The Accumlation of Wealth is not protected by the Constitution.

[loosecannon]

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

Which can be used to claim anything- such as a right to free internet for nappy headed children

Internet isn't a right, however, because somebody must provide the internet. The accumulation of wealth, however, doesn't aggress against anybody else's rights.

of course it does.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Which can be used to claim anything- such as a right to free internet for nappy headed children

Internet isn't a right, however, because somebody must provide the internet. The accumulation of wealth, however, doesn't aggress against anybody else's rights.

of course it does.

No, it doesn't. People voluntarily paying me to provide a good or service, thus causing me to accumulate wealth, does not aggress against the rights of anybody.

 

[The T]

Competition is a given in a free market, however.

Initially? Yes..but it never winds up that way.

All the more reason why Government should stop picking winners and losers.

With the backing/ blessing of Lobbyists that have Gubmint in their back pockets by the same token.

~Just Sayin'

 

[boedicca]

Which can be used to claim anything- such as a right to free internet for nappy headed children

Internet isn't a right, however, because somebody must provide the internet. The accumulation of wealth, however, doesn't aggress against anybody else's rights.

of course it does.

Only if that wealth is acquired by Fraud or Theft, instead of being earned. Then it is not really wealth, it's stolen goods.

 

[JBeukema]

A man has a right to the fruits of his labour. Yet a man also has a right to his life and, by extension, to that which he needs to sustain it- water, shelter, food, and clothing. The just society allows men to keep what they have rightfully earned by their own hand after it has been seen to it that none among its people- most especially the elderly, the children, the ill and infirm-those who cannot provide or care for themselves- are tended to and that none who is willing to work and contribute as he is able is left to starve, to freeze, to die of thirst, or to be left as a dog in the alleyway. The first priority of the good society is to see to it that all the People are afforded the ability to achieve a good standard of living and socio-political parity with his fellows. Those who have accumulated wealth are morally obligated, as they are able, to contribute to this effort. Once this most fundamental objective, this commandment which is placed upon us from a higher source of morality and justice is seen to, then the second priority of the good society is to see to it that those who earn for themselves are not robbed of what is rightfully theirs to satiate the greed of the envious.

 

[boedicca]

Internet isn't a right, however, because somebody must provide the internet. The accumulation of wealth, however, doesn't aggress against anybody else's rights.

of course it does.

No, it doesn't. People voluntarily paying me to provide a good or service, thus causing me to accumulate wealth, does not aggress against the rights of anybody.

He can't tell the difference between lawful, voluntary behavior and Fraud & Theft.

 

[Sallow]

Competition is a given in a free market, however.

Initially? Yes..but it never winds up that way.

Because of the government.

Usually..a democratically elected representative government keeps the spirit of capitalism alive.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ahahahahahaha!

You think Communist nations do not tax their subjects?

Their subjects have the heaviest tax of all - their lives have been made forfeit.

Also in ALL Communist countries, nobody has an unalienable right to anything. If the government wants your property or your job or your life for ANY reason, it simply takes it. And you have no recourse. There is no freedom when government determines what the people will be allowed to have.

Absolutely correct.

Which is why..we pay taxes. We determine how our government is shaped and what powers they have..not the other way around.

Well thanks for the applause but I'm not sure we are anywhere in agreement here. I think the people lost a great deal of freedom and personal power and continue to lose freedom and power when they allowed the federal government to take more in taxes than it needs to fulfill its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Do you think the hundreds and hundreds of permanent US agencies plus temporary groups authorized by Congress plus all the President's cabinet and staff and their staffs and the czars and their staffs etc. etc. etc. were what the Founders had in mind when they set up the first federal government? Do you think the government spends your money more wisely than you would spend it on your own behalf?

How can you be truly free unless your property is yours to do as you wish short of infringing on the unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional rights of others?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Initially? Yes..but it never winds up that way.

Because of the government.

Usually..a democratically elected representative government keeps the spirit of capitalism alive.

You keep saying that, but have yet to explain how.

 

[JBeukema]

And yet, what entity restrains the power of the mob to invade another's property?

Reason, and when that fails, The owner of said property, and those supportive of justice.

During the Shays Rebellion, the Militia was called out... by the state

During the L.A. riots of '92, the government of L.A. withheld it's hand, and the mobs ran roughshod over property.

"If men were angels, no government would be necessary" -- from Federalist #51

Why does heaven have an authoritarian monarchical government?

It seems the angels are not so perfect, either.

 

[JBeukema]

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?

I believe that all taxation is theft.

Some would say property is theft

 

[loosecannon]

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.

In a republic all taxation is consensual.

If you don't want to pay the taxes, leave. Besides your social contract literally has your signature on it. You had to sign a form seeking a tax payer identification number, and you did sign that form.

 

[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.

In a republic all taxation is consensual.

If you don't want to pay the taxes, leave. Besides your social contract literally has your signature on it. You had to sign a form seeking a tax payer identification number, and you did sign that form.

If it were consensual I'd have the right to say no. Since I don't have that right it is clearly not consensual.

 

[loosecannon]

Internet isn't a right, however, because somebody must provide the internet. The accumulation of wealth, however, doesn't aggress against anybody else's rights.

of course it does.

No, it doesn't. People voluntarily paying me to provide a good or service, thus causing me to accumulate wealth, does not aggress against the rights of anybody.

Commerce isn't accumulation of wealth. We were discussing, or rather YOU were discussing "The accumulation of wealth".

 

[loosecannon]

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

In a republic all taxation is consensual.

If you don't want to pay the taxes, leave. Besides your social contract literally has your signature on it. You had to sign a form seeking a tax payer identification number, and you did sign that form.

If it were consensual I'd have the right to say no. Since I don't have that right it is clearly not consensual.

Wrong, you can leave.

And you already DID consent when you signed for your tax payer identification #.

 

[JBeukema]

Ridiculous that you claim the state is necessary for the free market, when it is the state that aggresses against the free market.

The state is not necessary for a free market, but it is necessary for capitalism

Capitalism is a system based on the free market. No free market no capitalism. I believe you're mistaking corporatism for capitalism.

Capitalism undermines the free market.


The sole objective of capitalism is to destroy the market and achieve monopoly so as to more efficiently exploit the proletariat and fuel to accumulation of surplus capital.

 

[boedicca]

Initially? Yes..but it never winds up that way.

Because of the government.

Usually..a democratically elected representative government keeps the spirit of capitalism alive.

Are you nuts?

Usually, democracies devolve into the majority voting themselves bread and circuses to be paid for by a minority.

That is not the Spirit of Capitalism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

of course it does.

No, it doesn't. People voluntarily paying me to provide a good or service, thus causing me to accumulate wealth, does not aggress against the rights of anybody.

Commerce isn't accumulation of wealth. We were discussing, or rather YOU were discussing "The accumulation of wealth".

People accumulate wealth through commerce.

 

[Sallow]

Also in ALL Communist countries, nobody has an unalienable right to anything. If the government wants your property or your job or your life for ANY reason, it simply takes it. And you have no recourse. There is no freedom when government determines what the people will be allowed to have.

Absolutely correct.

Which is why..we pay taxes. We determine how our government is shaped and what powers they have..not the other way around.

Well thanks for the applause but I'm not sure we are anywhere in agreement here. I think the people lost a great deal of freedom and personal power and continue to lose freedom and power when they allowed the federal government to take more in taxes than it needs to fulfill its Constitutionally mandated responsibilities.

Do you think the hundreds and hundreds of permanent US agencies plus temporary groups authorized by Congress plus all the President's cabinet and staff and their staffs and the czars and their staffs etc. etc. etc. were what the Founders had in mind when they set up the first federal government? Do you think the government spends your money more wisely than you would spend it on your own behalf?

How can you be truly free unless your property is yours to do as you wish short of infringing on the unalienable, civil, legal, or constitutional rights of others?

The founders didn't have 50 states and 300 million people to deal with. It's a complicated nation and economy.

 

[loosecannon]

Internet isn't a right, however, because somebody must provide the internet. The accumulation of wealth, however, doesn't aggress against anybody else's rights.

of course it does.

Only if that wealth is acquired by Fraud or Theft, instead of being earned. Then it is not really wealth, it's stolen goods.

No way there are as many ways in which one man's accumulation of wealth can infringe upon another's rights as there are fists and noses, theaters and words like "fire".

Your house is blocking my VIEW!