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.
There was a CitiGroup Memo put out many years ago to a select group of very wealthy clients. It was leaked to the internet and pissed off a lot of people.
It basically spelled out the current world structure.
All countries, the people and resources in the world are simply objects to be EXPLOITED to make the rich richer.
There is no Nationalism, No My Country, No Constitution.
These people belong in Hell and tortured forever.
In considering wealth percentiles, net worth is a better indicator than income.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minnomaboidenapolis
To be honest, it's more like the 99.9% vs the 0.1%. Someone can be making $300K and is considered a "1%er", but they are a far cry from the ones with a net worth of 500m or billions.
Its worse now.
When the slaves were property, the owner had to look after the slaves healthcare, an injured or ill slave is no good for the plantation. He had to house and feed them as well.
Today, they rent the slaves and some are not responsible for their healthcare, housing or food. They say That is Your Problem.
Here is a lady that lives out of her car, working full time but does not make enough for healthcare nor housing.
Those employers are reaping benefits from this worker that would make the plantation owners blush with envy.
Employed but homeless in the US: The 'working poor' who can't afford to rent.
I'm just talking the statistical analysis, and what the proper statistic is. I'm not talking about redistributing wealth (which I'm very much against.)
I'm just addressing the fallacy that income equal wealth. That's not the case. Net worth equals wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
I fail to see how other people’s legally earned money is of your concern.
What you and Spooner are missing here, is that slaves are property, while the Madonalds worker you pity., isn't property.
Because until you understand that, you can't see the world for what it is.
You are trying to prove to me that chattel slavery is worse than being a wage-laborer. I agree. So what are we fighting about? You disagree with the founding-fathers' use of the word slave to describe their objection to taxation without representation.
That doesn't interest me. What interests me is understanding why slavery existed, in whatever forms it has taken. Including servitude and serfdom.
Basically, what was the point of slavery? And why was chattel slavery abolished?
"The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of “maintaining the national honor.” Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle – but only of degree – between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men’s natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.
If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.
Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, “a government of consent.” The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this – that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called “peace.”
Their pretenses that they have “Saved the Country,” and “Preserved our Glorious Union,” are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call “Saving the Country”; as if an enslaved and subjugated people – or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) – could be said to have any country. This, too, they call “Preserving our Glorious Union”; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having “abolished slavery,” of having “saved the country,” of having “preserved the union,” of establishing “a government of consent,” and of “maintaining the national honor,” are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats – so transparent that they ought to deceive no one – when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has succeeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, 1867-1870
Lysander Spooner was a so called abolitionist, & yet also an ardent supporter of the Confederacy advising them on their Constitution.
He advised them to include 4 different clauses to entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, & together they virtually guarantee that any sort of anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution of the Confederate States of America
Article 1 Section 9.
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
How can those who lionize this man reconcile this conflict?
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.
