The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[Sallow]

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.

No actually he wouldn't. Washington was a true blue federalist.

 

[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

Which can be used to claim anything- such as a right to free internet for nappy headed children

Internet isn't a right, however, because somebody must provide the internet. The accumulation of wealth, however, doesn't aggress against anybody else's rights.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Ahahahahahaha!

You think Communist nations do not tax their subjects?

Their subjects have the heaviest tax of all - their lives have been made forfeit.

 

[The T]

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

The state is not necessary for a free market, but it is necessary for capitalism

Absolutely!

Wealth does NOT belong to the State. Get it through your head. The State exists to promote wealth creation and protect it not rob it.

That's the only necessary EVIL of government. It's a thing called Liberty. Perhaps you have heard of it?

Got it ACE?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

Conservatives love the government as much as liberals. Just because it's a conservative state doesn't mean that people would support privatizing police or fire departments.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

Marx and Engels would also agree. Is not the alienation of the proletariat a direct symptom of the loss of their right to the product of their labour through the empowerment of the capitalist through might and the blessing of the State to deny the common man the means to sustain himself so that he is dependent on the capitalist and reduced himself to mere commodities and assets to be purchased, traded, used, and manipulated in the pursuit of capital- and tossed aside when they wear out, like squishy little cogs in the capitalist machine?

 

[Agit8r]

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.

uh, huh... and the National Guard is what sort of an entity?

 

[Intense]

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.

KK You are confusing me. Come back down from the ledge Bro., it's not that bad. Take a deep breath, ... good... Government has a proper role in our lives, KK, it in fact is part of the Social Compact, without which, Anarchy would rule. You don't want that, KK. Let's just learn to focus more on Government by consent, and funding that.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Probably because the Accumulation of wealth has never been describe in the Constitution as a "right".

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Ahahahahahaha!

You think Communist nations do not tax their subjects?

Their subjects have the heaviest tax of all - their lives have been made forfeit.

Also in ALL Communist countries, nobody has an unalienable right to anything. If the government wants your property or your job or your life for ANY reason, it simply takes it. And you have no recourse. There is no freedom when government determines what the people will be allowed to have.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

The state is not necessary for a free market, but it is necessary for capitalism

Capitalism is a system based on the free market. No free market no capitalism. I believe you're mistaking corporatism for capitalism.

 

[Intense]

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.

uh, huh... and the National Guard is what sort of an entity?

California Guard would operate under the Governor's Authority. What's your trip Grumpy?... or is it Sneezy?

 

[The T]

That's fine. There are many low tax or no tax nations to choose from. Most are Communist or have no government.

Ahahahahahaha!

You think Communist nations do not tax their subjects?

Their subjects have the heaviest tax of all - their lives have been made forfeit.

Also in ALL Communist countries, nobody has an unalienable right to anything. If the government wants your property or your job or your life for ANY reason, it simply takes it. And you have no recourse. There is no freedom when government determines what the people will be allowed to have.

I think the OP has gotten in deeper than even he imagined. Shows how uneducated he is.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Ahahahahahaha!

You think Communist nations do not tax their subjects?

Their subjects have the heaviest tax of all - their lives have been made forfeit.

They don't have taxes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

It's hard to have a good discussion, as you've claimed you wanted, when you throw out ridiculous posts like this.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

Only people have rights. States have only powers and authority.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

Probably because the Accumulation of wealth has never been describe in the Constitution as a "right".

the 9th amendment would seem to be protecting those rights that were recognized prior to the constitution. So NOT corporate sovereignty

 

[Intense]

That's fine. There are many low tax or no tax nations to choose from. Most are Communist or have no government.

Ahahahahahaha!

You think Communist nations do not tax their subjects?

Their subjects have the heaviest tax of all - their lives have been made forfeit.

Also in ALL Communist countries, nobody has an unalienable right to anything. If the government wants your property or your job or your life for ANY reason, it simply takes it. And you have no recourse. There is no freedom when government determines what the people will be allowed to have.

Not too many Countries recognize Unalienable Rights. They generally don't like to admit to competing with God for Undying Devotion.

 

[JBeukema]

I don't believe that the framers or their documents actually say this.

Is this world for the living or the dead? Are we to be ruled by the dead, to be governed by corpses as North Korea?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

KK You are confusing me. Come back down from the ledge Bro., it's not that bad. Take a deep breath, ... good... Government has a proper role in our lives, KK, it in fact is part of the Social Compact, without which, Anarchy would rule. You don't want that, KK. Let's just learn to focus more on Government by consent, and funding that.

What do you call it when a person or organization takes money that they have no right to? I call it theft.