Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What the heck are you talking about? The Founding Fathers were all about freedom and private property rights.
Do you have any idea what the term freedom means? And why we are different than all the other countries in the world?
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, dated October 28, 1785:
"Legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a commonstock for man to labour and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed.
It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small land holders are the most precious part of a state."
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
sell something to the stinking rich as op calls them; that is now they got stinking rich.
If it's that easy, why don't you do it yourself? Assuming you aren't already a billionaire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
Perhaps you had a crackhead uncle or are a crackhead uncle... but most people in the US don't have crackhead uncles. Plenty do, but certainly not most.
I meant that most members of the demographic at hand have issues to deal with including some of those I listed, not that 51% of Americans have crackhead uncles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJBest
I believe that Unemployment's point was to work hard and make smart decisions. Go to a top university or don't. If you don't, then learn a trade (which he/she mentioned). But don't shell out money for a university that doesn't provide you unique top quality value.
My point was that it's not fair to justify billionaires by saying anyone can become one (even if that were true). If a monarchy determines its new king for life by lottery when the old one dies, it's still a monarchy. I prefer democracy to the capitalist oligarchy we have now. Most Americans do, even if they don't use the term "oligarchy" when they complain about Wall Street screwing them.
Rich people are usually not stinky. They are well groomed, well fit, well dressed in clean clothes and they don't smoke much and don't drink cheap alcohol. Go cut your beard, wash your ears, and find a decent job. Then you won't have time for envy.
If it's that easy, why don't you do it yourself? Assuming you aren't already a billionaire.
I meant that most members of the demographic at hand have issues to deal with including some of those I listed, not that 51% of Americans have crackhead uncles.
My point was that it's not fair to justify billionaires by saying anyone can become one (even if that were true). If a monarchy determines its new king for life by lottery when the old one dies, it's still a monarchy. I prefer democracy to the capitalist oligarchy we have now. Most Americans do, even if they don't use the term "oligarchy" when they complain about Wall Street screwing them.
People from all walks of life have "issues," including billionaires. Some of the most successful people I know had to overcome some serious "issues." The "issue" was often the impetus for success as they had something to prove.
Also, it's not really that hard to "sell something to the stinking rich." Plenty of opportunities to do so.
[quote=FrankMiller;34912645]Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, dated October 28, 1785:
"Legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree, is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.
Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a commonstock for man to labour and live on. If for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be provided to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed.
It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small land holders are the most precious part of a state."
Quote:
Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June 17, 1788
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
The Founding Fathers were not perfect, and a little bit of collectivism can be found scattered in their published writings. But for every quasi-collectivist quote, I can find 10 quotes that emphasize freedom, liberty, and individual rights. And often from the same person at a different time or in a different context.
The Founding Fathers were not perfect, and a little bit of collectivism can be found scattered in their published writings. But for every quasi-collectivist quote, I can find 10 quotes that emphasize freedom, liberty, and individual rights. And often from the same person at a different time or in a different context.
That's because mechanisms to counterbalance wealth accumulation are a requirement for individual rights and liberty. As evidenced by our modern society run by wealthy oligarchs whose interests are sometimes orthogonal to those of most Americans.
By the way, I'm not remotely a collectivist. I think it's important that everyone have private property. You're the one who thinks it's ok for one person to collect everything.
Because a parent can do what they want with their earned money/assets - they can give the bulk of it to a child, or to a charity, or to their pet poodle Fifi. What did the poodle or charity do to 'deserve' the money?
Also, what is your definition of undemocratic/tyrannical? Tyrannical power is cruel and oppressive. Several generations of family owning a prosperous factory that successfully employs many locals and promotes economic growth does not fit the definition of "tyrannical" for me.
If a rural doctor mentors his/her children to take over his/her practice and then the grandchildren eventually take it over - is that also tyranny because the children and great grandchildren had "unearned advance?" What about the Olympian who, like his Olympian parents and grandparents, was born with a gene that allows more efficient use of body oxygen - Is that not also "massive, unearned advance" because of parents?
I will attempt to answer these in order.
First paragraph: I don't believe in inheritance, period. At death, all the decedent's assets be taxed at 100% pool and distributed to society generally. There was a book recently that proposed a "social inheritance" at age 18. This is identical to Thomas Paine's proposal from Agrarian Justice in the 1790s. It was as recently as the 1970s that there serious legislative movements to create a maximum inheritance cap at a relatively low point. The resurrected and modern idea that inherited wealth is sacred is something I can't understand. And which I oppose.
Second paragraph: You are muddying the waters and appealing to emotion (successfully employs many locals and promotes economic growth). I fail to see how that business would disappear if it was taken over by the state and its profits distributed equally to all citizens rather than narrowly to those of a certain birthright. But assuming a less radical proposal that only attacks inherited wealth in terms of cash assets, and not pre-existing enterprises, I believe that a much higher income tax or capital gains tax on inherited wealth would serve the same purpose. I am an egalitarian and comfortable with collectivism, so I'm not dissuaded by emotional appeals. More importantly, in the private economy a dollar is a vote and it is very explicitly tyrannical to give some people more economic votes through nothing other than chance.
Last paragraph: I am not a slippery sloper impaling herself on slavish adherence to principle, so I do see a difference between inheriting an empire like the Walton children and a small rural physicians' practice. Even so, yes, it is a very mild and small tyranny. As to genetic inequalities? Well, that's another reason why I believe in a stronger social welfare state. It is indeed true that genetic inequalities are unearned and provide some with advantages others cannot overcome by mere effort. To the degree these inequalities create perpetual nobilities or perpetual inequalities, I propose generally more progressive taxation. I don't give a single care if he wins in the Olympics; I care if that means that he becomes wealthy while others without those gifts remain relatively impoverished simply by chance.
What purpose does society serve if not to rectify unearned inequalities? If it protects such things, the state of nature is equally well-suited to the cause.
That's because mechanisms to counterbalance wealth accumulation are a requirement for individual rights and liberty. As evidenced by our modern society run by wealthy oligarchs whose interests are sometimes orthogonal to those of most Americans.
By the way, I'm not remotely a collectivist. I think it's important that everyone have private property. You're the one who thinks it's ok for one person to collect everything.
I think it's OK for one person to collect everything they earn. All of it. Every red cent. And I also think it's OK for them to dispose of their earned wealth in any way they see fit.
And I am not swayed by arguments about the "common good". The common good be damned, there is no common good without strong individual rights and protection of the individual against the tyranny of the majority.
First paragraph: I don't believe in inheritance, period. At death, all the decedent's assets be taxed at 100% pool and distributed to society generally. There was a book recently that proposed a "social inheritance" at age 18. This is identical to Thomas Paine's proposal from Agrarian Justice in the 1790s. It was as recently as the 1970s that there serious legislative movements to create a maximum inheritance cap at a relatively low point. The resurrected and modern idea that inherited wealth is sacred is something I can't understand. And which I oppose.
Last paragraph: I am not a slippery sloper impaling herself on slavish adherence to principle, so I do see a difference between inheriting an empire like the Walton children and a small rural physicians' practice. Even so, yes, it is a very mild and small tyranny. As to genetic inequalities? Well, that's another reason why I believe in a stronger social welfare state. It is indeed true that genetic inequalities are unearned and provide some with advantages others cannot overcome by mere effort. To the degree these inequalities create perpetual nobilities or perpetual inequalities, I propose generally more progressive taxation. I don't give a single care if he wins in the Olympics; I care if that means that he becomes wealthy while others without those gifts remain relatively impoverished simply by chance.
What purpose does society serve if not to rectify unearned inequalities? If it protects such things, the state of nature is equally well-suited to the cause.
This really needs to be quoted because it is proof that there are people out there that want to take 100% of people's assets and redistribute them.
Your rationale is also important because it is based on what you see as fairness. You believe that progressive taxation and 100% inheritance tax will improve society.
Both of these arguments are wrong
Obama said yes we can! Government can solve your problems!
We are living the government nightmare of Obamacare and the scandal at the VA hospitals.
Obamacare failed and the VA hospitals are a national disgrace.
People like you who want to take and redistribute are why people like me own guns.
If you want to make your perfect society you should get people to agree to your made up rules and move to an island off the coast.
First paragraph: I don't believe in inheritance, period. At death, all the decedent's assets be taxed at 100% pool and distributed to society generally. There was a book recently that proposed a "social inheritance" at age 18. This is identical to Thomas Paine's proposal from Agrarian Justice in the 1790s. It was as recently as the 1970s that there serious legislative movements to create a maximum inheritance cap at a relatively low point. The resurrected and modern idea that inherited wealth is sacred is something I can't understand. And which I oppose.
Second paragraph: You are muddying the waters and appealing to emotion (successfully employs many locals and promotes economic growth). I fail to see how that business would disappear if it was taken over by the state and its profits distributed equally to all citizens rather than narrowly to those of a certain birthright. But assuming a less radical proposal that only attacks inherited wealth in terms of cash assets, and not pre-existing enterprises, I believe that a much higher income tax or capital gains tax on inherited wealth would serve the same purpose. I am an egalitarian and comfortable with collectivism, so I'm not dissuaded by emotional appeals. More importantly, in the private economy a dollar is a vote and it is very explicitly tyrannical to give some people more economic votes through nothing other than chance.
Last paragraph: I am not a slippery sloper impaling herself on slavish adherence to principle, so I do see a difference between inheriting an empire like the Walton children and a small rural physicians' practice. Even so, yes, it is a very mild and small tyranny. As to genetic inequalities? Well, that's another reason why I believe in a stronger social welfare state. It is indeed true that genetic inequalities are unearned and provide some with advantages others cannot overcome by mere effort. To the degree these inequalities create perpetual nobilities or perpetual inequalities, I propose generally more progressive taxation. I don't give a single care if he wins in the Olympics; I care if that means that he becomes wealthy while others without those gifts remain relatively impoverished simply by chance.
What purpose does society serve if not to rectify unearned inequalities? If it protects such things, the state of nature is equally well-suited to the cause.
This is really stupid. Why would anyone believe in egalitarianism? Yes, it's evil. But worse, it's also silly. I am surprised you would admit it. But then again you are OK with tyranny as long as it is "mild and small". To be determined by whom? The majority? You?
I think it's OK for one person to collect everything they earn. All of it. Every red cent. And I also think it's OK for them to dispose of their earned wealth in any way they see fit.
And I am not swayed by arguments about the "common good". The common good be damned, there is no common good without strong individual rights and protection of the individual against the tyranny of the majority.
Everyone should collect what they earn. There's no way to earn a billion dollars.
I'm against the tyranny of the majority. I also oppose the tyranny of the undeservedly-wealthy minority.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
