The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[JBeukema]

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.

Compare it to the state of affairs prior to the Clean Air and Water acts

 

[Intense]

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.

Compare it to the state of affairs prior to the Clean Air and Water acts

When we apply reason to our problems, we find remedy. Part of the equation is to apply justification and to be vigilant. "Be Fruitful, Multiply, and Replenish the Earth." We have an obligation to take care of it, limit damage, and seek remedy when we have none.

 

[Sallow]

"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.

Accumlation of wealth through inheritance.
Accumlation of wealth via class appointments or nepotism in general.
Accumlation of wealth via misrepresentation of assets.
Accumlation of wealth via marriage.
These are probably just as "immoral" as those you mentioned.

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.

Not even close. And conservatives gave that up with President George W. Bush. Actually cheered giving up the 4th Amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Compare it to the state of affairs prior to the Clean Air and Water acts

When we apply reason to our problems, we find remedy. Part of the equation is to apply justification and to be vigilant. "Be Fruitful, Multiply, and Replenish the Earth." We have an obligation to take care of it, limit damage, and seek remedy when we have none.

Some of our young friends though seem to be caught up in the liberal/leftist prism or bubble that is preventing them from putting things into perspective. The 'general welfare' clause clause in the Preamble, for instance, as the Founders intended it, for instance, was benefit to ALL people, and not a targeted few that could be manipulated to enhance the prestige or fortunes of those making the laws and regulation. The interstate highway system, for instance, easily falls within the concept of General Welfare because it benefits all travelers equally regardless of their race, gender, politics, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. The Clean Air and Water Acts likewise fall within the General Welfare claus as they benefit all, rich and poor, alike whether they be Democrat, Republican, or Socialist and all are equally subject to the provisions.

But when money is allocated to help one community clean up a polluted lake for instance while others are not so blessed, the federal government has overstepped its intended function.

 

[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.

Compare it to the state of affairs prior to the Clean Air and Water acts

Only societies wealthy enough for such "acts" pass them.

You neglect how we got to the point where we could afford these in the first place, and the how the nature of over-regulation has unintended and destructive economic consequences that will inevitably undo the "acts".

 

[Intense]

"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.

Accumlation of wealth through inheritance.
Accumlation of wealth via class appointments or nepotism in general.
Accumlation of wealth via misrepresentation of assets.
Accumlation of wealth via marriage.
These are probably just as "immoral" as those you mentioned.

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.

Not even close. And conservatives gave that up with President George W. Bush. Actually cheered giving up the 4th Amendment.

Accumlation of wealth through inheritance.
Accumlation of wealth via class appointments or nepotism in general.
Accumlation of wealth via misrepresentation of assets.
Accumlation of wealth via marriage.
These are probably just as "immoral" as those you mentioned.

Pretty general and false conception there Doggie Breath. You have a pretty warped view of reality, there, just so you know. Stop sniffing your crotch a minute and take the time to see exactly what you are accusing people you know nothing about of doing.

Accumlation of wealth through inheritance.

This is not in an of itself evil. Though it is evil to support high inheritance taxes for the purpose of selling high cost insurance policies and expensive estate planning to circumvent the mine field you yourself helped create, for the purpose of enriching yourself.

Accumlation of wealth via class appointments or nepotism in general.

Class appointments as in what University did you graduate from? I see that. Private industry has the right to hire and promote whom it chooses, within the law. I see nothing wrong with Family holding qualified positions, if the business model is sound, it will float. Do you possibly refer to unqualified incompetent people in Government holding positions of responsibility because of affirmative action. I totally agree. Integrity is the greatest casualty there.

Accumlation of wealth via misrepresentation of assets.

Thats Illegal the last time I checked. Who is condoning that? Besides Charles Rangel?

Accumlation of wealth via marriage.

What is your point here? Do you now want to redefine marriage? Are you considering a career as a Divorce Attorney? Did you suffer from an Unholy divorce, getting taken to the cleaners (if so I sympathize)? Other wise, who are you to dictate or decree?

Some pretty absurd claims with no respect for personal property.

 

[boedicca]

Accumlation of wealth through inheritance.
Accumlation of wealth via class appointments or nepotism in general.
Accumlation of wealth via misrepresentation of assets.
Accumlation of wealth via marriage.
These are probably just as "immoral" as those you mentioned.

You are a freaking whackjob.

- It is not immoral to leave the wealth one has earned and saved throughout one's life to one's children or another heir. A basic premise of property rights is that the disposal of such property is determined by the owner.

- Class appointments and nepotism are only immoral in the context of government positions. In the private sector, freedom of association entails the right to hire whomever one wishes, including friends and relatives.

- Misrepresentation of assets is Fraud. Nobody here is defending Fraud (or theft).

- Marriage is one of the foundations of civilization. Children raised in a two parent family have a much better chance at leading a productive, self-sufficient life. Why you think marrying and combining assets in support of a family is immoral is something you should discuss with your therapist. You clearly have Mommy Issues.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Fail. Utter fail. Your attempts at being intellectual are so far off course as to be laughingly absurd.

 

[Sallow]

"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.

Accumlation of wealth through inheritance.
Accumlation of wealth via class appointments or nepotism in general.
Accumlation of wealth via misrepresentation of assets.
Accumlation of wealth via marriage.
These are probably just as "immoral" as those you mentioned.



Not even close. And conservatives gave that up with President George W. Bush. Actually cheered giving up the 4th Amendment.

Pretty general and false conception there Doggie Breath. You have a pretty warped view of reality, there, just so you know. Stop sniffing your crotch a minute and take the time to see exactly what you are accusing people you know nothing about of doing.




This is not in an of itself evil. Though it is evil to support high inheritance taxes for the purpose of selling high cost insurance policies and expensive estate planning to circumvent the mine field you yourself helped create, for the purpose of enriching yourself.



Class appointments as in what University did you graduate from? I see that. Private industry has the right to hire and promote whom it chooses, within the law. I see nothing wrong with Family holding qualified positions, if the business model is sound, it will float. Do you possibly refer to unqualified incompetent people in Government holding positions of responsibility because of affirmative action. I totally agree. Integrity is the greatest casualty there.

Accumlation of wealth via misrepresentation of assets.

Thats Illegal the last time I checked. Who is condoning that? Besides Charles Rangel?

Accumlation of wealth via marriage.

What is your point here? Do you now want to redefine marriage? Are you considering a career as a Divorce Attorney? Did you suffer from an Unholy divorce, getting taken to the cleaners (if so I sympathize)? Other wise, who are you to dictate or decree?

Some pretty absurd claims with no respect for personal property.

Personally?

I have no problem with wealth accumlation so long as it has no bearing on the political process.

But once that happens..

We got problems.

 

[Intense]

Accumlation of wealth through inheritance.
Accumlation of wealth via class appointments or nepotism in general.
Accumlation of wealth via misrepresentation of assets.
Accumlation of wealth via marriage.
These are probably just as "immoral" as those you mentioned.



Not even close. And conservatives gave that up with President George W. Bush. Actually cheered giving up the 4th Amendment.

Pretty general and false conception there Doggie Breath. You have a pretty warped view of reality, there, just so you know. Stop sniffing your crotch a minute and take the time to see exactly what you are accusing people you know nothing about of doing.




This is not in an of itself evil. Though it is evil to support high inheritance taxes for the purpose of selling high cost insurance policies and expensive estate planning to circumvent the mine field you yourself helped create, for the purpose of enriching yourself.



Class appointments as in what University did you graduate from? I see that. Private industry has the right to hire and promote whom it chooses, within the law. I see nothing wrong with Family holding qualified positions, if the business model is sound, it will float. Do you possibly refer to unqualified incompetent people in Government holding positions of responsibility because of affirmative action. I totally agree. Integrity is the greatest casualty there.




Thats Illegal the last time I checked. Who is condoning that? Besides Charles Rangel?

Accumlation of wealth via marriage.

What is your point here? Do you now want to redefine marriage? Are you considering a career as a Divorce Attorney? Did you suffer from an Unholy divorce, getting taken to the cleaners (if so I sympathize)? Other wise, who are you to dictate or decree?

Some pretty absurd claims with no respect for personal property.

Personally?

I have no problem with wealth accumlation so long as it has no bearing on the political process.

But once that happens..

We got problems.

It is not for you or I to have that kind of control over another beings life Sallow.

 

[xotoxi]

I believe that all taxation is theft.

that is like saying all sex is rape.

Not at all. There is such a thing as consensual sex. I'm not familiar with consensual taxation.

There is consensual taxation. For example, in Maine, we voted on whether or not we wanted a tax on beverages. Granted, the taxation is not consensual on a person by person basis, but as a population, it the right to consent was given.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

that is like saying all sex is rape.

Not at all. There is such a thing as consensual sex. I'm not familiar with consensual taxation.

There is consensual taxation. For example, in Maine, we voted on whether or not we wanted a tax on beverages. Granted, the taxation is not consensual on a person by person basis, but as a population, it the right to consent was given.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/145961-is-taxation-voluntary.html

 

[Foxfyre]

that is like saying all sex is rape.

Not at all. There is such a thing as consensual sex. I'm not familiar with consensual taxation.

There is consensual taxation. For example, in Maine, we voted on whether or not we wanted a tax on beverages. Granted, the taxation is not consensual on a person by person basis, but as a population, it the right to consent was given.

Such a democratic process is part of a social contract we all sign on to. When in Rome, do as the Romans do and all that. So when there is a bond election that I know will increase my property taxes, I can vote for or against that and the majority vote will prevail whichever way it goes. But even though I might not agree with the majority, it is the people of the community consenting to a process rather than the government dictating to the people how it is going to be.

As long as the people have the power, we are a free people. Once we hand over that power to the government to decide how we will live our lives or what resources we will be allowed to have and/or keep, we are no longer free.

 

[Misty]

Quoting Sallow;

Personally?

I have no problem with wealth accumlation so long as it has no bearing on the political process.

But once that happens..

We got problems.

It's happened and been happening for decades. The democrats use class warfare as their main platform.

They use the poor by giving them entitlements which only serve to keep them dependent.

All the while the legislatures keep getting richer but claim the rich are evil. Are they saying that they themselves are evil? And if they are, why should we trust them?

"8 of the top 10 wealthiest members of Congress are Democrats
28 of the top 50 richest members of Congress are Democrats
11 of the top 50 richest members of Congress are freshman members
About two-thirds of US senators are millionaires"