The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[loosecannon]

We've no public education?

SNAP?

Social Security?

Minimum wage laws?

Progressive taxation?

Unemployment insurance?

Market regulation?

Environmental protection laws?

Child labour laws?

40-hour workweek?

Child labour laws?

Sexual and racial discrimination laws?

Nope.

Our society is a blend of Capitalism and Socialism. Capitalism being the boss.

We are a socialist society be definition. We are in a socialist stage of socio-economic development. We haven't been a capitalist society within the US borders fro some time. That's why the capitalists now operate trans-nationally.

we are a social democracy by definition. In a few circles those two terms are progressive states of the same movement, in most of the world they are not.

Socialism is defined as the state owning above 40% of the means of production.

 

[The T]

"Above all things, good policy is to be used that the treasure and moneys in a state be not gathered into few hands. For otherwise a state may have a great stock, and yet starve. And money is like muck, not good except it be spread."

--Francis Bacon; from Of Seditions and Troubles (1625)

That is classic monetarism and it is spot on. It is an economic fact that no matter how much wealth nations may amass their economy will be no more vigorous than how equally that wealth is distributed.

Which is why the golden age of America, the wealthiest nation in history, coincided with the peak of it's middle class.

It was destroyed by government institutionalizing poverty.

Witness the assholes here who call more unemployment compensation more prosperity.

Yep.

 

[loosecannon]

The middle class is being destroyed by the dependency class.

That is a lie, what a surprise.

The middle class is being destroyed primarily by globalization.

 

[Agit8r]

What are things that distinguish a "far-right fringer?"

if you are to the political right of our founding fathers, you are far-right

But be precise. What would that look like that pertains to anything being discussed here?

What does the 'far-right fringer' think about the rich?
About the Constitution?
About the position of the Constitution re property whether owned by rich or poor?
About taxes?
About social contract?
About government power?
About unalienable rights?

And then how does that apply to anything anybody has said here?

What does the 'far-right fringer' think about the rich?

The rich are in their position because of merit only (or in the case of the religious right, because God wills it so)

About the Constitution?

That the Constitution must be interpreted literally when it comes to social reform, but broadly when it comes to corporate rights

About the position of the Constitution re property whether owned by rich or poor?

i don't understand the question

About taxes?

that equal taxation means equal rate, rather than equal burden

About social contract?

that the only "duties we owe each other" is to pay for a night watchman state

About government power?

That government may use whatever power is necessary to suppress left wing sedition, and suppress every civil liberty that doesn't involve monied wealth or guns

About unalienable rights?

That unalienable rights are only in danger from government, but not from other sources of power

 

[loosecannon]

"Above all things, good policy is to be used that the treasure and moneys in a state be not gathered into few hands. For otherwise a state may have a great stock, and yet starve. And money is like muck, not good except it be spread."

--Francis Bacon; from Of Seditions and Troubles (1625)

That is classic monetarism and it is spot on. It is an economic fact that no matter how much wealth nations may amass their economy will be no more vigorous than how equally that wealth is distributed.

Which is why the golden age of America, the wealthiest nation in history, coincided with the peak of it's middle class.

It was destroyed by government institutionalizing poverty.

Witness the assholes here who call more unemployment compensation more prosperity.

wow two more lies, you are SMOKIN!

Again globalization, if you can't understand the economy shut the **** up and get out of the way. We don't need ditz head ideologues destroying what is left of our nation.

 

[The T]

That is classic monetarism and it is spot on. It is an economic fact that no matter how much wealth nations may amass their economy will be no more vigorous than how equally that wealth is distributed.

Which is why the golden age of America, the wealthiest nation in history, coincided with the peak of it's middle class.

It was destroyed by government institutionalizing poverty.

Witness the assholes here who call more unemployment compensation more prosperity.

wow two more lies, you are SMOKIN!

Again globalization, if you can't understand the economy shut the **** up and get out of the way. We don't need ditz head ideologues destroying what is left of our nation.

He said nothing wrong. He was 100% correct.

And the only ones that are calling Unemployment Compensation 'prosperity' are the like of Pelosi...Obama and the rest of the Statist herds.
You are outta yer gourd.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Above all things, good policy is to be used that the treasure and moneys in a state be not gathered into few hands. For otherwise a state may have a great stock, and yet starve. And money is like muck, not good except it be spread."

--Francis Bacon; from Of Seditions and Troubles (1625)

That is classic monetarism and it is spot on. It is an economic fact that no matter how much wealth nations may amass their economy will be no more vigorous than how equally that wealth is distributed.

Which is why the golden age of America, the wealthiest nation in history, coincided with the peak of it's middle class.

Again I wish better history and government concepts were being taught these days. I can't imagine that Frances Bacon would not come up in the most elementary competent beginning economics class, and he was a laizzez-faire capitalist to the core. His meaning in the statement that you quoted was that money has to be spread--USED--in order for it to have any benefit. But he in no way advocated government assuming the role to do that but rather the free market. He was absolutely within the same school as Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Adam Smith.

 

[The T]

The middle class is being destroyed by the dependency class.

That is a lie, what a surprise.

The middle class is being destroyed primarily by globalization.

No it's absolutely TRUE.

But then I was never one for Class Warfare because it's detrimental...and a tool of Goverment used for their own power.

 

[Agit8r]

"Above all things, good policy is to be used that the treasure and moneys in a state be not gathered into few hands. For otherwise a state may have a great stock, and yet starve. And money is like muck, not good except it be spread."

--Francis Bacon; from Of Seditions and Troubles (1625)

That is classic monetarism and it is spot on. It is an economic fact that no matter how much wealth nations may amass their economy will be no more vigorous than how equally that wealth is distributed.

Which is why the golden age of America, the wealthiest nation in history, coincided with the peak of it's middle class.

Again I wish better history and government concepts were being taught these days. I can't imagine that Frances Bacon would not come up in the most elementary competent beginning economics class, and he was a laizzez-faire capitalist to the core. His meaning in the statement that you quoted was that money has to be spread--USED--in order for it to have any benefit. But he in no way advocated government assuming the role to do that but rather the free market. He was absolutely within the same school as Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Adam Smith.

"And money is like muck, not good except it be spread. This is done chiefly by suppressing or at least keeping a strait hand upon the devouring trades of usury, ingrossing great pasturages, and the like."

Yes. Locke, Montequieu, and the moral philosopher Adam Smith were all proponents of social justice as well as free markets

 

[Agit8r]

What are things that distinguish a "far-right fringer?"

if you are to the political right of our founding fathers, you are far-right

However in today's lexicon? If you stand with the Founders *YOU* are considered Far Right...

How does that work exactly?

IDK. Once my founding father quotes got me labeled a left winged extremist by an Obama supporter. go fig

 

[Foxfyre]

That is classic monetarism and it is spot on. It is an economic fact that no matter how much wealth nations may amass their economy will be no more vigorous than how equally that wealth is distributed.

Which is why the golden age of America, the wealthiest nation in history, coincided with the peak of it's middle class.

Again I wish better history and government concepts were being taught these days. I can't imagine that Frances Bacon would not come up in the most elementary competent beginning economics class, and he was a laizzez-faire capitalist to the core. His meaning in the statement that you quoted was that money has to be spread--USED--in order for it to have any benefit. But he in no way advocated government assuming the role to do that but rather the free market. He was absolutely within the same school as Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Adam Smith.

"And money is like muck, not good except it be spread. This is done chiefly by suppressing or at least keeping a strait hand upon the devouring trades of usury, ingrossing great pasturages, and the like."

Yes. Locke, Montequieu, and the moral philosopher Adam Smith were all proponents of social justice as well as free markets

And every one to a man were opposed to government interference with the free market and not one was opposed to anybody's goal or desire to become wealthy. The economic system they promoted--and most of us on the right promote--was as little government meddling as possible so that everybody has a shot at the brass ring. The Founders went with that principle but did incorporate protection of unalienable rights to ensure that only the legal and ethical pursuit of wealth was to be tolerated and nobody's rights would be overrun in the process.

 

[Agit8r]

Again I wish better history and government concepts were being taught these days. I can't imagine that Frances Bacon would not come up in the most elementary competent beginning economics class, and he was a laizzez-faire capitalist to the core. His meaning in the statement that you quoted was that money has to be spread--USED--in order for it to have any benefit. But he in no way advocated government assuming the role to do that but rather the free market. He was absolutely within the same school as Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Adam Smith.

"And money is like muck, not good except it be spread. This is done chiefly by suppressing or at least keeping a strait hand upon the devouring trades of usury, ingrossing great pasturages, and the like."

Yes. Locke, Montequieu, and the moral philosopher Adam Smith were all proponents of social justice as well as free markets

And every one to a man were opposed to government interference with the free market and not one was opposed to anybody's goal or desire to become wealthy. The economic system they promoted--and most of us on the right promote--was as little government meddling as possible so that everybody has a shot at the brass ring. The Founders went with that principle but did incorporate protection of unalienable rights to ensure that only the legal and ethical pursuit of wealth was to be tolerated and nobody's rights would be overrun in the process.

So why were Reagan and Bush so much against clean air and water?

 

[boedicca]

Strawman.

Being against Big Government control of something doesn't mean one is against that something.

Although I might change my mind if you can produce some video clips in which Reagan and Bush say that they are Against Clean Water and Air.

 

[Foxfyre]

"And money is like muck, not good except it be spread. This is done chiefly by suppressing or at least keeping a strait hand upon the devouring trades of usury, ingrossing great pasturages, and the like."

Yes. Locke, Montequieu, and the moral philosopher Adam Smith were all proponents of social justice as well as free markets

And every one to a man were opposed to government interference with the free market and not one was opposed to anybody's goal or desire to become wealthy. The economic system they promoted--and most of us on the right promote--was as little government meddling as possible so that everybody has a shot at the brass ring. The Founders went with that principle but did incorporate protection of unalienable rights to ensure that only the legal and ethical pursuit of wealth was to be tolerated and nobody's rights would be overrun in the process.

So why were Reagan and Bush so much against glean air and water?

Whoa, non sequitur much?

Would you believe that I thought Bush 43's economic policies over reaching and excessive? The greenies should have adored him. He was definitely their man.

And I defy you to find a single instance, a single proposal, a single law, a single statement in which either Reagan or Bush wanted dirty air or water. Or anybody who WANTS dirty air or water or soil for that matter.

I will point to those countries in which there are large numbers of poor people, and in every single one you find intolerable pollution that no American would tolerate.

I will point you to areas where the poorest Americans live and where the most in government benefits are paid and you will find the pollution unacceptable there too.

I will point you to lower to upper middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, and any serious pollution is pretty difficult to come by.

Conclusion: the more prosperous people are, the more they will demand clean air, clean water, clean soil, and aesthetic beauty and the more time and resources they will have to care about and protect the plants and wildlife too. If you want a clean planet, promote less government welfare and more opportunities for people to become prosperous.

Again the Founders intended for there to be sufficient government regulation and laws to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others. Otherwise, the best society is the one in which the people are free to design and operate it as they choose.

 

[Agit8r]

And every one to a man were opposed to government interference with the free market and not one was opposed to anybody's goal or desire to become wealthy. The economic system they promoted--and most of us on the right promote--was as little government meddling as possible so that everybody has a shot at the brass ring. The Founders went with that principle but did incorporate protection of unalienable rights to ensure that only the legal and ethical pursuit of wealth was to be tolerated and nobody's rights would be overrun in the process.

So why were Reagan and Bush so much against glean air and water?

Whoa, non sequitur much?

Would you believe that I thought Bush 43's economic policies over reaching and excessive? The greenies should have adored him. He was definitely their man.

And I defy you to find a single instance, a single proposal, a single law, a single statement in which either Reagan or Bush wanted dirty air or water. Or anybody who WANTS dirty air or water or soil for that matter.

I will point to those countries in which there are large numbers of poor people, and in every single one you find intolerable pollution that no American would tolerate.

I will point you to areas where the poorest Americans live and where the most in government benefits are paid and you will find the pollution unacceptable there too.

I will point you to lower to upper middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, and any serious pollution is pretty difficult to come by.

Conclusion: the more prosperous people are, the more they will demand clean air, clean water, clean soil, and aesthetic beauty and the more time and resources they will have to care about and protect the plants and wildlife too. If you want a clean planet, promote less government welfare and more opportunities for people to become prosperous.

Again the Founders intended for there to be sufficient government regulation and laws to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others. Otherwise, the best society is the one in which the people are free to design and operate it as they choose.

Access to clean air and water is a natural right. Air and water are dirtied by civilization. Civil rights being reflections of natural rights must guarantee the same protection, NOT ONLY FOR THE RICH, but for all within the society. Otherwise the social contract is breeched, and the oppressors deserve whatever they get as a result. THAT is what our founders stood for--"THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD!"

Originalist Manifesto: Laws of Nature and Nature's God

 

[Foxfyre]

So why were Reagan and Bush so much against glean air and water?

Whoa, non sequitur much?

Would you believe that I thought Bush 43's economic policies over reaching and excessive? The greenies should have adored him. He was definitely their man.

And I defy you to find a single instance, a single proposal, a single law, a single statement in which either Reagan or Bush wanted dirty air or water. Or anybody who WANTS dirty air or water or soil for that matter.

I will point to those countries in which there are large numbers of poor people, and in every single one you find intolerable pollution that no American would tolerate.

I will point you to areas where the poorest Americans live and where the most in government benefits are paid and you will find the pollution unacceptable there too.

I will point you to lower to upper middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, and any serious pollution is pretty difficult to come by.

Conclusion: the more prosperous people are, the more they will demand clean air, clean water, clean soil, and aesthetic beauty and the more time and resources they will have to care about and protect the plants and wildlife too. If you want a clean planet, promote less government welfare and more opportunities for people to become prosperous.

Again the Founders intended for there to be sufficient government regulation and laws to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others. Otherwise, the best society is the one in which the people are free to design and operate it as they choose.

Access to clean air and water is a natural right. Air and water are dirtied by civilization. Civil rights being reflections of natural rights must guarantee the same protection, NOT ONLY FOR THE RICH, but for all within the society. Otherwise the social contract is breeched, and the oppressors deserve whatever they get as a result. THAT is what our founders stood for--"THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD!"

Originalist Manifesto: Laws of Nature and Nature's God

No, there is no 'natural right' to clean air and water any more than there is a 'natural right' to a private residence or T-bone steaks or a Corvette in your garage. 'Natural rights' are those that require no contribution, voluntary or involuntary, from any other person. So if you buy property with contaminated soil or water or next to a bar-b-que joint with a smoker, it will be YOUR responsibility to clean it up.

 

[boedicca]

Access to clean air and water is a natural right. Air and water are dirtied by civilization. Civil rights being reflections of natural rights must guarantee the same protection, NOT ONLY FOR THE RICH, but for all within the society. Otherwise the social contract is breeched, and the oppressors deserve whatever they get as a result. THAT is what our founders stood for--"THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD!"

Originalist Manifesto: Laws of Nature and Nature's God

Compare the quality of air and water in any major city in the U.S. with Beijing and get back to us on how best to ensure either.

 

[Agit8r]

Whoa, non sequitur much?

Would you believe that I thought Bush 43's economic policies over reaching and excessive? The greenies should have adored him. He was definitely their man.

And I defy you to find a single instance, a single proposal, a single law, a single statement in which either Reagan or Bush wanted dirty air or water. Or anybody who WANTS dirty air or water or soil for that matter.

I will point to those countries in which there are large numbers of poor people, and in every single one you find intolerable pollution that no American would tolerate.

I will point you to areas where the poorest Americans live and where the most in government benefits are paid and you will find the pollution unacceptable there too.

I will point you to lower to upper middle class and wealthy neighborhoods, and any serious pollution is pretty difficult to come by.

Conclusion: the more prosperous people are, the more they will demand clean air, clean water, clean soil, and aesthetic beauty and the more time and resources they will have to care about and protect the plants and wildlife too. If you want a clean planet, promote less government welfare and more opportunities for people to become prosperous.

Again the Founders intended for there to be sufficient government regulation and laws to prevent people from infringing on the rights of others. Otherwise, the best society is the one in which the people are free to design and operate it as they choose.

Access to clean air and water is a natural right. Air and water are dirtied by civilization. Civil rights being reflections of natural rights must guarantee the same protection, NOT ONLY FOR THE RICH, but for all within the society. Otherwise the social contract is breeched, and the oppressors deserve whatever they get as a result. THAT is what our founders stood for--"THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD!"

Originalist Manifesto: Laws of Nature and Nature's God

No, there is no 'natural right' to clean air and water any more than there is a 'natural right' to a private residence or T-bone steaks or a Corvette in your garage. 'Natural rights' are those that require no contribution, voluntary or involuntary, from any other person. So if you buy property with contaminated soil or water or next to a bar-b-que joint with a smoker, it will be YOUR responsibility to clean it up.

you are entitled to your opinion, even though it is UNAMERICAN to the core

 

[Foxfyre]

Access to clean air and water is a natural right. Air and water are dirtied by civilization. Civil rights being reflections of natural rights must guarantee the same protection, NOT ONLY FOR THE RICH, but for all within the society. Otherwise the social contract is breeched, and the oppressors deserve whatever they get as a result. THAT is what our founders stood for--"THE LAWS OF NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD!"

Originalist Manifesto: Laws of Nature and Nature's God

No, there is no 'natural right' to clean air and water any more than there is a 'natural right' to a private residence or T-bone steaks or a Corvette in your garage. 'Natural rights' are those that require no contribution, voluntary or involuntary, from any other person. So if you buy property with contaminated soil or water or next to a bar-b-que joint with a smoker, it will be YOUR responsibility to clean it up.

you are entitled to your opinion, even though it is UNAMERICAN to the core

You know, if you would actually read up on people like Adam Smith and Frances Bacon and some of the other fathers of modern science, economics, and social policy, and not copy and paste some quotation or link from a work that you obviously have never read, you would be taken much more seriously. I don't claim to be an expert, but I can spot bullshit when I see it.

And now that you have chosen to label me unAmerican, I will take that as evidence that you are completely out of ammunition and are moving into the ad hominem food fight stage that all leftists seem to adopt when they know they can't rebut the point made.

So thank you for a good workout and I'll bid you good evening.

 

[Agit8r]

No, there is no 'natural right' to clean air and water any more than there is a 'natural right' to a private residence or T-bone steaks or a Corvette in your garage. 'Natural rights' are those that require no contribution, voluntary or involuntary, from any other person. So if you buy property with contaminated soil or water or next to a bar-b-que joint with a smoker, it will be YOUR responsibility to clean it up.

you are entitled to your opinion, even though it is UNAMERICAN to the core

You know, if you would actually read up on people like Adam Smith and Frances Bacon and some of the other fathers of modern science, economics, and social policy, and not copy and paste some quotation or link from a work that you obviously have never read, you would be taken much more seriously. I don't claim to be an expert, but I can spot bullshit when I see it.

And now that you have chosen to label me unAmerican, I will take that as evidence that you are completely out of ammunition and are moving into the ad hominem food fight stage that all leftists seem to adopt when they know they can't rebut the point made.

So thank you for a good workout and I'll bid you good evening.

In the natural state everyone had access to the produce of nature. You don't believe in these natural rights like our founders did, so your opinion is unamerican. if you would follow your own advise and read the writings of our founding fathers, you would know these things. But perhaps blind ideology is afraid of being exposed for what it is