The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[loosecannon]

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.

thanks, melon head, I am so deeply hurt that you would consider me berzerko beyond salvation.

Now go wash your face and clean up your toys.

 

[loosecannon]

The government makes it illegal to work without being taxed. So if I want to work to live then I have to sign their little tax document. That isn't a choice. The only way it is a choice is if I have the option to work without being taxed legally. Since that's not an option it isn't a consensual agreement.

They won't let you be King either, so apparently this isn't a free country.

Did you have a real response, or did you just want to talk about nonsense?

I was serious, your argument is so ridiculous that all I can do is treat it like it was facetious.

You signed an application to enroll as a tax payer signaling direct consent, you have made no effort to leave or even contest it, yet you think it is theft when you voluntarily pay taxes.

I am sorry that you didn't get a pink pony and that Spiderman didn't take you with him to scale the Sears tower and stop the Bad Bard.

 

[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.

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.

WRONG! You definitely do not an inkling of a clue what Francis Bacon was talking about.

The concentration of wealth kills the economy plain and simple. It chokes the economy to death, which is what is happening today in the USA btw.

 

[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.

WRONG! You definitely do not an inkling of a clue what Francis Bacon was talking about.

The concentration of wealth kills the economy plain and simple. It chokes the economy to death, which is what is happening today in the USA btw.

Sigh. I'll try one more time but I am under oath not to engage in exercises of futility.

Frances Bacon opposed wealth being in the hands of and controlled by the elite or ruling class that then DENIED it to everybody else. In other words, he would be adamently opposed to our government over regulating commerce and industry or controlling the dispensation of property or dictating who should hold the wealth in this country. He did NOT oppose accumulation of wealth in any way and he did favor a laizzez-faire free market system as much as that could be accomplished.

If you were taught any differently than that by any teacher/professor, scratch the surface and you'll find a leftwing radical extremist loon who is teaching falsehood.

 

[Agit8r]

Bacon was certainly no Randian:

Of Riches

I CANNOT call riches better than the baggage of virtue. The Roman word is better, impedimenta. For as the baggage is to an army, so is riches to virtue. It cannot be spared nor left behind, but it hindereth the march; yea, and the care of it sometimes loseth or disturbeth the victory. Of great riches there is no real use, except it be in the distribution; the rest is but conceit. So saith Solomon, Where much is, there are many to consume it; and what hath the owner but the sight of it with his eyes? The personal fruition in any man cannot reach to feel great riches: there is a custody of them; or a power of dole and donative of them; or a fame of them; but no solid use to the owner. Do you not see what feigned prices are set upon little stones and rarities? and what works of ostentation are undertaken, because there might seem to be some use of great riches? But then you will say, they may be of use o buy men out of dangers or troubles. As Solomon saith, Riches are as a strong hold, in the imagination of the rich man. But this is excellently expressed, that it is in imagination, and not always in fact. For certainly great riches have sold more men than they have bought out. Seek not proud riches, but such as thou mayest get justly, use soberly, distribute cheerfully, and leave contentedly. Yet have no abstract nor friarly contempt of them. But distinguish, as Cicero saith well of Rabirius Posthumus, In studio rei amplificandæ apparebat, non avaritiæ prædam, sed instrumentum bonitati quæri [In seeking to increase his estate it was apparent that he sought not a prey for avarice to feed on, but an instrument for goodness to work with]. Harken also to Solomon, and beware of hasty gathering of riches; Qui festinat ad divitias, non erit insons [He that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent]. The poets feign, that when Plutus (which is Riches) is sent from Jupiter, he limps and goes slowly; but when he is sent from Pluto, he runs and is swift of foot. Meaning that riches gotten by good means and just labor pace slowly; but when they come by the death of others (as by the course of inheritance, testaments, and the like), they come tumbling upon a man. But it mought be applied likewise to Pluto, taking him for the devil. For when riches come from the devil (as by fraud and oppression and unjust means), they come upon speed. The ways to enrich are many, and most of them foul. Parsimony is one of the best, and yet is not innocent; for it withholdeth men from works of liberality and charity. The improvement of the ground is the most natural obtaining of riches; for it is our great mother’s blessing, the earth’s; but it is slow. And yet where men of great wealth do stoop to husbandry, it multiplieth riches exceedingly. I knew a nobleman in England, that had the greatest audits 1 of any man in my time; a great grazier, a great sheep-master, a great timber man, a great collier, a great corn-master, a great lead-man, and so of iron, and a number of the like points of husbandry. So as the earth seemed a sea to him, in respect of the perpetual importation. It was truly observed by one, that himself came very hardly to a little riches, and very easily to great riches. For when a man’s stock is come to that, that he can expect the prime of markets, and overcome those bargains which for their greatness are few men’s money, and be partner in the industries of younger men, he cannot but increase mainly. The gains of ordinary trades and vocations are honest; and furthered by two things chiefly: by diligence, and by a good name for good and fair dealing. But the gains of bargains are of a more doubtful nature; when men shall wait upon 2 others’ necessity, broke 3 by servants and instruments to draw them on, put off others cunningly that would be better chapmen, 4 and the like practices, which are crafty and naught. As for the chopping of bargains, when a man buys not to hold but to sell over again, that commonly grindeth double, both upon the seller and upon the buyer. Sharings do greatly enrich, if the hands be well chosen that are trusted. Usury is the certainest means of gain, though one of the worst; as that whereby a man doth eat his bread in sudore vultus alieni [in the sweat of another man’s face]; and besides, doth plough upon Sundays. But yet certain though it be, it hath flaws; for that the scriveners and brokers do value 5 unsound men to serve their own turn. The fortune in being the first in an invention or in a privilege doth cause sometimes a wonderful overgrowth in riches; as it was with the first sugar man in the Canaries. Therefore if a man can play the true logician, to have as well judgment as invention, he may do great matters; especially if the times be fit. He that resteth upon gains certain shall hardly grow to great riches; and he that puts all upon adventures doth oftentimes break and come to poverty: it is good therefore to guard adventures with certainties, that may uphold losses. Monopolies, and coemption of 6 wares for re-sale, where they are not restrained, are great means to enrich; especially if the party have intelligence what things are like to come into request, and so store himself beforehand. Riches gotten by service, though it be of the best rise, 7 yet when they are gotten by flattery, feeding humors, and other servile conditions, they may be placed amongst the worst. As for fishing for testaments and executorships (as Tacitus saith of Seneca, testamenta et orbos tamquam indagine capi [he took testaments and wardships as with a net]), it is yet worse; by how much men submit themselves to meaner persons than in service. Believe not much them that seem to despise riches; for they despise them that despair of them; and none worse when they come to them. Be not penny-wise; riches have wings, and sometimes they fly away of themselves, sometimes they must be set flying to bring in more. Men leave their riches either to their kindred, or to the public; and moderate portions prosper best in both. A great state left to an heir, is as a lure to all the birds of prey round about to seize on him, if he be not the better stablished in years and judgment. Likewise glorious 8 gifts and foundations are like sacrifices without salt; and but the painted sepulchres of alms, which soon will putrefy and corrupt inwardly. Therefore measure not thine advancements by quantity, but frame them by measure: and defer not charities till death; for, certainly, if a man weigh it rightly, he that doth so is rather liberal of another man’s than of his own.

 

[Trajan]

OF COURSE! PERPETUAL ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY WAS CONSIDERED ANTI_REPUBLICAN!

"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses."

-- James Madison; Detached Memoranda (1818-ish)

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.



I have no doubt but that the misery of the lower classes will be found to abate whenever the Government assumes a freer aspect and the laws favor a subdivision of Property.

-- James Madison

 

[loosecannon]

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.

WRONG! You definitely do not an inkling of a clue what Francis Bacon was talking about.

The concentration of wealth kills the economy plain and simple. It chokes the economy to death, which is what is happening today in the USA btw.

Sigh. I'll try one more time but I am under oath not to engage in exercises of futility.

Frances Bacon opposed wealth being in the hands of and controlled by the elite or ruling class that then DENIED it to everybody else. In other words, he would be adamently opposed to our government over regulating commerce and industry or controlling the dispensation of property or dictating who should hold the wealth in this country. He did NOT oppose accumulation of wealth in any way and he did favor a laizzez-faire free market system as much as that could be accomplished.

If you were taught any differently than that by any teacher/professor, scratch the surface and you'll find a leftwing radical extremist loon who is teaching falsehood.

You can think that all you want but you are still dead wrong. The basic tenets of monetarism have been understood since the Roman empire. And a proper interpretation of the results from Roman times was what made possible the British empire.

Francis Bacon intimately understood that the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a ruling few by definition denied access to capital and wealth to everybody else.

he would be adamently opposed to our government over regulating commerce and industry or controlling the dispensation of property or dictating who should hold the wealth in this country

How could you conceivably know this since he died more than 100 years before our founding revolution?

 

[loosecannon]

I have no doubt but that the misery of the lower classes will be found to abate whenever the Government assumes a freer aspect and the laws favor a subdivision of Property.

-- James Madison

do you know what a "subdivision of Property" means?

 

[thereisnospoon]

"That the accumlation of wealth is not protected by the United States Constitution."

Property rights are mainly protected by British Common Law which was legally adopted by all of, or almost all of, the states and is covered in those state's constitutions.

But the accumulation of wealth, esp immortal wealth in all forms, is a huge problem both for democracy and for the economy.

Correct, the constitution protects neither. But the states do.

"immortal" wealth?
I assu,me you meant "immoral" wealth.
To me ill gotten gain whether it be through criminal activity, use of the courts to compensate for one's stupidity, living off the taxpayer dole when one CAN work are exampls of immoral wealth..\
Now, I would like to see your examples of "immoral" wealth...
You may call "time out" to regroup before you reply.
Look we have the right to achieve and succeed And if the accumulation of wealth is the reward for that, so be it. YOU nor anyone else has the right to arbitrarily take it away.
You forgot to mention that.
BTW the 4th amendment says we have the right to be secure in our persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures....That's close enough for me to say that I indeed DO have the right to accumulate wealth.

 

[Foxfyre]

WRONG! You definitely do not an inkling of a clue what Francis Bacon was talking about.

The concentration of wealth kills the economy plain and simple. It chokes the economy to death, which is what is happening today in the USA btw.

Sigh. I'll try one more time but I am under oath not to engage in exercises of futility.

Frances Bacon opposed wealth being in the hands of and controlled by the elite or ruling class that then DENIED it to everybody else. In other words, he would be adamently opposed to our government over regulating commerce and industry or controlling the dispensation of property or dictating who should hold the wealth in this country. He did NOT oppose accumulation of wealth in any way and he did favor a laizzez-faire free market system as much as that could be accomplished.

If you were taught any differently than that by any teacher/professor, scratch the surface and you'll find a leftwing radical extremist loon who is teaching falsehood.

You can think that all you want but you are still dead wrong. The basic tenets of monetarism have been understood since the Roman empire. And a proper interpretation of the results from Roman times was what made possible the British empire.

Francis Bacon intimately understood that the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a ruling few by definition denied access to capital and wealth to everybody else.

he would be adamently opposed to our government over regulating commerce and industry or controlling the dispensation of property or dictating who should hold the wealth in this country

How could you conceivably know this since he died more than 100 years before our founding revolution?

I know this because I have studied some history, social philosophy, and economics including the writings of Francis Bacon.

 

[loosecannon]

"That the accumlation of wealth is not protected by the United States Constitution."

Property rights are mainly protected by British Common Law which was legally adopted by all of, or almost all of, the states and is covered in those state's constitutions.

But the accumulation of wealth, esp immortal wealth in all forms, is a huge problem both for democracy and for the economy.

Correct, the constitution protects neither. But the states do.

"immortal" wealth?
I assu,me you meant "immoral" wealth.
To me ill gotten gain whether it be through criminal activity, use of the courts to compensate for one's stupidity, living off the taxpayer dole when one CAN work are exampls of immoral wealth..\
Now, I would like to see your examples of "immoral" wealth...
You may call "time out" to regroup before you reply.
Look we have the right to achieve and succeed And if the accumulation of wealth is the reward for that, so be it. YOU nor anyone else has the right to arbitrarily take it away.
You forgot to mention that.
BTW the 4th amendment says we have the right to be secure in our persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures....That's close enough for me to say that I indeed DO have the right to accumulate wealth.

no, I meant immortal wealth

 

[loosecannon]

Sigh. I'll try one more time but I am under oath not to engage in exercises of futility.

Frances Bacon opposed wealth being in the hands of and controlled by the elite or ruling class that then DENIED it to everybody else. In other words, he would be adamently opposed to our government over regulating commerce and industry or controlling the dispensation of property or dictating who should hold the wealth in this country. He did NOT oppose accumulation of wealth in any way and he did favor a laizzez-faire free market system as much as that could be accomplished.

If you were taught any differently than that by any teacher/professor, scratch the surface and you'll find a leftwing radical extremist loon who is teaching falsehood.

You can think that all you want but you are still dead wrong. The basic tenets of monetarism have been understood since the Roman empire. And a proper interpretation of the results from Roman times was what made possible the British empire.

Francis Bacon intimately understood that the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a ruling few by definition denied access to capital and wealth to everybody else.

he would be adamently opposed to our government over regulating commerce and industry or controlling the dispensation of property or dictating who should hold the wealth in this country

How could you conceivably know this since he died more than 100 years before our founding revolution?

I know this because I have studied some history, social philosophy, and economics including the writings of Francis Bacon.

and yet you are still wrong, and assuming things you could not possibly know.

 

[Foxfyre]

You can think that all you want but you are still dead wrong. The basic tenets of monetarism have been understood since the Roman empire. And a proper interpretation of the results from Roman times was what made possible the British empire.

Francis Bacon intimately understood that the accumulation of wealth into the hands of a ruling few by definition denied access to capital and wealth to everybody else.



How could you conceivably know this since he died more than 100 years before our founding revolution?

I know this because I have studied some history, social philosophy, and economics including the writings of Francis Bacon.

and yet you are still wrong, and assuming things you could not possibly know.

I know what he said/wrote. You obviously do not if you think what I said he said is incorrect. But whatever. I'm am certainly not going to argue with somebody who thinks he knows what I know better than I know what I know. Do have a good evening.

 

[shintao]

BTW the 4th amendment says we have the right to be secure in our persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures....That's close enough for me to say that I indeed DO have the right to accumulate wealth.

And they reserve the right to take it away from you slowly or faster depending on a set of variables.

 

[Sallow]

BTW the 4th amendment says we have the right to be secure in our persons and papers from unreasonable searches and seizures....That's close enough for me to say that I indeed DO have the right to accumulate wealth.

And they reserve the right to take it away from you slowly or faster depending on a set of variables.

Nothing about the forth amendment relates even to that..at all.

 

[JBeukema]

That's just silly.

We aren't socialist.

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?

"The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But the fact that we have to resort to direct regulation by authority where the conditions for the proper working of competition cannot be created does not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity"

-- F.A. Hayek; from Road to Serfdom

Such regulation is necessary today to ensure fair competition and enable the market to function. Capitalism will eat itself without such regulations- that is, without evolving to a socialist stage of socioeconomic development.

Not only does government action not preclude competition and a healthy market, it is necessary to protect it.

Hayek was a wise man and his views are not unlike my own. As a moderate social democrat, I draw heavily from the Austrian school.

 

[JBeukema]

It's failing everywhere it's tried, dumbass.

All the top nations on the Human Freedom Index are socialist societies.

 

[JBeukema]

It's failing everywhere it's tried, dumbass.

But what is "it"?

What you're missing is that the only system that has EVER worked has been a combination of socialism and capitalism. Socialism on its own has never worked, and pure free market capitalism has never existed, except for maybe Somalia.

Ideologues never get it right. They always get too emotional.

There is no mixing the two.

I think I know the problem: you're thinking socialism refers to some sociopolitical system or family of systems while I'm speaking of socialism as a stage of socioeconomic development within a civilization.

Rev, meanwhile, seems to think socialism means bureaucratic collectivism and/or autocratic dictatoship, because he has never read a book in his life.

 

[JBeukema]

You mean socialism isn't working in Detroit. Capitalism did, until the capitalists were driven out.

No, it didn't. Capitalism in Detorit made the city depended on three companies that went out due to the ignorance and pigheadedness of the people running those three companies. Capitalism in Detroit saw the city's layout- from the placement of racially-segregated neighborhoods to the dependence of those in the suburbs on those companies' products for survival- planned and executed according thew the whims of a handful of rich men. Capitalism sewed the seeds of Detroit's failure- it was inherit in the way it operated.

BBC - Requiem for Detroit - (13th March 2010) [PDTV (XviD)] (download torrent) - TPB

Funny, I thought the Union's did that. Isn't that what they usually do?

Unions usually build cities with the intent of keeping then ******* far from the white women?

No, that Henry Ford.

 

[JBeukema]

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.

You took this from where, exactly?

Socialism is a stage of socio-economic development and has been recognized as such since at least the time of Engels. Recall that he And Marx saw this stage as a progress towards the emergence of a communist society. As a social democrat, I few human nature as incompatible with such communism save for a few isolated pockets. Given man's nature, such a system is rarely sustainable and therefore not desirable. Hence I seek to secure society in a socialist stage of development, marked by workplace democracy, market regulation and the capitalist mode of production, and a decent standard of living and sociopolitical parity among all persons.