January 15, 2013
Compassion for Depardieu, however, is but the velvet glove that hides the iron fist.
The author says ‘The accumulation of money [by those who cannot have further need of any] is a sort of madness, and a kind of injustice towards those who do not have enough even to meet the most basic needs of existence.’ She also says ‘A rational and just society must prevent the accumulation of capital by individuals above a certain level.’... Suppose that Gérard Depardieu were to undergo a conversion experience and see that his wealth was not unjust but unseemly in view of the difficulties or hardships of others, and that as a consequence he decided to give it away to those most in need (as determined by him) in exactly the same proportion as he would have been taxed. Would that be acceptable to all those who criticized him for refusing to pay his tax?
I suspect not: for in the modern world, the state claims the monopoly not only of force, but increasingly of compassion as well. -- Theodore Dalrymple, Depardieu, Heal Thyself
Posted by gerardvanderleun at January 15, 2013 11:21 AM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
"The author says ‘The accumulation of money [by those who cannot have further need of any] is a sort of madness, and a kind of injustice towards those who do not have enough even to meet the most basic needs of existence.’"
The diagnosis is madness, but Gerard Depardieu is not who we're talking about here.
Posted by: Mike James at January 15, 2013 12:11 PM
This is as clear a statement as I've ever read of the socialist mindset: because Depardieu is wealthy, he there must have somehow taken his riches from the poor. This view not only ignores economics (especially of the entertainment industry), it is completely blind to common sense. But it does give socialists a frisson of self-righteous smugness and outrage.
Posted by: waltj at January 15, 2013 6:35 PM