The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

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.

The Police do. It's the arm of the state.

Please..I respect you..but keep it real.
 
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.

He is wrong. He is entitled to his opinion. Since when do you give a rat's ass about what conservatives thing anyway???
 
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.

Making suggestions..not demands..

And the latter is fun..no?

I agreed with Willam Buckley more often then not.
 
[

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.


Governments run by the private sektor are called colonies... or fascism, depending on the flavour
 
"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?

I emboldened it for you. Think the Declaration Of Independence...Followed by the Articles Of Confederation...the ensuing Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers...

Property is an inalienable right. It's kinda the reason we got entagled with the British Crown in the first place...and find ourselves beyond that point NOW with our own government. Only the property isn't going to a crown but a bunch of elitists and those that sit on their asses with their hands out demanding it.
 
Last edited:
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?


Funny how you pick one of the few areas which are the proper scope of government.

Yet there is a veritable plethora of nonsensical waste in the social engineering and income transfer efforts of government which you ignore.
 
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

Well that's a ridiculous notion, but yes the government must be authorized by the Constitution to do anything.

Ridiculous by what argument?

Ridiculous that you claim the state is necessary for the free market, when it is the state that aggresses against the free market.
 
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.

During the Shays Rebellion, the Militia was called out... by the state

During the L.A. riots of '92, the government of L.A. withheld it's hand, and the mobs ran roughshod over property.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary" -- from Federalist #51
 
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.

:eusa_eh:

Some externalities are infinitively more important than what's 'economically sensible', fascist
 
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.

Your argument makes no sense. The Senate is entitled to make It's own rules, which It has done. Oh, I get it, only Democrats can benefit by those rules, not Republican's. That is only fair, right? Grow a spine. ;)
 
[

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.

For every dollar spend on private health insurance in this country, $0.35 gets spent on medical services.

For every dollar spent on Medicare and Medicaid, $0.95 goes to medical services.

How can you claim that the "Private sector" is more efficient?
 
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.

He is wrong. He is entitled to his opinion. Since when do you give a rat's ass about what conservatives thing anyway???

Well being Liberal..like George Washington or Daniel Moynihan or Walter Cronkrite or Edward Murrow..one must be open to all ideas and opinions.

That's what makes me give a "rat's ass"..
 
Well that's a ridiculous notion, but yes the government must be authorized by the Constitution to do anything.

and the states get authorization to charter corps from the 10th amendment.

You appear to believe that governments have no right to tax citizens, is that true?

I believe that all taxation is theft.

That's fine. There are many low tax or no tax nations to choose from. Most are Communist or have no government.
 
This is not really a thread about taxes. It's about the notion that the Accumlation of wealth is somehow a protected right.

This was brought up by an conservative lawyer on the show "Open Mind". Although..like other threads, I welcome free thinking.

But it is my hope this doesn't degrade into partisan sniping. So far so good. And my grats to most of the people posting in this thread so far..

Particularly loosecannon..Agit8r..and Kevin_Kennedy.

It's the sort of debate I was looking for.

I would argue that the accumulation of wealth is simply an extension of property rights, and therefore most certainly protected. However, if you want the specific location where the accumulation of wealth is protected, in and of itself, you need look no further than the 9th Amendment as I pointed out in my first post. I don't believe that the 9th was ever addressed.
 
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.

During the Shays Rebellion, the Militia was called out... by the state

During the L.A. riots of '92, the government of L.A. withheld it's hand, and the mobs ran roughshod over property.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary" -- from Federalist #51

During the L.A. riots of '92, the government of L.A. withheld it's hand, and the mobs ran roughshod over property.

Until the National Guard fixed it.
 
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.

He is wrong. He is entitled to his opinion. Since when do you give a rat's ass about what conservatives thing anyway???

Well being Liberal..like George Washington or Daniel Moynihan or Walter Cronkrite or Edward Murrow..one must be open to all ideas and opinions.

That's what makes me give a "rat's ass"..

Washington would have issues with the rest of the rubes you list.

Nice try at a false equation.
 
[

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.

For every dollar spend on private health insurance in this country, $0.35 gets spent on medical services.

For every dollar spent on Medicare and Medicaid, $0.95 goes to medical services.

How can you claim that the "Private sector" is more efficient?


The cost to the private sector is highly inflated due to subsidizing government funded health care - and given the heavy burden of regulation, it is hardly what anyone would describe as free market driven.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top