@Brown: “you are zombie if you believe libertarianism is possible in US.”

Your interpretation of what John Jay wrote is wrong, as the not-so-wild-west proved. As Tom Woods explains, the West had everything that you fear going against it, and yet:

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/779740

@Brown: “Mises’ agenda was to lie, cheat and deceive with Rockefeller’s aid”

So no response to why Mises didn’t change his views to be pro-big-government, pro-Federal-Reserve, and pro-war after the bribery attempt (which explains why the Rockeffeller Foundation stopped funding Mises)? And you say that “Libertarian zombies always assert, they have no facts to prove”? Better look in the mirror.
Anonymous

Also, even if libertarianism is only possible in ethnically homogeneous societies, libertarians support secession, so any group or individual that wants to break off may do so.