France and Secularism

[Orwell]

Your only response to France's looming catastrophy is that everyone has problems?

It's not simply about having problems, as you'd know if you actually paid attention to what I'm saying. It's about having an economic and social model that is unsustainable. That is NOT a universal feature across countries (though it is common in Europe). Yes, our current budget deficit is not sustainable. But we're also much more likely to be able to change that than France is, because we do not have anywhere nearly as entrenched a rent-seeking class, our government is a smaller fraction of our economy to begin with (making drastic government cuts less painful), and we don't have an imploding population.

I could very easily argue that every single western country presently an unsustainable economic and social model...

This isn't nearly the worst crisis that France has faced. I'm pretty sure that they'll overcome it.

 

[Tony]

What you mention here were, at times, major American characteristics. But they were NEVER virtues.

Semantics

Capitalism is indeed fundamentally American. I don't understand how you can argue otherwise, unless you're trying to say it's not uniquely American (which I agree with, and which doesn't in any way contradict my point).

Can you point to any writings of the Founders, any part of the Constitution or any part of the Declaration of Independence that enshrines America as a capitalist nation?

 

[Ziggurat]

Semantics

Saying slavery is not a virtue is NOT about semantics, it's about basic decency. What is wrong with you?

 

[Ziggurat]

This isn't nearly the worst crisis that France has faced. I'm pretty sure that they'll overcome it.

Sure. They overcame being invaded by Nazi Germany too. But the price was pretty damned high. I'm not actually worried about France not surviving, the question is what price will be exacted in the process. And the longer they wait to make the necessary changes, the higher that price will get.

 

[Tony]

Saying slavery is not a virtue is NOT about semantics, it's about basic decency.

No, but saying slavery (segregation and a white Christian majority) was never a virtue, but was a characteristic, is semantics.

This is another one of your strawmen.


For the record, and before I'm slandered. I, personally, do not think slavery is a virtue.

 

[Ziggurat]

For the record, and before I'm slandered. I, personally, do not think slavery is a virtue.

I believe you when you say that you don't think slavery is a virtue. But why did you say it was a virtue? Let me quote you again:

"Slavery, a white christian majority, and segregation have also been defining virtues of America"

Why did you label slavery a virtue, when you don't believe it to be so?

 

[Tony]

I believe you when you say that you don't think slavery is a virtue. But why did you say it was a virtue? Let me quote you again:

"Slavery, a white christian majority, and segregation have also been defining virtues of America"

Why did you label slavery a virtue, when you don't believe it to be so?

Because I recognize that America and Americans in the past (maybe even some in the present) recognized slavery, segregation, and a white christian majority as a virtue.

Capitalism is as much an american virtue as slavery, which is to say, neither are.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because I recognize that America and Americans in the past (maybe even some in the present) recognized slavery, segregation, and a white christian majority as a virtue.

But you said that it WAS a virtue. If all you meant was that it has been percieved as a virtue, then you had better make that clear.

Capitalism is as much an american virtue as slavery, which is to say, neither are.

You're comparing an economic system which has produced unprecedented prosperity and wealth to one of the vilest institutions of human history, an economic model whose premise is individual choice and freedom with one whose fundamental premise is the abolishment of any choice or freedom. You're a tool, Tony.

 

[Tony]

But you said that it WAS a virtue. If all you meant was that it has been percieved as a virtue, then you had better make that clear.

Every "virtue" is perceived as a virtue. You perceive capitalism as a virtue, I perceive is as a system that relegates humans to (at worst) mere property or (at best) money making tools. That doesn't mean I deny the good capitalism has achieved, I just recognize it's flaws.

You're comparing an economic system which has produced unprecedented prosperity and wealth to one of the vilest institutions of human history, an economic model whose premise is individual choice and freedom with one whose fundamental premise is the abolishment of any choice or freedom.

Discounting your rhetoric, no, I'm not comparing them. I'm saying that neither are fundamental American virtues.

 

[Flo]

So imagine my surprise that so many of them could get so angry at the idea of coming into work for one day extra in the year, especially when it was in aid of the elderly and unemployed.

I'm sure the sentiment would have been different if
a) there was some assurance this effort was actually going to benefit the elderly and unemployed. Given what the successive governments have done with all the money they pledged to this effect, there's plenty of reasons to doubt it.
b) the government and employers were not so blatantly lying when they blame 2003 summer deaths exclusively on the lack of work ethics on the French workers, adding the insult to accuse them of abandoning en masse their elderly, denying the fact that most of the deaths occured in patients living in homes.
c) the actual amounts that are supposed to be paid by employers to the "elderly fund" could be known as well as what part of the salaries for that extra working day it represents.
d) there had been some concertation as to the date, and no ambiguity as to what was that day supposed to account for (remember that it has also been presented as some sort of tit-for-tat in the veil controversy, aka "we forbid the islamic veil, the kippa, etc, but we sacrifice one catholic holiday to show fairness").

When exactly did the Church holidays become official ones? Secular, anti-clerical sentiment has been well established in French government circles.

They always have been (christmas, easter, pentecost, ascencion, etc.) and have been left that way since the reason of theseparation of church from state was not to promote atheism but freedom of conscience. Changing those dates would have been a major obstacle to this separation. The anti-clerical sentiment has never been as clear-cut as it seems and has included many compromises.

1. IIRC France was exceptional in terms of loss of life during the 2003 heatwave. I also remember that one of the explanations for this was that so many healthcare workers were on holiday at the time.

True, but it has much to do with the way the government has mismanaged the health sector for decades, irrespective of its political orientation: lack of staff, no flexibility as to holidays dates, etc.

Why would the government of a secular country with dwindling church attendanc feel compelled to placate the Catholic Church?

See above. I have no references in English for the way "laïcité" has been established, but it has been a long process implying lots of compromises.

3. Unless things are done differently in France, you've got this the wrong way around. Employers pay their staff for public holidays, therefore if they are asked to work on one of these days off it's not correct to say their employers are getting a day's unpaid work out of their drones.

I would agree if employers had to actually pay those salaries in full to the "elderly fund". This is apparently not the case. Again, I have no reference in English, but a recent debate on the French TV channel Arte was really enlightening about that, I can tell you.

 

[Drooper]

Well, then it follows that decreasing the hours worked per week wouldn't create unemployment.

No, that doesn't follow.

What does follow is that placing any control on the hours worked per head will not change the aggregate level of employment.

 

[Flo]

3. Unless things are done differently in France, you've got this the wrong way around. Employers pay their staff for public holidays, therefore if they are asked to work on one of these days off it's not correct to say their employers are getting a day's unpaid work out of their drones.

I should have explained that workers will NOT be paid for that extra day. They will therefore lose a holiday AND see their pay decreased, while it will cost employers only a fraction of that money to the govt. Unless my math is totally wrong, employers will therefore benefit from the operation. No wonder that workers and unions see that day of "national solidarity" as a total ripoff !