The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Was watching the PBS show "Open Mind" where a Conservative lawyer and a Liberal Professor were debating the Citizen's United case. There were many interesting points made on both sides. The professor pointed out that Citizen's United opened up a secret conduit for corporations to fund candidates they wanted and was dangerous to free speech. The Lawyer pointed out that it was Liberals that wanted the non-disclosure loophole and it was an "unintended consequence" that people like Rove exploited it. He pointed out that Unions, George Soros and the ACLU use the very same method.

Then something interesting happened. The professor tried to point out that the use of money to pay for speech is action..not speech..and is not protected by the Constitution. He also had previously brought up that corporations were not protected as a collective entity but the press were.

The case he brought up was:

United States v. O'Brien - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The lawyer's rebuttal was what I found pretty poignant. He did not want government interference with the free expression of ideas. He said that when governments around the world become involved in setting the limits of speech..the outcomes are usually pretty bad. What he suggested was that the accumlation of wealth was the problem and not the speech. Government does have the power to limit that through progressive taxation or eliminate the corporate entity itself...through anti-trust. While I've basically felt the same way..I never thought it quite in those terms. That the accumlation of wealth is not protected by the United States Constitution.

And that came from the Conservative. I really miss that sort of thing. Intelligent conservative thought. Willam Buckley was a favorite of mine. So far no one really comes quite close.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

There's nothing intelligent about saying the Constitution gives the government the right to pillage the people.

Pillage?

No.

Regulate?

Absolutely.

So you would define it as "regulation" when a thief walks up to you with a gun and says "Your money or your life"?

 

[boedicca]

OK YOU don't understand that amendment.

So show us where in that amendment the "right" to accumulation of wealth is illustrated.

Accumulation and preservation are not the same btw, and even preservation of wealth in this nation is constitutionally limited.

Orwellian sophistry on your part.

Once someone earns or acquires income, it becomes part of his wealth at that moment.

your is the sophistry. Demonstrate where the amendment protects rights of wealth accumulation. It doesn't. Since it doesn't produce case law where a court ruled otherwise. You can't.

The states protect rights of wealth accumulation, not the feds, and those rights are limited rights.

Where does the Constitution prohibit accumulation of wealth?

You clearly do not understand that the document enumerates and limits the power of government. A foundational principle underlying the Constitution is that there is no liberty without property rights. To think that the government has the right to prevent a free people's ability to accumulate property is complete and utter nonsense.

 

[loosecannon]

Where does the Constitution prohibit accumulation of wealth?

Nobody made a claim that remotely resembles that question.

You obviously can't argue your position. The amendment does not say what you claim it does, and you can't produce case law.

 

[Sallow]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

There's nothing intelligent about saying the Constitution gives the government the right to pillage the people.

Pillage?

No.

Regulate?

Absolutely.

So you would define it as "regulation" when a thief walks up to you with a gun and says "Your money or your life"?

No..I would define your example as hyperbole.

Clearly Monopolies are the quickest way to accumlate wealth within an economy that is inherently capitalistic. Consequently..it destroys capitalism. So preventing a monopoly is in the interest of maintaining a capitalistic economy. That is an example of regulation against rapid accumlation and concentration of wealth.

 

[Sallow]

Where does the Constitution prohibit accumulation of wealth?

Nobody made a claim that remotely resembles that question.

You obviously can't argue your position. The amendment does say what you claim it does, and you can't produce case law.

Which sort of answers the question of why people don't understand the concept of "negative liberties" defined in the Constitution.

 

[Agit8r]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

There's nothing intelligent about saying the Constitution gives the government the right to pillage the people.

Pillage?

No.

Regulate?

Absolutely.

So you would define it as "regulation" when a thief walks up to you with a gun and says "Your money or your life"?

If we are talking about the "rights" of corporations, they were intended--at the time of our constitutional convention--to serve the function enumerated in their charters. There was never any rights for collective entities, but only individuals (states of course were enumerated no rights, but merely reserved certain powers)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Pillage?

No.

Regulate?

Absolutely.

So you would define it as "regulation" when a thief walks up to you with a gun and says "Your money or your life"?

No..I would define your example as hyperbole.

Clearly Monopolies are the quickest way to accumlate wealth within an economy that is inherently capitalistic. Consequently..it destroys capitalism. So preventing a monopoly is in the interest of maintaining a capitalistic economy. That is an example of regulation against rapid accumlation and concentration of wealth.

My example is exactly what a government does in collecting taxes. You can either pay them what they have not rightfully earned, or you can go to prison, or defend your property and be killed.

Yes, monopolies would be. Unfortunately only the state can create a monopoly as they don't happen inherently in a free market.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Pillage?

No.

Regulate?

Absolutely.

So you would define it as "regulation" when a thief walks up to you with a gun and says "Your money or your life"?

If we are talking about the "rights" of corporations, they were intended--at the time of our constitutional convention--to serve the function enumerated in their charters. There was never any rights for collective entities, but only individuals (states of course were enumerated no rights, but merely reserved certain powers)

We are talking about the rights of individuals to form corporations if they so choose.

 

[loosecannon]

Unfortunately only the state can create a monopoly as they don't happen inherently in a free market.

That is actually a really good point. And only the state can distribute the divine right of bankers. Banks and corporations are both creations of the state(s).

 

[Sallow]

So you would define it as "regulation" when a thief walks up to you with a gun and says "Your money or your life"?

No..I would define your example as hyperbole.

Clearly Monopolies are the quickest way to accumlate wealth within an economy that is inherently capitalistic. Consequently..it destroys capitalism. So preventing a monopoly is in the interest of maintaining a capitalistic economy. That is an example of regulation against rapid accumlation and concentration of wealth.

My example is exactly what a government does in collecting taxes. You can either pay them what they have not rightfully earned, or you can go to prison, or defend your property and be killed.

Yes, monopolies would be. Unfortunately only the state can create a monopoly as they don't happen inherently in a free market.

Absolutely not. Government provides services that we all must pay for..and does it at a cost that is much less then having to do it..or pay for it yourself. It's ridiculous to hold the notion that running and maintaining a country is somehow without cost.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No..I would define your example as hyperbole.

Clearly Monopolies are the quickest way to accumlate wealth within an economy that is inherently capitalistic. Consequently..it destroys capitalism. So preventing a monopoly is in the interest of maintaining a capitalistic economy. That is an example of regulation against rapid accumlation and concentration of wealth.

My example is exactly what a government does in collecting taxes. You can either pay them what they have not rightfully earned, or you can go to prison, or defend your property and be killed.

Yes, monopolies would be. Unfortunately only the state can create a monopoly as they don't happen inherently in a free market.

Absolutely not. Government provides services that we all must pay for..and does it at a cost that is much less then having to do it..or pay for it yourself. It's ridiculous to hold the notion that running and maintaining a country is somehow without cost.

A cost much less than it would be on the market? Not likely. Government is inherently wasteful, whereas the market is efficient and the natural tendency is for prices to fall. Look at the Post Office. Not exactly a model of efficiency. Or Amtrak which has never turned a profit. The "services" the government forces us to pay for, whether we use them or not, would be better provided by the market.

 

[boedicca]

[

Absolutely not. Government provides services that we all must pay for..and does it at a cost that is much less then having to do it..or pay for it yourself. It's ridiculous to hold the notion that running and maintaining a country is somehow without cost.

This comment pins the bogometer.

Government is incredibly inefficient and provides services as a much higher cost than what could be done by the private secgtor.

 

[Agit8r]

So you would define it as "regulation" when a thief walks up to you with a gun and says "Your money or your life"?

If we are talking about the "rights" of corporations, they were intended--at the time of our constitutional convention--to serve the function enumerated in their charters. There was never any rights for collective entities, but only individuals (states of course were enumerated no rights, but merely reserved certain powers)

We are talking about the rights of individuals to form corporations if they so choose.

The ability to form a corporation is a positive liberty afforded by government, and as such ought to be limited

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Absolutely not. Government provides services that we all must pay for..and does it at a cost that is much less then having to do it..or pay for it yourself. It's ridiculous to hold the notion that running and maintaining a country is somehow without cost.

This comment pins the bogometer.

Government is incredibly inefficient and provides services as a much higher cost than what could be done by the private secgtor.

If that were true then 99% of the police forces, fire departments, and public works depts in this country would have been privatized by now.

 

[Sallow]

My example is exactly what a government does in collecting taxes. You can either pay them what they have not rightfully earned, or you can go to prison, or defend your property and be killed.

Yes, monopolies would be. Unfortunately only the state can create a monopoly as they don't happen inherently in a free market.

Absolutely not. Government provides services that we all must pay for..and does it at a cost that is much less then having to do it..or pay for it yourself. It's ridiculous to hold the notion that running and maintaining a country is somehow without cost.

A cost much less than it would be on the market? Not likely. Government is inherently wasteful, whereas the market is efficient and the natural tendency is for prices to fall. Look at the Post Office. Not exactly a model of efficiency. Or Amtrak which has never turned a profit. The "services" the government forces us to pay for, whether we use them or not, would be better provided by the market.

The post office is Constitutionally mandated and actually functions amazingly well. They are just not allowed to charge the true cost of their services hence the shortfalls. Same with Amtrak. Rail in industrialized nations around the world far surpass our own. But rail here is constantly besieged by energy (big oil) and trucking lobbyists.

Government does a great deal better at cost control then the private industry. Where it gets into trouble with cost..is when it actually makes deals with the private sector. That's when it gets fleeced.

 

[boedicca]

Are you kidding? Public employee unions and career politician have a racquet.

 

[Sallow]

[

Absolutely not. Government provides services that we all must pay for..and does it at a cost that is much less then having to do it..or pay for it yourself. It's ridiculous to hold the notion that running and maintaining a country is somehow without cost.

This comment pins the bogometer.

Government is incredibly inefficient and provides services as a much higher cost than what could be done by the private secgtor.

Time after time that notion has been proven to be false...and governments run by the private sector are horrible places to live.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If we are talking about the "rights" of corporations, they were intended--at the time of our constitutional convention--to serve the function enumerated in their charters. There was never any rights for collective entities, but only individuals (states of course were enumerated no rights, but merely reserved certain powers)

We are talking about the rights of individuals to form corporations if they so choose.

The ability to form a corporation is a positive liberty afforded by government, and as such ought to be limited

Unfortunately the Constitution does not give the government that responsibility. I've asked you this before, but where is the authority for the government to require a license for anything?

 

[Sallow]

Are you kidding? Public employee unions and career politician have a racquet.

The lawyer in the show referenced Unions and Soros..

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since the federal income tax is constitutionally protected, and since the federal income tax rate is not constitutionally limited,

then technically speaking, the OP is absolutely correct.