Saturday, August 08th, 2009 | Author: markross
“The utopian schemes of leveling and a community of goods, are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. These ideas are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government unconstitutional.” - Samuel Adams
Category: Samuel Adams
Twitter
Facebook
Friday, August 7th, 2009 (url)
Samuel Adams is most certainly one of our founding fathers…
–
In 1765, Samuel Adams was elected to The Massachusetts Assembly.
In 1774, he was a delegate to the First Continental Congress.
In 1776, he was a signer of The Declaration of Independence.
In 1781, he was a Member of The Massachusetts State Constitutional Convention.
–
In Boston, he and his cousin, John Adams (our second president), were early agitators for The Revolution that would eventually come.
The above quote, which resembles more modern day political systems such as Socialism, were "clearly" far from the system that our founders had envisioned for our young (Republic) country.
And from the above quote, I have a feeling that they would not be happy to see our system changed into anything besides a free-market/entrepreneurial type system.
By giving property, business, and the fruits of the individual's labor, to a centralized power, would fly right in the face of the very liberties that our founders fought so hard to give us.
I have a feeling they would be very distraught to see what has become of our federal government today.
If a founder, such as Samuel Adams, can declare something "unconstitutional," then can we not consider the courtroom adjourned?
Sunday, December 13th, 2009 (url)
There are two ways to take someones property: legally, by giving its owner something of equal value, or illegally, by force or fraud. Our government likes the force option, though it is seldom used, as the threat of force is usually enough.
Consider Eminent Domain:
The Government can appropriate privately held property for its own use or for what it deems to be the public good. It must, in return, compensate the owner at fair market value. Well and good, but consider that once the deal is done, the former owner must pay taxes on the money that he has received for his property. The implication is that money is not property and that it can be seized without due process.
You will notice that I did not differentiate between federal, state, and local governments – I see no more point in doing so than in differentiating thieves who have stolen my property. The crime is the same regardless of who the perpetrator is.
Sunday, January 3rd, 2010 (url)
Yes, that is under The 5th Amendment:
"…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
As if The 16th Amendment wasn't bad enough, you raise a great point: the government gives a person money for property that they have likely paid for over many years, or have paid off; then, they hit you for taxes on the money they have given you, as if it were income. In my mind, taxing income is not only ludicrous, but it is downright immoral, and should be made unconstitutional; as it once was in The United States.
Sunday, January 30th, 2011 (url)
Interestingly, our pilgrim ancestors started with a Communal system. After they nearly starved to death, they switched to a private ownership model, then began to prosper.
Please see:
The Pilgrims & Property Rights and The American Socialist experiment