The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[Foxfyre]

You're free to leave.

Or to not work.

Just as I am free to say no to your existence in my community and leave for someplace you are not.

As do you if you do not like the way the social contract has been written.

My argument is that it is not the people who are writing the social contract these days and they are increasingly losing their power and ability to do so.

Would you say that Rosa Parks was a free woman that day on the bus? Could she have just chosen not to ride the bus and there would have been no trouble whatsoever? Or is she free only by demanding an unalienable right to be subject equally to the law as everybody else?

Are you free when somebody else has the power to determine how much of your labor you will be allowed to have, if any? When somebody else determines how big a house you can have or how large your bank account can be or how much health care you are entitled to have? A government with power to determine that also has enough power to tell you that you are entitled to nothing at all and completely impoverish you.

That is not freedom. That is serfdom, slavery, total dependence on the whims and benevolence of a power you are powerless to oppose.

That is not what our Founders intended for us here in America.

Marx would agree.

Except that Marx WANTED that government who would dictate what everybody would have so that the rich could be brought low and the income distributed evenly throughout out--each according to his needs, remember? The thing that Marx never understood is that once government has that kind of power, it will not willingly relinquish it. The serfdom/slavery intended to be a temporary phase becomes permanent.

And this is what I think those who have this insane envy or hatred toward the rich simply do not understand. You bring down the rich, everybody is made poor. And to accomplish that you create a totalitarian government with every incentive to keep them that way.

I wish history and concepts of government were better taught in our schools these days.

 

[Revere]

This country is pretty free in that if you don't agree with the rules..you can leave.

There are a good deal of countries that DON'T allow that.

North Korea is a prime example.

Noplace is perfect, but we're definitely one of the better ones.

So we have no grounds for complaint until they start shooting us?

 

[JBeukema]

I don't recall ever pledging allegiance to my government.

Your choice of words is interesting

So is your lack of punctuation.

You must be loyal to it, for you claim it as your own.

'my government', not 'the government'

 

[JFK_USA]

The accumulation of wealth is absolutely protected by the Constiution so long as the unalienable, civil, legal, and Constitutional rights of others are not violated. That's what the anti-trust and RICO laws are intended to do: protect the rights of everybody and establish what will be unlawful conduct by business and enterprise.

There is no freedom without the right to lawfully and ethically acquire however much property one's ability and desire will allow, however. The minute government can decide how much is 'enough' for anybody, we have no freedoms at all.

Progressive taxation, in my opinion, goes against the intent of the Constitution and in many ways is counter productive in what it is intended to accomplish.

Freedom loving people should be asking how much is necessary to have an effective, efficient, and fiscally responsible government rather than how much should anybody be allowed to earn.

Freedom loving people? Please. You have no clue what its like being poor, how little freedom you have when your poor. You can't not work because you have bills to pay. Its a vicious cycle because you ask for a raise for your hard work and they laugh at you while prices go up every damn day. Can't keep the lights or heat on because the cost is too much because people don't have an option.

What the republican solution? Take away all their freedoms and life lines.

You can't say they are for freedom, they hate freedom for the poor, they want to create dependency on the rich, not the government. It makes sense, make it dependent on the rich, they don't vote against the rich. The government stands up for the people, that is why it is great.

You want freedom? Demand a living wage for all. A living wage that is enough to take care of all expenses for everyone so all people can have the freedom to do what they want. Freedom is not one sided, its for all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your choice of words is interesting

So is your lack of punctuation.

You must be loyal to it, for you claim it as your own.

'my government', not 'the government'

You got me. I'm 100% loyal to my criminal organization.

 

[boedicca]

You want freedom? Demand a living wage for all. A living wage that is enough to take care of all expenses for everyone so all people can have the freedom to do what they want. Freedom is not one sided, its for all.

Your definition of freedom is to destroy freedom for some for the benefit of your special interest group.

Try again.

 

[JBeukema]

As do you if you do not like the way the social contract has been written.

My argument is that it is not the people who are writing the social contract these days and they are increasingly losing their power and ability to do so.

Would you say that Rosa Parks was a free woman that day on the bus? Could she have just chosen not to ride the bus and there would have been no trouble whatsoever? Or is she free only by demanding an unalienable right to be subject equally to the law as everybody else?

Are you free when somebody else has the power to determine how much of your labor you will be allowed to have, if any? When somebody else determines how big a house you can have or how large your bank account can be or how much health care you are entitled to have? A government with power to determine that also has enough power to tell you that you are entitled to nothing at all and completely impoverish you.

That is not freedom. That is serfdom, slavery, total dependence on the whims and benevolence of a power you are powerless to oppose.

That is not what our Founders intended for us here in America.

Marx would agree.

Except that Marx WANTED that government

I'm gonna stop you right there.Read the Communist Manifesto and the other pamphlets. Marx/Engels ultimately sought to dissolution of the nation-state completely. As do most communists. In reality, the differences between Marxists, anarch-syndicalists, and anarcho-socialists are slight and largely semantic, insomuch as they ultimately seek the same basic thing in the end.

You seem to have taken your understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat from Limbaugh and PoliticalChic

 

[JBeukema]

This country is pretty free in that if you don't agree with the rules..you can leave.

There are a good deal of countries that DON'T allow that.

North Korea is a prime example.

Noplace is perfect, but we're definitely one of the better ones.

So we have no grounds for complaint until they start shooting us?

Are you retarded? I complain all the time. Just read a random sampling of my posts; I'm always calling for reform.

 

[JBeukema]

So is your lack of punctuation.

You must be loyal to it, for you claim it as your own.

'my government', not 'the government'

You got me. I'm 100% loyal to my criminal organization.

Meaningless babble. You reject the State and the Law. Ergo such legal terms as 'criminal' mean nothing.


You can't have it both ways.

 

[The T]

As do you if you do not like the way the social contract has been written.

My argument is that it is not the people who are writing the social contract these days and they are increasingly losing their power and ability to do so.

Would you say that Rosa Parks was a free woman that day on the bus? Could she have just chosen not to ride the bus and there would have been no trouble whatsoever? Or is she free only by demanding an unalienable right to be subject equally to the law as everybody else?

Are you free when somebody else has the power to determine how much of your labor you will be allowed to have, if any? When somebody else determines how big a house you can have or how large your bank account can be or how much health care you are entitled to have? A government with power to determine that also has enough power to tell you that you are entitled to nothing at all and completely impoverish you.

That is not freedom. That is serfdom, slavery, total dependence on the whims and benevolence of a power you are powerless to oppose.

That is not what our Founders intended for us here in America.

Marx would agree.

Except that Marx WANTED that government who would dictate what everybody would have so that the rich could be brought low and the income distributed evenly throughout out--each according to his needs, remember? The thing that Marx never understood is that once government has that kind of power, it will not willingly relinquish it. The serfdom/slavery intended to be a temporary phase becomes permanent.

And this is what I think those who have this insane envy or hatred toward the rich simply do not understand. You bring down the rich, everybody is made poor. And to accomplish that you create a totalitarian government with every incentive to keep them that way.

I wish history and concepts of government were better taught in our schools these days.

And thus ALL become slaves unto the government and the government's aims...not the individual.

In marx's world? The Individual is just but a cog in a machine. MARX never understood true human behaviour. But then Marx was a spoiled, unfulfilled rich kid anyway...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You must be loyal to it, for you claim it as your own.

'my government', not 'the government'

You got me. I'm 100% loyal to my criminal organization.

Meaningless babble. You reject the State and the Law. Ergo such legal terms as 'criminal' mean nothing.


You can't have it both ways.

Meaningless babble is you locking onto me saying "my government" as if it were relevant to anything.

 

[boedicca]

Meaningless babble is JB's specialty.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution doesn't specifically mention a right to breath - so does that give the Feds the right to smother you?

LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Grow up.

Then explain how confiscatory taxes do not transgress life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you pathetic moron. And then tell us where that phrase is found in The Constitution.

There is no Constitutional guarantee of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are merely figurative expressions of non-specific concepts.

What is Constitutional is what the People say is Constitutional, or more precisely, what the People make Constitutional.

 

[Sallow]

LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Grow up.

Then explain how confiscatory taxes do not transgress life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you pathetic moron. And then tell us where that phrase is found in The Constitution.

There is no Constitutional guarantee of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are merely figurative expressions of non-specific concepts.

What is Constitutional is what the People say is Constitutional, or more precisely, what the People make Constitutional.

Sure there is..

That falls under the "General Welfare" clause. It's part of the powers invested in Congress.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Grow up.

Then explain how confiscatory taxes do not transgress life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you pathetic moron. And then tell us where that phrase is found in The Constitution.

There is no Constitutional guarantee of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are merely figurative expressions of non-specific concepts.

What is Constitutional is what the People say is Constitutional, or more precisely, what the People make Constitutional.

And yet you have not even proposed amendments to cover the social programs you retards want to rape American works with taxes for.

 

[The T]

LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Grow up.

Then explain how confiscatory taxes do not transgress life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you pathetic moron. And then tell us where that phrase is found in The Constitution.

There is no Constitutional guarantee of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are merely figurative expressions of non-specific concepts.

What is Constitutional is what the People say is Constitutional, or more precisely, what the People make Constitutional.

Really? Then we for over 200 plus years has been a ******* LIE...
That is what you are saying...and it shows your ******* stupidity Carbonated.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Then explain how confiscatory taxes do not transgress life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you pathetic moron. And then tell us where that phrase is found in The Constitution.

There is no Constitutional guarantee of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are merely figurative expressions of non-specific concepts.

What is Constitutional is what the People say is Constitutional, or more precisely, what the People make Constitutional.

Sure there is..

That falls under the "General Welfare" clause. It's part of the powers invested in Congress.

No such clause exists. Go ahead name for us a single power used by Congress that they have EVER claimed such a clause.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sallow clearly doesn't get the 5th Amendment.

That and a great many other things.... just another Fabian Socialist.

 

[Sallow]

Then explain how confiscatory taxes do not transgress life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you pathetic moron. And then tell us where that phrase is found in The Constitution.

There is no Constitutional guarantee of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are merely figurative expressions of non-specific concepts.

What is Constitutional is what the People say is Constitutional, or more precisely, what the People make Constitutional.

Really? Then we for over 200 plus years has been a ******* LIE...
That is what you are saying...and it shows your ******* stupidity Carbonated.

This is so ridiculous. He didn't lie.

Good on you calling a fellow American "a liar" instead of pointing out what he got wrong.

You feeling patriotic now?

My feeling is..if you see a fellow American fall in a ditch..you help him out of that ditch.

You don't spit on him..then kick him.

 

[Sallow]

There is no Constitutional guarantee of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are merely figurative expressions of non-specific concepts.

What is Constitutional is what the People say is Constitutional, or more precisely, what the People make Constitutional.

Sure there is..

That falls under the "General Welfare" clause. It's part of the powers invested in Congress.

No such clause exists. Go ahead name for us a single power used by Congress that they have EVER claimed such a clause.

Seriously?

I want a bet then.

You put in your sig.."Sallow was right"..if I find it.