The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[Sallow]

Sallow is becoming a parody of leftwing sophistry regarding the meaning of the Constitution.

I'd hope that I could bring a thread into this board that didn't have to result in personal insults and hyperbole.

Oh well.

It's a pretty cut and dried point to argue..and you have a wealth of information at your fingertips to back up your points if you need to..

Sometimes..I like to inspire cognition and research.

This argument got the juices flowing for me.

You are just parroting gross misinterpretations of the meaning of The Constitution spun by the progressive left.

Read the OP.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The ability to form a corporation is a positive liberty afforded by government, and as such ought to be limited

Unfortunately the Constitution does not give the government that responsibility. I've asked you this before, but where is the authority for the government to require a license for anything?

Corporations and other vast accumulations of property REQUIRE state action for their existence. They COULD NOT exist in the theoretical "natural state." Government needn't be authorized a responsibility to withhold it's hand, but merely to extend it

Well that's a ridiculous notion, but yes the government must be authorized by the Constitution to do anything.

 

[Agit8r]

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.

As Locke put it:

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

 

[loosecannon]

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.

No, no, no.....in the colonial days real property WAS the means of production. If you owned your own farm and those means of production you could be free. Otherwise your option was limited to being a wage earner which in those days was equated with degrees of slavery.

Locke and Rouseau considered the ability to own land to be a right on par with liberty. Not property generally.

FWIW the right to own slaves was treated almost the same way in colonial times as slaves were also the means of production.

 

[Agit8r]

Unfortunately the Constitution does not give the government that responsibility. I've asked you this before, but where is the authority for the government to require a license for anything?

Corporations and other vast accumulations of property REQUIRE state action for their existence. They COULD NOT exist in the theoretical "natural state." Government needn't be authorized a responsibility to withhold it's hand, but merely to extend it

Well that's a ridiculous notion, but yes the government must be authorized by the Constitution to do anything.

Ridiculous by what argument?

 

[Sallow]

Unfortunately the Constitution does not give the government that responsibility. I've asked you this before, but where is the authority for the government to require a license for anything?

Corporations and other vast accumulations of property REQUIRE state action for their existence. They COULD NOT exist in the theoretical "natural state." Government needn't be authorized a responsibility to withhold it's hand, but merely to extend it

Well that's a ridiculous notion, but yes the government must be authorized by the Constitution to do anything.

Nothing ridiculous about it.

No government..no enterprise.

 

[loosecannon]

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

As I recall he has made that claim.

 

[Sallow]

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.

No, no, no.....in the colonial days real property WAS the means of production. If you owned your own farm and those means of production you could be free. Otherwise your option was limited to being a wage earner which in those days was equated with degrees of slavery.

Locke and Rouseau considered the ability to own land to be a right on par with liberty. Not property generally.

FWIW the right to own slaves was treated almost the same way in colonial times as slaves were also the means of production.

That was the construct available to them. But they were arguing for some semblence of egalitarism. Not something I agree with exactly..and for the most part they were conflicted as to how to provide it.

My notion is more along the lines of you are free to exceed and do wonderous things. And be rewarded for it. But government must and should provide for those who cant. Not on the level of those who can..but there should be a standard..and a safety net.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

Well then you won't mind if they store their money in Switzerland then will you?

 

[Agit8r]

"and the states get authorization to charter corps from the 10th amendment."

yes, and corporate charters were to limit and enumerate their specific powers, just as constitutions were; "charters of power granted by liberty."

 

[Sallow]

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.

Well then you won't mind if they store their money in Switzerland then will you?

Please go away.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture." - William Blackstone

 

[loosecannon]

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.

Stripping select citizens of their wealth is not in the Constitution either. In fact the Constitution is clear that taxes must be uniform through out the Country. I would suggest that in fact progressive taxation is Unconstitutional by that requirement.

I know the argument is that tax tables are uniform for all that fall with in them but the underlying requirement that taxes must be uniform is violated. Progressive rates are NOT uniform. The man that makes 60000 is not required by the Federal Government to pay the same percentage on his earnings as the man that makes 1 million.

In fact before Federal Income tax the States paid the same percentage based solely on Population. THAT was uniform.

The Commerce clause may allow the Government the power to strip Corporations of their right to exist but it is NOT the intent of the power. It is to REGULATE trade and commerce, not prevent it.

The problem we have now is not the accumulation of wealth at all but the desire by many to TAKE what is not theirs for the supposed betterment of others. The problem we have now is the envy of those with less for the wealth of those with plenty.

actually it says taxes must be proportionally distributed among the states according to population.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.)

art I sect II.

Notice the qualifying term "direct" taxes.

about the income tax:

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913. Note History

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

[loosecannon]

My notion is more along the lines of you are free to exceed and do wonderous things. And be rewarded for it. But government must and should provide for those who cant. Not on the level of those who can..but there should be a standard..and a safety net.

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

 

[Rozman]

I guess the only logical thing to do is to take the wealth away from the wealthy because they have no right to it in the first place and give it to the government.No let me correct that.It should be TAKEN by the government for them to distribute as they see fit.Because only the government has the wisdom to distribute it fairly.

Today I guess we can call people who agree with this way of thinking the progressive left.

 

[loosecannon]

I guess the only logical thing to do is to take the wealth away from the wealthy because they have no right to it in the first place and give it to the government.No let me correct that.It should be TAKEN by the government for them to distribute as they see fit.Because only the government has the wisdom to distribute it fairly.

Today I guess we can call people who agree with this way of thinking the progressive left.

actually we call people who think that way Rozmen.

 

[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.

 

[boedicca]

No. It's a Rorschach test for rabid leftwing moonbats.

 

[Sallow]

My notion is more along the lines of you are free to exceed and do wonderous things. And be rewarded for it. But government must and should provide for those who cant. Not on the level of those who can..but there should be a standard..and a safety net.

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

All the framers? No. They weren't cohesive. For example Hamilton and Jefferson hated each other. But some of them..sure. And the documents are broad enough to extrapolate that a government could implement this sort of thing.