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.
Jefferson's "natural Aristocracy" was an Aristocracy based on PERSONAL achievement. From your link:
But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness, and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground for distinction. [Natural Aristocracy]
As opposed to the Artificial Aristocracy:
There is also an artificial aristocracy, founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class.
Moving on:
At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independence, we passed a law abolishing entails [limitations on the inheritance of property to a specified succession of heirs]. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of primogeniture [the eldest child's exclusive right of inheritance], and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy.
And had another which I prepared been adopted by the legislature, our work would have been complete. It was a bill for the more general diffusion of learning. This proposed to divide every county into wards of five or six miles square, like your townships; to establish in each ward a free school for reading, writing, and common arithmetic; to provide for the annual selection of the best subjects from these schools, who might receive, at the public expense, a higher degree of education at a district school; and from these district schools to select a certain number of the most promising subjects, to be completed at a university, where all the useful sciences should be taught. Worth and genius would thus have been sought out from every condition of life, and completely prepared by education for defeating the competition of wealth and birth for public trusts?.
Jefferson himself advocating a FREE EDUCATION and training! A level playing field where children of any station are given opportunity to prove themselves.
Jefferson sounds like an outright Marxist in this regard! Certainly unlike anything a modern American conservative would support!
A true meritocracy FRIGHTENS the wealthy. For in such a situation, their own, often useless and less deserving progeny would find themselves sweeping streets while the sons and daughters of janitors would ascend in prominence.
You're still full of it, and/or you're conflating minority opinions with prevailing or even popular opinion, based on "very popular left wing blogs." Yet you cannot cite to a single poll, a single study... ANYTHING to back your assertion that those with liberal viewpoints want to abolish inheritance alltogether. Repeat after me: The real debate is about ESTATE TAXES. The real debate is about ESTATE TAXES. The real debate is about ESTATE TAXES.
Yeah, I'll just trust you bro. After all, you've proven to be so aware of what's going on around you.
Did you miss the part where he said :
"I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi [pseudoaristocrats] and In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society." in response to the artificial aristocracy?
And I'm not going to argue about what the founding fathers intention were. They might have had viewpoints that extended to both side of the spectrum but in the end they left documents and other legislation on how the wanted things done. If they really wanted free education, then it would have been in the Constitution or something.
I don't care if you trust me or not, don't care if you believe me or not, I know what was on those left-wing blogs and I know what the majority opinion was in regard to inheritance and wealth in general. I know what I have been reading for years, hell I even out-right engaged them (big mistake) and "because its not fair" seems to be the typical reason. It may not fit your narrative, whatever. Sorry, deal with it.
Quote:
[A true meritocracy FRIGHTENS the wealthy. For in such a situation, their own, often useless and less deserving progeny would find themselves sweeping streets while the sons and daughters of janitors would ascend in prominence.
Can you back that up with a "single study" or "poll" or anything?...of course you can't, but you had no problem making that assertion did you you?.... "useless?"..."less deserving?"....and let me guess, its not "fair"?..heard this all before , careful you are starting to prove my point.
Look, go stomp your feet at those on thinkprogress, dailykos, media matters, etc about what the "real debate" is. I'm, done.
"I think the best remedy is exactly that provided by all our constitutions, to leave to the citizens the free election and separation of the aristoi from the pseudo-aristoi [pseudoaristocrats] and In some instances, wealth may corrupt, and birth blind them, but not in sufficient degree to endanger the society." in response to the artificial aristocracy?
I'm sorry, what are you trying to prove? Again, you seem to have a real hard time distinguishing between a blanket desire to outlaw ALL inheritance (very unpopular stance), and wanting to control, regulate, or tax inheritance, to prevent the concentration of wealth.
Inheritance taxes were first imposed in 1797.
Jefferson has voluminous writings on the dangerous of inherited wealth. In fact, the commy that he was, he actually believed every person should be given 50 acres. Talk about welfare!
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricGold
I don't care if you trust me or not, don't care if you believe me or not, I know what was on those left-wing blogs and I know what the majority opinion was in regard to inheritance and wealth in general. I know what I have been reading for years, hell I even out-right engaged them (big mistake) and "because its not fair" seems to be the typical reason. It may not fit your narrative, whatever. Sorry, deal with it.
And look, you have inspired a thread on this very forum, which will undoutedly prove you wrong. Liberals do not want to end inheritance:
I don't know where you "debated," but suffice it to say you might want to do a little reflection as to how and whether your experience on "blogs" translates into what liberals in general want. Itd be like me going to stormfront and then making pronunciations about what all white people think or want based on my experiences debating them!
I'm sorry, what are you trying to prove? Again, you seem to have a real hard time distinguishing between a blanket desire to outlaw ALL inheritance (very unpopular stance), and wanting to control, regulate, or tax inheritance, to prevent the concentration of wealth.
Inheritance taxes were first imposed in 1797.
Jefferson has voluminous writings on the dangerous of inherited wealth. In fact, the commy that he was, he actually believed every person should be given 50 acres. Talk about welfare!
And look, you have inspired a thread on this very forum, which will undoutedly prove you wrong. Liberals do not want to end inheritance:
I don't know where you "debated," but suffice it to say you might want to do a little reflection as to how and whether your experience on "blogs" translates into what liberals in general want. Itd be like me going to stormfront and then making pronunciations about what all white people think or want based on my experiences debating them!
Quote:
Jefferson has voluminous writings on the dangerous of inherited wealth. In fact, the commy that he was, he actually believed every person should be given 50 acres. Talk about welfare!
In this context, Jefferson had in mind distribution of currently unowned or unused land on the frontier, not redistribution of property that was currently being put to productive use. And that is the general theme here, redistribution.
Again, I'm not going to argue about what the founding fathers intentions were. They might have had viewpoints that extended to both side of the spectrum but in the end they left documents and other legislation on how the wanted things done. That is what their hearts were set in. If they really wanted free education, then it would have been in the Constitution or something.
and you are right they don't want to take all of it, just most of it...so you are right, you win.
First off, there clearly is a marriage, because marriage is defined by law. Second, and more to the point,calling this man's spouse a "thing" demonstrates your utter lack of human values. Take your hateful comments somewhere else.
if they decide legally that a orange is a apple does that truly make a orange an apple?
my point was that BOTH of them are acting animalistic. I wasn't giving any validity to an EVIL action.
That doesn't change the fact that I've never once argued that this stipulation in the will is illegal. I've just argued it's disgusting and evil. Do you disagree with that? I know you believe it's this man's right to do this, but do you think he was in fact right to do it?
I have no idea whether this will, and this stipulation in particular, adheres to New York probate law. The son, Robert, seems to think that it doesn't (and as a New York State judge he probably has a pretty decent understanding of the law). Only time will tell if his interpretation of the law is correct.
I think the fact that he singled one out special son is horrible, but its not my money. I dont pretend to have the authority to run around and demand other people spend their money how I wish
if they decide legally that a orange is a apple does that truly make a orange an apple?
my point was that BOTH of them are acting animalistic. I wasn't giving any validity to an EVIL action.
Both of my children have no "mothers" on their birth certificate. If this person claims that their spouse is a "mother", then whats to keep my live in girlfriend from caliming to be my kids mother, despite not being their mother? There is a reason she isnt, (primarily mental disease), and if she's allowed to pretend to be their mother even thought she isnt, then I probably wouldnt have adopted.
You are correct, an apple isnt an orange, and pretending they are the same has a lot of ramifications for others.
if they decide legally that a orange is a apple does that truly make a orange an apple?
my point was that BOTH of them are acting animalistic. I wasn't giving any validity to an EVIL action.
Oh honestly, one would think that someone like you with your background would know the dangers of what happens when you dehumanize people based on innate characteristics.
Guess not. Maybe stupidity skips a generation or something.
Oh honestly, one would think that someone like you with your background would know the dangers of what happens when you dehumanize people based on innate characteristics.
Guess not. Maybe stupidity skips a generation or something.
why would you insult my parents if you know nothing about them?
though I guess your children will be against marriage redefinition.
why would you insult my parents if you know nothing about them?
Perhaps you missed the "skipped a generation" part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Jew
though I guess your children will be against marriage redefinition.
Not hardly. Most children born today (rather, the younger generation), much to the chagrin of people like yourself, are for gay marriage.
In fact, the United States is already surrounded to the north and south with countries that have either moved to gay marriage years and years ago (Canada), or will in the very near future (Mexico).
You are losing, and I love it.
I only hope you and the other horrid human beings are alive long enough to see your worst nightmares come true. In death as miserable as they've lived life!
What is the problem here? If Robert wants the money - then he needs to marry the mother.
If he refuses to do so - he forfeits the money.
He has no legal claim on that money - it was his father's to allocate - andif the son wants it he will abide by his father wishes.
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.
