I know I am going to get creamed for this, but I am going to vote for McCain. I know many of you just spit your cheerios all over your keyboard, but let us think deeply on this.
I hate to ask people to choose the lesser of two evils...again... However desperate times call for desperate measures, and we have already lost our Presidential hopeful earlier this year.
With the Democrats likely to gain nearly 24 new seats in the House of Representatives and up to 9 more in the senate, we are going to be looking at drastic increase in government size any way you look at it. Especially with a president who will not bother to pick up the pen to veto any democratic bill. If the democrats control the legislative branch and the executive branch, it will be far worse than when the republicans had full control (Which was no picnic either).
Unless we get McCain in office to at least give some sort of check to the democrats, I think we are in for some real trouble. I know that he is not as conservative as we would like, but he at least believes in reducing government spending, which is probably the most important thing our country is facing right now.
Just remember, that never in the history of the United States has the Federal Government ever shrunk in size. Once the democrats expand it, we are stuck with it, be it socialized health care etc.
I am not happy with the direction our country is heading, but splitting up the power of a political party that will have nearly full control will be the best choice we make. You do not have to vocally endorse a candidate or his actions, but you can make a smart choice nonetheless.
If we are lucky, McCain will stick up to his promise of vetoing any bill that comes with pork in it, which is nearly every bill, effectively putting a dead halt on the government for four years. Could a libertarian ask for more?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 1084 reads
****
Here's what I don't understand.
"Socialism" is bad, "liberty" is good. I put those words in quotation marks, because I'm referring to the perceptions of those concepts, not the concepts themselves.
Bushbama is no more a socialist than McCain is conservative.
If the big corpos give you money, they are betting on four more years of "the same" regardless of what "banner-of-the-moment" you're flying.
Now, what are the four talking points Ron Paul addressed?
(1) Bringing the troops home, be they in Iraq, Afganistan, S. Korea, or Germany
(2) Restoring our civil liberties and stop eroding the Constitution
(3) Investigate the Federal Reserve
(4) Clean up the National Debt.
Let's stay focused here.
If a socialist like Nader wants to do 'all of the above,' that's mighty fine by me. For that matter, if he insists that the auto industry come out with an affordable safe vehicle that gives me 40 mpg, that's pretty damn cool, too. If, for instance, McKinney wants to install a Canadian-style socialist health-care system - in place of our "fascist medical system" (as liberty 44 said) - well, hey.
If she agrees on all of the above 4 points, she gets my vote.
All of the things that seem to alarm the "leaning-toward-McCain crowd," such as the size of government, taxation, etc., have already happened under Bush & the neocon imperialists, policies which McSame will continue.
We now have the largest government agency ever, with unlimited power to snoop on its own citizens. We - or at least our children - will be forced to pay crushing taxes because of the "nationalization" or bailouts of large corporations, which, if there really were a free market, would be allowed to fail.
And, while I'm on the subject, why does the idea of distributing the wealth downward make everyone hurl blowchunks, when an eyelash is scarcely batted when wealth - artificially and illegally created - is allowed to stay at the top? We already have socialism in this country, but only the big boys benefit.
What frightens me most about Bushbama is not that he'll raise a red flag over the Capitol and throw a pitiful bone to the consumers about health care, but that he'll be just like his predecessor and "opponent."
With the telecoms backing him -and McSame - say goodbye to the Internet as we know it, a true bastion of liberty.
If Bushbama or McSame is elected:
Say goodbye to the idea of peace.
Say goodbye to the idea of constitutional liberty.
Say goodbye to a streamlined smaller fiscally sound government.
Oh, but weren't they the above talking points?
A united third party front is a good idea, an idea whose time has come.
>>"why does the idea of distributing the wealth downward make everyone hurl blowchunks, when an eyelash is scarcely batted when wealth - artificially and illegally created - is allowed to stay at the top? We already have socialism in this country, but only the big boys benefit."
Neither form or redistribution is morally acceptable or economically viable. My guess is that while Republicans and Democrats are equally prone to transferring the money they have stolen toward big businesses, the Democrats are more likely to increase transfers "downward" as well. In so doing they will not only be spending more, which will either sink us further into debt or raise our taxes or raise inflation (all three, most likely) but they will also be bribing a whole lot more people into accepting their control.
Ultimately I think populist socialism is much more difficult to overthrow than corporate socialism. Yes, money talks big time, but a vote is still a vote, and even the C.E.O. of the biggest company only has one vote to cast.
>>"If Bushbama or McSame is elected:"
Not if-- when. It is going to happen, like it or not.
>>"A united third party front is a good idea, an idea whose time has come."
Given Ron Paul's efforts to push for third party votes across the board, I agree. In most states, voting for a third party will not necessarily skew the election towards the Democrats. It's worth a try.
and other proponents of the hackneyed, fraudulent "we have to vote for the lesser of two evils" line -- I hope you check out Ron Paul's recent press conference! He recommends doing the opposite!
(I agree with him--- as previously stated.)
Ron Paul getting together with Ralph Nader to push for third party votes was a great move. If there are as many defectors on either side of the current Democrat/ Republican divide, we might be able to make our statement, force the two parties to take notice of us, and still not have Democrats in the White House.
What Paul DIDN'T say, though (because I don't think he believes it) is that we should hope for America to reach economic collapse, or for inflation taxes to get so high that the American people revolt against the system. Moreover, I think he definitely believes in the electoral system, and he even believes in the Republican party, although he hates what it has become. He wants to remain a Republican and reform the party from within.
I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, and I think he is doing exactly the right thing at this point. I hope that one day I will be able to vote for a Republican that is true to the original ideals of the party.
I dunno...Him inviting Barr and Baldwin was great, but I was hoping for a united liberty front, and he brought in two liberty-haters, Nader and McKinney! So, he can't support McCain (fair enough) but he lets those two socialists into the tent???
It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
>>"I dunno...Him inviting Barr and Baldwin was great, but I was hoping for a united liberty front, and he brought in two liberty-haters, Nader and McKinney! So, he can't support McCain (fair enough) but he lets those two socialists into the tent???"
I get your point... I guess what Paul wants is for every American to be able to choose to vote for a candidate that he or she really believes in, and not to feel forced, election after election, to vote for the lesser of two evils. I think Paul welcomes debate on economic and constitutional issues and I don't think he would wish that there were no representation at all for socialism, or that the only choices available to Americans were libertarians...
He and Nader have chosen to emphasize the positions they agree on, positions which are contrary to those of both Obama and MCain, and for which the independent candidates represent a large segment of Americans.
I think it will help fiscal conservatives that would normally vote for McCain take the plunge and vote third party if they can be confident that socialists on the other side are doing the same thing and losing votes for Obama. Foreign policy non-interventionists who would normally lean slightly toward Obama might throw caution to the wind and vote for Barr or Nader with the idea that many Republicans and Democrats will be doing the same, and that it won't necessarily mean a win for McCain. It's nice to know that you can register your disapproval of both parties without automatically handing over the White House to what you consider to be the greater of two evils. I think Ron Paul has figured out that without that balance in the third parties, people would continue to vote for the lesser of two evils-- and with that balance, people can have the confidence to vote for the candidate that best represents their values. Don't you want every American to vote for a candidate they really believe in? Much as I hate Socialism, I would never attempt to silence socialists or to exclude them from politics.
"I get your point... I guess what Paul wants is for every American to be able to choose to vote for a candidate that he or she really believes in, and not to feel forced, election after election, to vote for the lesser of two evils. I think Paul welcomes debate on economic and constitutional issues and I don't think he would wish that there were no representation at all for socialism, or that the only choices available to Americans were libertarians..."
Except that I remember him saying something along the lines of, "Everyone up here loves liberty." Blech!
"Don't you want every American to vote for a candidate they really believe in? Much as I hate Socialism, I would never attempt to silence socialists or to exclude them from politics."
I wouldn't either, but I wouldn't invite them on stage, shake hands with them, and call them lovers of liberty!
As shown by the "planks" of each candidate, they, Obama and McCain, are one and the same in purpose. They both advocate "redistribution of wealth" via more taxation (any increase in taxation anywhere for rich, poor, middle class, or corporations is MORE taxation), and more spending on their "pet" projects. Taxation, the way it has been done in this country, is tyranny by definition, plunder! Think about it. It is a planned operation to guide wealth, in it's base unit - Property, to the hands of the rich and powerful elite. Control of one's own property is paramount to Liberty! Without that control we the people have no liberty and next to no freedom. A vote for McCain or Obama is a vote for tyranny and fascism. PERIOD!
- Michael
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true." -Terry Goodkind
Gail, I think your reasons are relatively sound.
There is probably more hope in a divided government arguing itself to a standstill than in a strong libertarian presence on the Capitol.
That being said, the Democratic Congress couldn't muster the cajones to make any serious opposition to Bush on real issues.
But as much as I love libertarianism (with a small l), Bob Barr is no gem. He has a checkered past, both in personal conduct and political positions. I can no longer vote for Ron Paul.
As I said, a divided government may be the horse worth betting on.
-dommy
http://dinodinodino.wordpress.com
I will vote to be eaten by the monster with only 95 teeth rather than the one with 100 teeth. I can take comfort in the knowledge that I am somehow better off as it rips my bowels out with its claws before devouring my body.
Isn't wonderful how during each election season there is no shortage of folks bestowing upon us the great wisdom of voting for the not quite as bad guys so that the really bad guys don't get elected. It seems there will never be a time when it is safe to vote for candidates who actually supports most of what we support.
Why have LP vote totals been so miserably low, especially in the top of the ballot positions? There may be a sizable number of voters (15% ?) who consider themselves to be libertarian and are much more comfortable with the positions of the LP, but when it comes time to cast their votes they turn into weaselitarians. They cast their ballots for someone who has a chance of winning, then they wait for their prize.
But, wait a minute! At least they may have contributed to keeping more Republicans in office than there would have been otherwise. And, just think for a moment of the great things that has done for the country. Oh yes, it is important to block socialized medicine so we can keep our fascist medical system. However, we will most likely get socialized medicine, or at least even more government intervention in health care, even if McBama is elected. When the LP presidential candidate (too bad the LP delegates decided not choose a libertarian this time) receives some fraction of one percent of the votes, then the pundits will point it out and say, "See. The voters don't really want freedom. Does anyone doubt why we choose to ignore the Libertarian Party?"
Figuring out the results of voting for the Evil of Two Lessers should not be challenging at all, but for some reason it really stumps far too many people. But, they will start voting for the LP candidate when he/she starts getting more votes.
"If we are lucky, McCain will stick up to his promise of vetoing any bill that comes with pork in it, which is nearly every bill, effectively putting a dead halt on the government for four years. Could a libertarian ask for more?"
"If we are lucky, McCain will stick up to his promise of vetoing any bill that comes with pork in it, which is nearly every bill, effectively putting a dead halt on the government for four years. Could a libertarian ask for more?"
"If we are lucky, McCain will stick up to his promise of vetoing any bill that comes with pork in it, which is nearly every bill, effectively putting a dead halt on the government for four years. Could a libertarian ask for more?"
"If we are lucky, McCain will stick up to his promise of vetoing any bill that comes with pork in it, which is nearly every bill, effectively putting a dead halt on the government for four years. Could a libertarian ask for more?"
"If we are lucky, McCain will stick up to his promise of vetoing any bill that comes with pork in it, which is nearly every bill, effectively putting a dead halt on the government for four years. Could a libertarian ask for more?"
Sorry! But the above quoted statement is so brilliant that I cannot stop repeating it.
"And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world?" -- Frederic Bastiat
it sounds like you take your talking points straight from the Neo -Con press release. Whether you're advocating fighting the terrorists abroad before they get us here, extolling the virtues of democracy in Georgia or here for instance:
Vote for McCain for smaller gov't?
the lesser of two evils?
because if you don't you're a socialist?
because if you don't the country will collapse?
I guess Paul's observation that Obama and McCain are the same hasn't really registered with you, or you disagree....
How anyone can be sincerely discussing the notion of two separate parties pitted against each other is beyond belief. They are one and the same! How'd it work to pit the Dem's against the Repubs when it came to the war, spending, etc???
Talk about taking two steps back...
By the way, am I wrong or do you live in Canada, how will you be paying more taxes under Obama?
I am a permanent resident of the US (green card), and I will be applying for citizenship soon.
lived in Canada!
But what's with the neo-con talking points?
>>"what's with the neo-con talking points?"
I don't know what you mean. If that is a rhetorical question, I don't get your point. If you want an answer you will have to be more specific.
"I know I am going to get creamed for this, but I am going to vote for McCain."
You guys are cracking me up. You act like your vote in the presidential election matters? Let's try this out shall we:
I live in Illinois. Obama is one of the senator's from Illinois and represents the s.side of Chicago. If I vote for McCain, and Obama takes IL, which he will overwhelmingly, my vote for McCain does NOTHING. The electoral college allocates ALL of Illinois' presidential electors to the winner.
You live in Georgia, or Alabama, or whatever. You vote for Obama, but McCain wins the state 60% to 40% - all of that state's electors go to McCain.
This two party charade - backed by the electoral college system - is the problem. In almost any conceivable two person race, with 100million votes, your one vote does jack squat in the big picture. (We are being realists here, right?)
In contrast to the above, I use my one and only vote for Bob Barr. Bob Barr has no chance of winning my state or the presidency. To some, because of this fact, I have 'wasted' my vote. But IF all of us all voted for anyone not in the two major parties (Barr, Baldwin, Nader, whateva) and we got 20-25% of the popular vote to any alternative party people combined - even if we didnt win a single electoral college vote - it would shock the system. (plus neither candidate could claim a "mandate" with say 35% of the popular vote)
You vote for McCain or Obama - you perpetuate the system. The system needs to be blown the f up. I have never voted for the lesser of two evils and never has the person who i have voted for ever won an election. (yet). I will keep doing so. I encourage you all to see the futility of your one vote and vote for principle. You all seem to agree that voting for McCain is near as bad as voting for Obama, but since McCain is less socialistic, it is somehow justified?
Well let me put it this way: kidnapping, binding, gagging and then systematically mutilating a person slowly until they die is murder. So is pushing someone off a tall building onto a concrete sidewalk. The manner and method of death doesn't change the fact that death occurs. Both are charged as murder.
So vote for the slow death (McCain) if you prefer, or vote for the quick plunge (Obama) - - but dont bitch when people like me - and the others on this site - hold you all accountable going forward to 2012.
>>"I live in Illinois. Obama is one of the senator's from Illinois and represents the s.side of Chicago. If I vote for McCain, and Obama takes IL, which he will overwhelmingly, my vote for McCain does NOTHING. The electoral college allocates ALL of Illinois' presidential electors to the winner."
You live in Georgia, or Alabama, or whatever. You vote for Obama, but McCain wins the state 60% to 40% - all of that state's electors go to McCain."
How about this: if you live in a state that is majority Republican or Democrat, vote for Bob Barr. If you live in a "swing state" vote for McCain.
>>"Well let me put it this way: kidnapping, binding, gagging and then systematically mutilating a person slowly until they die is murder. So is pushing someone off a tall building onto a concrete sidewalk. The manner and method of death doesn't change the fact that death occurs. Both are charged as murder."
What if one of those two guys had to be your president? I guess I would prefer the regular murderer (Obama?) over the psycho killer... The point is, no matter what it is going to be one or the other. You feel like paying more taxes? Giving up control of your health care? Be my guest. I will do what I can to see that it doesn't happen to me.
I think that you are giving too much credit to how much can be accomplished in 4 years. There is no way Obama could implement half of what he promised in one term, even with both houses in Dem majority, and the other half the Republicans would have implemented themselves if they had both houses of government and the white house. Thats what seems to be overlooked here.
If there were the option of "neither" on the ballot, i bet it would take 30% of the vote or more. If this be true, but people continue to vote for the two main parties, this real number of disgruntled Americans is hidden and a false sense of legitimacy is given to the two parties and what they allegedly stand for. This makes our job harder come 2012 and beyond.
>>"If there were the option of "neither" on the ballot, i bet it would take 30% of the vote or more. If this be true, but people continue to vote for the two main parties, this real number of disgruntled Americans is hidden and a false sense of legitimacy is given to the two parties and what they allegedly stand for. This makes our job harder come 2012 and beyond."
It would sicken me to think that either candidate should feel like they had a mandate, as a result of gaining a very large number of votes. However if McCain wins, it won't be by much, so he won't be able to claim that anyway. Obama is another matter. I could see him winning by a fair amount...
>>"the other half the Republicans would have implemented themselves if they had both houses of government and the white house."
Yes, IF. But they don't. If they did, it might have been a good idea to vote for Obama, don't you think?
You write:
"Yes, IF. But they don't. If they did, it might have been a good idea to vote for Obama, don't you think?"
See, this is what I am talking about which is the problem. You seemed resigned to the fact that had the Republicans secured both houses, it would be smart to vote for Obama. Since both are likely to be in Dem control this election, we should vote McCain. Dont you see the futility in all this?
Again, I understand the simple logic involved - the less that the government can accomplish the better. But I think people are missing the logic that says your one vote isn't going to decide the election anyway, so you might as well vote for principle. If enough people did, then we would be poised to make a real difference on this two party SCAM that is being foisted upon us.
I dont know any other way to explain it - than saying, for the last 16 yrs its been 8 of Clinton and 8 of Bush Jr. Maybe I am just not as in tune to the world as others, but to me, I dont see a whole lot of difference in the average Americans' lives. We still get involved in overseas entanglements, we still arrrest 750,000 a yr for smoking pot, we still (fill in the blank). This two party system is a giant SCAM! Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. G.W. Bush wants CAFTA. Etc... two peas in a pod. The bankruptacy bill that was a massive giveaway to corporate interests was ensured of passing with the help of Joe Biden. Obama voted for the FISA bill which was a sellout of every civil liberty principle he espoused up until that point. ITS ALL A GIANT SCAM!! Biden= McCain= Obama=Bush=Clinton
And on a completely unrelated note, congratulations Claire on becoming a citizen someday soon :) Wish more liberty minded people would come here (even if we disagree on this particular issue).
>>"And on a completely unrelated note, congratulations Claire on becoming a citizen someday soon :) Wish more liberty minded people would come here (even if we disagree on this particular issue)."
Thanks, Kelvin. This country may not be perfect, but I love it and there is no place I would rather live. Sometimes I think Americans just don't realize how lucky they are.
We are literally about to make the same choice Germany did in the 1930's. National Socialism vs. Communist Socialism. I believe Obama will win, and I also believe you are right in that Obama could help take us down faster. Either way, we're going down.
I do not want the U.S. to collapse, but in 100 years since Woodrow Wilson first convinced us that government could provide us with things, and that we should "spread democracy" at gunpoint, we have consistently asked government to do more and more and more. Personally, I only have 30 or 40 years left on this "mortal coil," and I would rather take my chances with the machine breaking down and a chance to tell people there is a better way than to live out my life in an increasingly socialist slave state, which is what we get with McCain or Obama.
McCain is taking the tired old "conservative" stance against $20 billion in pork barrel spending, while he wholeheartedly supports $1.5 trillion in welfare (and he'd spend more if he could find it). Don't be fooled by an "R" next to his name, McCain is as big government as they come. And he also appears to be the intellectual equivalent of a doughnut box.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
Ever since the founding of America, every depression, every incident wher you would hope the American people would point fingers at the true problem, they have always taken a more evil route. Look at the great depression, we have always chosen Keynesian and socialist principles to "correct" the problem. Even if it does crash there is a greater chance that the people would blame capitalism and lack of regulation. I am sorry to say but I think capitalists are a dying breed... I am not optimistic.
>>"Either way, we're going down."
We don't need to collapse before we return to small government. How about staying in a holding pattern for the next four years, which will buy us that much time to make the case for libertarianism. Things are bad enough right now for people to be taking notice. Isn't the economy everyone's #1 priority at the moment?
It occurs to me that maybe Obama isn't a done deal. I think that if McCain wins it will be to a large extent because people are worried about the effect Obama will have on the economy. A McCain win would be a good sign, in my opinion, a sign that Americans still worry about spending too much and getting further into debt. There is certainly no other reason to elect him, is there? It has been a long time since 9/11 and we are not overly worried about terrorists at the moment. McCain doesn't seem to have a whole lot more support than Obama among religious conservatives. Moreover, approval ratings for Republicans are at an all time low. Of course McCain is sure to disappoint fiscal conservatives-- but the point is that a strong economy has become important to people.
We have a receptive audience, but the Ron Paul movement is still young and we just haven't reached everyone yet. Let's give that a try, shall we, before we resort to destroying the economy. I don't particularly want to lose my job and have my savings wiped out. I'd kind of like to be able to put my kids through college and retire comfortably some day.
>>"McCain also appears to be the intellectual equivalent of a doughnut box."
Who cares how much smarter Obama is than McCain, if they are both in the grips of collectivist ideology? McCain is less so than Obama; at least he is more covert about it. In any case I hope he wins if only because it would indicate to me that America is not yet ready for more socialism, and we still have a chance to turn it around.
The so called "pork barrell spending" is less than $20 billion dollars per year. THe govt budget is $3 trillion. Like so many pseudo-conservatives, McCain has jumped on pork barrell spending to confuse the uninformed. He wants to go right on with the American Empire and will likely expand it into Iran, as would Obama, once Israel provokes Iran and he has to "keep his word" to AIPAC.
I agree that there might be a slight advantage in splitting the control between parties. On the other hand, the Democrats might just take the country down faster as they are talking welfare/socialism in record doses. Many people whose opinions I respect believe that we will never move on inch toward freedom until we literally collapse. Not a cheery thought, but that finally would be "change."
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God" - Thomas Jefferson
I agree. There's not enough difference between the two to save us from anything. The population has a pretty socialist mindset mostly because they don't understand real economics and they have converted to believing that theft, killing, lying, etc. is OK if done by the government. Most aren't going to go for real liberty and the country can't continue on the path it's on, it will collapse. Of course, this whole economic-fiscal-entitlement mess is being done deliberately to facilitate the NAU and global rule so I'm sure the rulers figure the faster we go down the better, especially with the internet wising people up by leaps and bounds. The only thing I'd agree with Claire about is the damage that socialism does to peoples initiative and self-sufficiency. Those effects linger for quite a while and are hard to overcome, it will probably take a complete meltdown of civilization and I can't see the ruling elites allowing things to get that out of control. They just want enough of a meltdown to usher in complete enslavement, elimination of all property rights, and perhaps a substantial population reduction. But I don't see any way around it, it can only get worse.
>>"Many people whose opinions I respect believe that we will never move on inch toward freedom until we literally collapse. Not a cheery thought, but that finally would be "change.""
Then you should vote for Obama, shouldn't you? Perhaps you are keen to lose everything you have worked all your life for on this gamble of yours, but have you not considered that you are also putting other people's lives and property on the line by backing an administration that will ruin this country? Oh but that's okay, it's okay to sacrifice a few individuals for the greater good, right?
I know you may not respect my opinion as much as those of your collapse-promoting role models, but consider this: Is it not equally probable that as the economy plummets, inflation and unemployment skyrocket and people feel decreasingly confident about their ability to take care of themselves and their families, Americans will want yet more security from their government? Isn't it likely that in such an atmosphere, people will want more socialism, not less? Look at how bad the economy had to get in the former Soviet Union before any change started to happen. I'm 42, Tom. I can't afford to wait another 70 years for a good life.
If Obama becomes president, a lot of bad legislation is going to pass, much more than with McCain. We stand a much better chance of achieving smaller government if we maintain the status quo and continue to inform people about the dangers of Socialism than if we move yet further to the Left and give them a taste of "free" health care, etc...
Worried about our foreign policy? Unnecessary wars will always be unpopular, and war-mongering (which McCain may be marginally more likely than Obama to promote) will be easier to vote out next election than socialism (which Obama is sure to push further than mcCain would, with his universal health care plan), I guarantee you. People don't get inured to war like they get addicted to government hand-outs.
Called it: http://www.shanekillian.com/blog/index.php?/archives/115-My-Presidential...
Claire is right. Look at France, all of their entrepreneurs are leaving, unemployment is twice as high as it is in the United States.
Ummmm, this is A REALLY DUMB comparison. Look at unemployment verses available resources and population density.
Of course the US has a better economy. We have great resources and comparatively fewer people.
ALL of their entrepreneurs?
Hardly.
Where are they going, pray tell?
A lot of them are moving to Switzerland and other border countries to avoid paying the high taxes the French Government is imposing. Population density has nothing to do with unemployment, that is the silliest thing I have ever heard. Talk about dumb comparisons.
"And many more people would be much better off in these countries if the government did not redistribute income and impose a one size fits all health care system".
Better off than what? These people all have high standards of living, is my point.
I know, I've lived in a few of them. They do quite well for themselves, and you are making declarations that have no basis in reality. Which IS my point.