The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[Kevin_Kennedy]

[

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.

Yeah right. Politics doesn't always do what is economically sensible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

They don't charge the "true costs" because nobody would use them if they did. They'd lose even more money.

 

[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.

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

Time after time it has been proven that the bigger and more intrusive the government, the less freedom people have, and inevitably, the size of government crushes the society.

Governments running the private sector are more lethal to their citizens that ones with limited power in which the private sector is free to perform its role.

 

[Sallow]

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?

Falls under the Commerce clause as enumerated as one of the powers of Congress.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Well, that pretty much sums up the Leftwing Agenda. Take away all of a person's productive output and give them slave level subsistence crumbs.

Thanks for being honest.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Falls under the Commerce clause as enumerated as one of the powers of Congress.

The commerce clause which was simply intended to make the United States a free trade zone for the individual states, and nothing more.

 

[boedicca]

Sallow is becoming a parody of leftwing sophistry regarding the meaning of the Constitution.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Time after time it has been proven that the bigger and more intrusive the government, the less freedom people have, and inevitably, the size of government crushes the society.

Governments running the private sector are more lethal to their citizens that ones with limited power in which the private sector is free to perform its role.

Monarchies, Aristocracies, Facism and Oligarchies are all examples of private sector run governments. None are elected..and most are brought to power by wealth.

 

[Agit8r]

It is so ironic that so many of those who claim to be against state power admit to an UNLIMITED recognition of property. A matter that inevitably leads to the oppressive police state needed to maintain it

<a href="http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/Agit8r_2009/?action=view&amp;current=SWAT1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/Agit8r_2009/SWAT1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Time after time it has been proven that the bigger and more intrusive the government, the less freedom people have, and inevitably, the size of government crushes the society.

Governments running the private sector are more lethal to their citizens that ones with limited power in which the private sector is free to perform its role.

Monarchies, Aristocracies, Facism and Oligarchies are all examples of private sector run governments. None are elected..and most are brought to power by wealth.

No, they're not. I'm not even sure there's such a thing as a private-sector run government. The state always operates outside the realm of the private sector, so I'm of the opinion that that would have to be an oxymoron.

 

[boedicca]

Monarchies, Aristocracies, Facism and Oligarchies are all examples of private sector run governments. None are elected..and most are brought to power by wealth.

No they are not.

You really are a moron.

 

[Sallow]

Sallow is becoming a parody of leftwing sophistry regarding the meaning of the Constitution.

I'd hope that I could bring a thread into this board that didn't have to result in personal insults and hyperbole.

Oh well.

It's a pretty cut and dried point to argue..and you have a wealth of information at your fingertips to back up your points if you need to..

Sometimes..I like to inspire cognition and research.

This argument got the juices flowing for me.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is so ironic that so many of those who claim to be against state power admit to an UNLIMITED recognition of property. A matter that inevitably leads to the oppressive police state needed to maintain it

<a href="http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/Agit8r_2009/?action=view&amp;current=SWAT1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/Agit8r_2009/SWAT1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Property rights are the basis of all rights, and indeed human liberty in general.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Monarchies, Aristocracies, Facism and Oligarchies are all examples of private sector run governments. None are elected..and most are brought to power by wealth.

No they are not.

You really are a moron.

There's really no need to call Sallow a moron because he has a different opinion.

 

[Sallow]

Monarchies, Aristocracies, Facism and Oligarchies are all examples of private sector run governments. None are elected..and most are brought to power by wealth.

No they are not.

You really are a moron.

And bob's your uncle.

The rote is strong in this one..Obi wan.

 

[boedicca]

Sallow is becoming a parody of leftwing sophistry regarding the meaning of the Constitution.

I'd hope that I could bring a thread into this board that didn't have to result in personal insults and hyperbole.

Oh well.

It's a pretty cut and dried point to argue..and you have a wealth of information at your fingertips to back up your points if you need to..

Sometimes..I like to inspire cognition and research.

This argument got the juices flowing for me.

You are just parroting gross misinterpretations of the meaning of The Constitution spun by the progressive left.

 

[Sallow]

It is so ironic that so many of those who claim to be against state power admit to an UNLIMITED recognition of property. A matter that inevitably leads to the oppressive police state needed to maintain it

<a href="http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/Agit8r_2009/?action=view&amp;current=SWAT1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/Agit8r_2009/SWAT1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Property rights are the basis of all rights, and indeed human liberty in general.

Madison and Locke would agree with you. They would also agree to be free everyone needs access to accumlate property. They just don't agree on how to implement that.

 

[Agit8r]

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?

Corporations and other vast accumulations of property REQUIRE state action for their existence. They COULD NOT exist in the theoretical "natural state." Government needn't be authorized a responsibility to withhold it's hand, but merely to extend it

 

[loosecannon]

It is so ironic that so many of those who claim to be against state power admit to an UNLIMITED recognition of property. A matter that inevitably leads to the oppressive police state needed to maintain it

<a href="http://s761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/Agit8r_2009/?action=view&amp;current=SWAT1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i761.photobucket.com/albums/xx257/Agit8r_2009/SWAT1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

Property rights are the basis of all rights, and indeed human liberty in general.

which is why the constitution delineated personhood rights but only protected property in limited fashion and only from the federal government.

The rights of property often conflict directly with the rights of persons. Hence the hierarchy the constitution asserted.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Stripping select citizens of their wealth is not in the Constitution either. In fact the Constitution is clear that taxes must be uniform through out the Country. I would suggest that in fact progressive taxation is Unconstitutional by that requirement.

I know the argument is that tax tables are uniform for all that fall with in them but the underlying requirement that taxes must be uniform is violated. Progressive rates are NOT uniform. The man that makes 60000 is not required by the Federal Government to pay the same percentage on his earnings as the man that makes 1 million.

In fact before Federal Income tax the States paid the same percentage based solely on Population. THAT was uniform.

The Commerce clause may allow the Government the power to strip Corporations of their right to exist but it is NOT the intent of the power. It is to REGULATE trade and commerce, not prevent it.

The problem we have now is not the accumulation of wealth at all but the desire by many to TAKE what is not theirs for the supposed betterment of others. The problem we have now is the envy of those with less for the wealth of those with plenty.