Positions of Power

Agit8r

Gold Member
Dec 4, 2010
12,141
2,209
245
As it is a universal truth that positions of power will always attract those most inclined to abuse that power, doesn't it make the most sense to SEVERELY limit the power that any one individual may wield?

Doesn't it make sense to limit the prerogative that any individual in power may wield over others? Isn't this the basis of American government?
 
I dont think the founders would have liked no comander in chief.

freedom is not the easy route , for some its not it them.


I love freedom and so did the founders which is why they gave us the government and constitution they did give us.

They never promised that it would change the heart of human kind.
 
As it is a universal truth that positions of power will always attract those most inclined to abuse that power, doesn't it make the most sense to SEVERELY limit the power that any one individual may wield?

Doesn't it make sense to limit the prerogative that any individual in power may wield over others? Isn't this the basis of American government?



This is one of the objectives of The Constitution and a system based on Rule of Law instead of the Power of Thugs.

Sadly, the Thugs have been quite successful in dismantling rule of law lately.
 
As it is a universal truth that positions of power will always attract those most inclined to abuse that power, doesn't it make the most sense to SEVERELY limit the power that any one individual may wield?

Doesn't it make sense to limit the prerogative that any individual in power may wield over others? Isn't this the basis of American government?

What about those in government who do the same? That's the problem.
 
As it is a universal truth that positions of power will always attract those most inclined to abuse that power, doesn't it make the most sense to SEVERELY limit the power that any one individual may wield?

Doesn't it make sense to limit the prerogative that any individual in power may wield over others? Isn't this the basis of American government?

I don't know that power attracts those inclined to abuse it, I do believe that temptation is always with us. That is why we have checks and balances, transparency, and disclosure. Power by consent is justified by circumstance, in part. The more we realize that, the better we can tailor it, and direct it.
 
"I dont think the founders would have liked no comander in chief"

depends on the founder. Certainly those that supported a limited government would not have approved of perpetual war, and the unfortunate side effect of a president serving perpetually in that function
 
"What about those in government who do the same? That's the problem."

Oppressive governance is a problem whether it comes from the power of state, the power of mob, or the power of monied influence
 
"What about those in government who do the same? That's the problem."

Oppressive governance is a problem whether it comes from the power of state, the power of mob, or the power of monied influence

Well then there you have it.

Looks like government people demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves fit your definition. So what do you think should be done about it?
 
"demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves"

if you mean the wealthy, that is in line with classical capitalist economics. it would be great if we all could pay less taxes. It would be great if we did not aspire to be a worldwide empire, but since we do, that is the price we pay
 
"demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves"

if you mean the wealthy, that is in line with classical capitalist economics. it would be great if we all could pay less taxes. It would be great if we did not aspire to be a worldwide empire, but since we do, that is the price we pay

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide some evidence that "Demanding Other People Pay Extra For Government While Exempting Themselves" is part of classical capitalist economics.
 
"demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves"

if you mean the wealthy, that is in line with classical capitalist economics. it would be great if we all could pay less taxes. It would be great if we did not aspire to be a worldwide empire, but since we do, that is the price we pay

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide some evidence that "Demanding Other People Pay Extra For Government While Exempting Themselves" is part of classical capitalist economics.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith

"...a tax merely proportionate to individual income would be far from equitable: and this is probably what Smith meant, by declaring it reasonable, that a rich man should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive." -- Jean-Baptiste Say
 
"What about those in government who do the same? That's the problem."

Oppressive governance is a problem whether it comes from the power of state, the power of mob, or the power of monied influence

That is precisely why the recognition of Unalienable Right's are so Important, in the preservation of Liberty and Justice, that and Clarity of Purpose.
 
"demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves"

if you mean the wealthy, that is in line with classical capitalist economics. it would be great if we all could pay less taxes. It would be great if we did not aspire to be a worldwide empire, but since we do, that is the price we pay

I call Shenanigans.

Please provide some evidence that "Demanding Other People Pay Extra For Government While Exempting Themselves" is part of classical capitalist economics.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith

"...a tax merely proportionate to individual income would be far from equitable: and this is probably what Smith meant, by declaring it reasonable, that a rich man should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive." -- Jean-Baptiste Say



These quotes don't support your position - they merely advocate for some progressivism in the tax code. They do not say that the tax burden should be borne solely by the rich.

Try again.
 
"What about those in government who do the same? That's the problem."

Oppressive governance is a problem whether it comes from the power of state, the power of mob, or the power of monied influence

That is precisely why the recognition of Unalienable Right's are so Important, in the preservation of Liberty and Justice, that and Clarity of Purpose.


Right, what Locke referred to as the Law of Nature and Jefferson called "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

"[E]quality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity...

...Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself... by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another"
 
"demanding other people pay extra to the government without doing so themselves"

if you mean the wealthy, that is in line with classical capitalist economics. it would be great if we all could pay less taxes. It would be great if we did not aspire to be a worldwide empire, but since we do, that is the price we pay

No, it's the price I pay. You aren't paying it and neither are the fucks in Washington.
 
"What about those in government who do the same? That's the problem."

Oppressive governance is a problem whether it comes from the power of state, the power of mob, or the power of monied influence

That is precisely why the recognition of Unalienable Right's are so Important, in the preservation of Liberty and Justice, that and Clarity of Purpose.


Right, what Locke referred to as the Law of Nature and Jefferson called "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

"[E]quality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity...

...Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself... by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another"

Again, by reason, not force of will or mandate, without the consent of the governed. Without respect of Private Property, there is no defense against Tyranny. There are limits to what we have a right to impose on each other.
 
I call Shenanigans.

Please provide some evidence that "Demanding Other People Pay Extra For Government While Exempting Themselves" is part of classical capitalist economics.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith

"...a tax merely proportionate to individual income would be far from equitable: and this is probably what Smith meant, by declaring it reasonable, that a rich man should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive." -- Jean-Baptiste Say



These quotes don't support your position - they merely advocate for some progressivism in the tax code. They do not say that the tax burden should be borne solely by the rich.

Try again.

Actually, the tax burden falls on the top 60 some percent of WAGE EARNERS. Very few of the rich are wage earners. The middle class gets the worst of both worlds, being saddled with both payroll taxes and income taxes (not to mention sales tax, gas tax, etc)
 
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith

"...a tax merely proportionate to individual income would be far from equitable: and this is probably what Smith meant, by declaring it reasonable, that a rich man should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive." -- Jean-Baptiste Say



These quotes don't support your position - they merely advocate for some progressivism in the tax code. They do not say that the tax burden should be borne solely by the rich.

Try again.

Actually, the tax burden falls on the top 60 some percent of WAGE EARNERS. Very few of the rich are wage earners. The middle class gets the worst of both worlds, being saddled with both payroll taxes and income taxes (not to mention sales tax, gas tax, etc)

Most of the Use Taxes and Surcharges we are all burdened by, though, that is more nondiscriminatory, as in you are generally charged by usage, not who you are.
 
"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith

"...a tax merely proportionate to individual income would be far from equitable: and this is probably what Smith meant, by declaring it reasonable, that a rich man should contribute to the public expenses not merely in proportion to the amount of his revenue, but even somewhat more. For my part, I have no hesitation in going further, and saying that taxation cannot be equitable unless its ratio is progressive." -- Jean-Baptiste Say



These quotes don't support your position - they merely advocate for some progressivism in the tax code. They do not say that the tax burden should be borne solely by the rich.

Try again.

Actually, the tax burden falls on the top 60 some percent of WAGE EARNERS. Very few of the rich are wage earners. The middle class gets the worst of both worlds, being saddled with both payroll taxes and income taxes (not to mention sales tax, gas tax, etc)


Non-responsive.

The topic was people demanding that others pay taxes from which they themselves are exempt.

Try again.
 
That is precisely why the recognition of Unalienable Right's are so Important, in the preservation of Liberty and Justice, that and Clarity of Purpose.


Right, what Locke referred to as the Law of Nature and Jefferson called "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"

"[E]quality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity...

...Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself... by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another"

Again, by reason, not force of will or mandate, without the consent of the governed. Without respect of Private Property, there is no defense against Tyranny. There are limits to what we have a right to impose on each other.

I believe that private property is a necessity positive right. Why did you think otherwise?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top