The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

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.

Unbelivable isn't it? All persuit of Happiness [property], belongs to Gubmint in their world.
 
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.

Unbelivable isn't it? All persuit of Happiness [property], belongs to Gubmint in their world.

Where exactly do you derive that?
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate or control the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

Freedom loving people for the most part want government to secure their rights and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have. By no other means are the people able to cooperate with one another and remain free.
 
Last edited:
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


Which can be used to claim anything- such as a right to free internet for nappy headed children
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

No..it's not that binary.
 
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.

well then you won't mind if they store their money in switzerland then will you?

please go away. :lol:

no
 
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.

From Locke's teachings, Life, Liberty, and Property, were considered Unalienable Rights, The Pursuit of Happiness is considered to include Property. Your argument is a fail. When any of those Rights are in jeopardy, tyranny results. There is no true excuse for injustice. I think you search too hard, for something that's just not there Sallow.
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

And yet, what entity restrains the power of the mob to invade another's property?
 
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.

The most conservative of conservative states in this country don't have private for-profit police forces.

If this is such a brilliant idea, how do you explain that?
 
If we're going to quote founders:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. (John Adams)

Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty. (John Adams)

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (James Madison)
The only good Adams is a Sam

BostonLagerPintGlass.jpg



Personally, I'm more an early Jefferson supporter.
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

And yet, what entity restrains the power of the mob to invade another's property?

Reason, and when that fails, The owner of said property, and those supportive of justice.
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate or control the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

Freedom loving people for the most part want government to secure their rights and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have. By no other means are the people able to cooperate with one another and remain free.

All you seem to know about the "left" is what Rush told you, right? Because you clearly don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

You guys don't trust government (except the military, but that's a different argument).

I don't trust the government either. But I trust Corporations even less.
 
No he doesn't - and neither do you.

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.

Try using that defense in court after robbing a bank...
 
If we're going to quote founders:

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free. (John Adams)

Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty. (John Adams)

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own. (James Madison)
The only good Adams is a Sam

BostonLagerPintGlass.jpg



Personally, I'm more an early Jefferson supporter.


Late Jefferson is good too :)

I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan (Nov. 16, 1916)
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate or control the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

Freedom loving people for the most part want government to secure their rights and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have. By no other means are the people able to cooperate with one another and remain free.

All you seem to know about the "left" is what Rush told you, right? Because you clearly don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

You guys don't trust government (except the military, but that's a different argument).

I don't trust the government either. But I trust Corporations even less.

I don't trust where it is not earned either, but I'll tell you this, you can fight injustice by the Corporations a hell of allot more effectively than you can fight Totalitarianism.
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate or control the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

Freedom loving people for the most part want government to secure their rights and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have. By no other means are the people able to cooperate with one another and remain free.

All you seem to know about the "left" is what Rush told you, right? Because you clearly don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

You guys don't trust government (except the military, but that's a different argument).

I don't trust the government either. But I trust Corporations even less.

There's no need for that.

The argument here is whether the accumlation of wealth is a right. The conservative lawyer on the show said it wasn't.

Lets stay on topic.
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate or control the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

Freedom loving people for the most part want government to secure their rights and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have. By no other means are the people able to cooperate with one another and remain free.

If the right came down on the side of statement 2 they wouldn't be cheering the GOP minority in the Senate using the filibuster to thwart the legitimate will of the People's Majority in the Senate.
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate or control the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

Freedom loving people for the most part want government to secure their rights and then leave them alone to form whatever society they wish to have. By no other means are the people able to cooperate with one another and remain free.

All you seem to know about the "left" is what Rush told you, right? Because you clearly don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

You guys don't trust government (except the military, but that's a different argument).

I don't trust the government either. But I trust Corporations even less.

There's no need for that.

The argument here is whether the accumlation of wealth is a right. The conservative lawyer on the show said it wasn't.

Lets stay on topic.

I'll reserve the right to respond to any comment I like.

But in terms of the OP, I agree with the Conservative lawyer. That much should be obvious.
 
It all comes down to one of two points of view.

1. You see the government as the owner of all and the entity with rightful power to determine and limit what the people will have.

2. You see the people as the owner of all and given power to determine and limit what power the government will have.

Those on the left generally come down more closely with Statement #1.

Those on the right generally come down more closely with Statement #2.

The Founders, to a man, came down more closely with Statement #2 because they were determined to build a nation with no king, no dictatorship, no totalitarian powers that would dictate the fortunes of the people. Such governments have never recognized nor respected unalienable rights. When the government holds the property instead of the people, the people have no guaranteed freedoms at all.

And yet, what entity restrains the power of the mob to invade another's property?



Having the government act as a bigger and more lethal mob is not the answer, bub.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top