Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Rick Lynch, Future of Freedom Foundation
Why do we have a Constitution? How and why did it come into existence? Just what, exactly, prompted the calling of the Constitutional Convention, which gave birth to it? Most Americans believe, logically enough, that with the passing of the British from the scene it was simply time to create a new government to take the place of the old. That notion, however, ignores the facts that Americans already had a functioning government at the time of the Convention and that that government had been in effect for six years following the final British defeat at Yorktown.
No, the overthrow of the old government and the establishment of the new were prompted by an internal tumult, by domestic corruption, oppression, and chaos, all but forgotten today, that had nothing to do with the departure of the British. That crisis revolved around the printing of paper money by some of the newly freed states. As the Federal Farmer, one of the Anti-Federalists, stated in opposition to the Constitution,
Our governments have been new and unsettled; and several legislatures, by making tender, suspension, and paper money laws, have given just cause of uneasiness to creditors. By these and other causes, several orders of men in the community have been prepared, by degrees, for a change of government; and this very abuse of power in the legislatures, which, in some cases, has been charged upon the democratic part of the community, has furnished aristocratical men with those very weapons, and those very means, with which, in great measure, they are rapidly effecting their favourite object…. The conduct of several legislatures, touching paper money, and tender laws, has prepared many honest men for changes in government, which otherwise they would not have thought of…. [Emphasis added.]
It is vital, first, to see the printing of paper money for what it was — a welfare scheme and an erosion of property rights enacted by impoverished majorities with the sole intent of taking money (property) from the creditor class. It is no exaggeration, no stretch of the imagination, no revisionist or wild-eyed conspiracy theory to state that the Constitution of the United States of America came into being, more than any other reason, to crush a welfare program, to stop the poor from ganging up on the rich and, endowed with the power of democracy, stealing their money.
In their book Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787, Christopher Collier and James Lincoln Collier state,
What concerned Madison most in “Vices†was not only that the states were flouting national regulations, but that they were treating unjustly certain minorities within their own borders…. Madison was especially troubled by the stay laws and tender laws and the paper money that so many of the plain people of the country were clamoring for. These laws, Madison believed, were “oppressing†the creditor minority. [Emphasis added.]
Edward J. Larson and Michael P. Winship stated in The Constitutional Convention,
In several state legislatures, a new breed of politicians, often from lower social backgrounds, was passing debt-relief measures, most notoriously by issuing inflationary paper money. Such legislative action, Madison believed, was an attack on the rights of creditors and amounted to the few being plundered by the many.
The story of paper money is a simple one of greed and corruption fueled by the power of unchecked democracy degenerating into oppression and turmoil. For the Framers, the paper-money crisis was the manifestation of all their fears of mob rule followed by chaos, and it was paper money, far more than anything else, that prompted them to convene the assembly that gave birth to the Constitution. Yes, there were other issues and concerns, chiefly the tendency of the states to strangle interstate trade, and the fear that 13 separate states would constantly war with each other, much like the European powers, or be weak in the face of foreign attack; but, other than the trade issue, those things were merely theoretical in nature, while paper money was all too real.
As you read of paper money, you might wonder just exactly what all the fuss was about. After all, in 21st-century America, when debt-relief measures to the detriment of creditors are this very hour in front of Congress; when battling over which legislator gets the biggest share of your paycheck for distribution to his constituents is all government seems to do; and when there’s a welfare program for virtually every ill that can be imagined by even the most creative among us, — I recently read of the California legislator who has secured funds to pay for tattoo removal because tattoos might hurt a job applicant’s chance of getting hired — just exactly what physical form state-issued money takes might not seem to be the kind of thing over which to change governments. But if the paper-money shenanigans outlined below seem rather tame to the modern American reader, that just goes to show how very far we’ve fallen from the days when the Framers had “an almost religious respect†for property rights.
Paper money and the Articles of Confederation
Paper-money schemes could not stand on their own and necessarily spawned a whole series of additional laws, each one more odious than its predecessor, to prop up the whole corrupt edifice. Property rights aside, the Framers believed that the baneful effects of all the legislative chaos, the internal turmoil, and the international ridicule and disrepute generated threatened the very existence of the nation.
So frightening was the specter of paper money that one Convention delegate said that granting the federal government the power to issue it “would be as alarming as the mark of the Beast in Revelation.†Another delegate said he would “rather reject the whole†Constitution than see the federal government granted that power.
The paper-money crisis began when debtors, usually farmers struggling to make loan payments, would turn to their state legislatures and push for the creation of paper money. That was welfare pure and simple, as the paper money had nowhere near the worth of the gold, silver, or other medium of payment specified in original loan documents, and that, of course, was exactly the idea behind the legislation. Debtors also forced the creation of such extraordinary measures as “stay laws,†which postponed or even canceled debt collection. Then there were the awful “tender laws,†and “ex post facto laws,†which actually compelled unwilling creditors to accept the newly printed paper money regardless of what the preexisting contract specified. Printing paper money was one thing, but to actually nullify preexisting contracts and force creditors to accept it in payment was simply more than the Framers could tolerate.
But it was the example of Rhode Island that most horrified the Framers. The legislature, dominated by indebted farmers, circulated paper money that creditors naturally refused to accept. The legislature then made acceptance mandatory. Many creditors at this point actually fled the state to avoid the dreaded paper. The government’s answer was simply to pass more corrupt legislation, this time allowing debtors to legally discharge the debt by depositing money with courts and posting an advertisement attesting to such in newspapers. Things got nastier still. When Rhode Island’s supreme court declared the paper-money law unconstitutional, the legislature threw the court out of office and replaced the justices.
Paper money and the Constitution
Study of Madison’s Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reveals a fascinating obsession on the part of the Framers with paper money. Amazingly, proposed legislative schemes, philosophies of representation, and existing political arrangements were all judged good or bad almost solely on whether they were likely to lead to or had already led to the creation of paper money. On page after page of the Notes we find that paper money is the overriding, all-important litmus test for analyzing the compositions and powers of state legislatures, the courts, and internal police; determining the rules of a quorum; and debating the proposed federal veto on state law.
Virtually every time the Framers sought to find an example of something “wicked†to be avoided, something they wished the Constitution to repress, some terrible failing of the state government or the Articles of Confederation, they turned to paper money. Mention of the rights with which we are today so obsessed, and those most commonly associated with the Framers, are conspicuous only in their absence.
1. Why is a large republic, spread over a great area, encompassing a multitude of various political interests a good thing? Because, as Madison notes in Federalist No. 10, “[A] rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union, than a particular member of it….â€
2. Who should select U.S. senators and congressmen, the people or their state legislatures? Charles Pinkney, South Carolina delegate to the Convention, favored the legislatures because “the people in South Carolina were notoriously for paper money†while the legislature had rejected the idea.
3. Elbridge Gerry, Massachusetts delegate to the Convention, likewise favored the legislatures, because “the people are for paper money when the Legislatures are against it.â€
4. Should the federal government have the power to veto state laws that offend the Constitution? Here again, paper money is the litmus test. Elbridge Gerry was generally against it, but, “He had no objection to authorize a negative to paper money and similar measures.†Madison also was for the veto power, pointing to the fate of the Rhode Island judges who had refused to uphold the constitutionality of paper money laws and noting that the newly selected judges would be “willing instruments of the wicked and arbitrary plans of their masters.â€
5. Every American knows of the need for “checks and balances,†though few could name paper money as one of the evils to be checked. According to Alexander Hamilton, a lack of such checks in the state governments had led to “our paper money, installment laws, et cetera.â€
6. Should the federal government have the power to “interfere†with the state governments in matters of “internal policeâ€? According to Gouverneur Morris, Pennsylvania delegate to the Convention, the internal police “ought to be infringed in many cases, as in the case of paper money and other tricks by which Citizens of other states may be affected.â€
7. Setting a quorum in the House and Senate at less than a majority of members might be a good thing. George Mason, after all, “had known a paper emission prevented by that cause in Virginia.â€
8. “Proper elections†were better left to the people, if divided into large districts, than by state legislatures, thought George Mason. After all, “Paper money had been issued by the latter when the former were against it.â€
Restricting the states
So what did the Framers do to rectify this situation? Where is the constitutional salvation from the evil of paper money? Relief lies in Article I, Section X. It is in Section X that we find the relatively few things that state governments may not do. Many Americans do not realize that at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, it applied only to the federal government. In other words, until after the Constitution was amended following the Civil War, the states had absolute power to engage in censorship, regulate the press, suppress free speech, or even establish a state-supported church, which, in fact, many of the states actually did. At the time of the Revolution, for example, most of the colonies had tax-supported churches; all except Rhode Island imposed legal restrictions on various sects and “penalties for dissenters, apostates, blasphemers and idolators were numerous and severe.†(Novus Ordo Seclorum, The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution, by Forrest McDonald.)
In short, for the states, the entirety of the Bill of Rights was a nonentity. While the Framers certainly could have attempted to impose bill-of-rights-type restrictions on the states, they did not. It is instructive, then, to see just what state restrictions the Framers actually did write into the Constitution.
The Constitution expressly prohibited the states from such things as continuing to act as separate nations with treaty-making powers, engaging in war, floating a navy, and establishing tariffs. But the most significant checks on state authority, and the only checks that involved the rights and liberties of citizens, were those that would no longer allow the states to “emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts….†In other words, no more paper money and no more voiding of contracts with stay laws or tender laws.
The prohibition of ex post facto laws was instituted for the same reason, for, as previously noted, most of the legislation passed to support paper money was made to retroactively affect existing contracts, a perfect example of an ex post facto law. Bills of attainder were legislative findings of guilt (no judge, jury, or trial) for various crimes, which usually resulted in forfeiture of landed estates. These bills had been unjustly employed to seize Tory properties during the Revolution; but with infringements of property rights becoming more and more common with every passing day, the Framers feared that they could be used against the creditor class at any time.
It is very likely impossible to understand the Constitution without first understanding the importance of Article I, Section X: of all the dozens upon dozens of rights that the Framers could have attempted to prohibit states from infringing, the property rights of the minority were the only ones to make the list. Remember, the federal government could not prohibit free speech, establish or handicap a religion, or regulate the press. The states, however, (again, because the Bill of Rights did not apply to them) could do all of those things. Property rights, then, were the only rights to be protected from both federal and state action.
For those who read of the Framers and their obsession with property rights and paper money and who are tempted to look with scorn on those men for having such a monomaniacal focus on something not so high, not so enlightened or elevated, a harder look at history, a more down-to-earth approach might be necessary.
The Framers saw the entire history of government for what it was: one long, sad saga in which those in power — be they the king, aristocrat, or oligarch, the many, the few, or the one — trampled the rights of those without power. Human beings being what we are, the oppression would take a multitude of forms, but the oppression of property is almost always the first and favorite of oppressions. Anti-majoritarian measures aside, the common man, the people, the majority wielded the power under the new Constitution. History, political theory, and the contemporaneous paper-money crisis all demonstrated that a government of the people would be no different from governments throughout history. It would live down to expectations, and those in power, the numerous poor, would oppress the property rights of others. The Framers wrote the Constitution, then, to safeguard against the chief defect of democratic representative government — the oppression of the wealthy minority by the poor majority.
Rick Lynch is an author living in Virginia. He is finishing a book on constitutional issues entitled They Are Vicious. Send him email.
This article originally appeared in the January 2009 edition of Freedom Daily. Subscribe to the print or email version of Freedom Daily.
Copyright 2009 Future of Freedom Foundation
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
The of the biggest error in the founding documents was not to include Jefferson's insistence that their be a Constitutional Convention every 18 years. He saw that EVERY generation would need to bring together a group of people to recast the framework in terms that fit the living. So we have a document that says that only the Federal Gov't the right to coin money. That this term was used inclusive of creating - "coining" - paper money at the time, but isn't today, was used in 1913 to create the Federal Reserve. So now we live in a nation and economy bought and paid for by the largest concentrations of wealth, who are international entities with no allegiance whatever to the United States...
So I am a big business (not really, just a hypothetical) I have the choice of buying another branch of operation, or bribing a public official, the only way I would pick the latter, is if the public official can either grant me special favors (illegal under the constitution), or if they could hurt my business by onerous regulations (shouldn't happen but does). If our republic was respecting its founding charter rich people wouldn't work to corrupt it. They would just try to accumulate more wealth. It is the government racketteering that drives corruption not the other way around. Also the government didn't "grant monopolies until the new deal.
"Does anyone think the federal government became corrupt, and then, the rich began to lobby it? I think you will find it is the other way around - that the rich lobbied the federal government and corrupted it, effectively taking it over. The federal government is doing the bidding of the rich, and that is what upsets us, but for whatever reason, people have been unwilling to see this."
I think the rich lobby the government as a protection racket ie... if they don't the government will regulate them out of exhistance. If the federal government had only their enumerated powers, they would attract much less graft as it would not be a worthy investment for the wealthy to bribe people who have no controll over their business.
Here's where you miss the big picture. The federal government acts outside its bounds BECAUSE of the rich. Think about that.
The rich lobbied the government to pass health care (unconstitional) which expanded the federal govt's power. How does that fit into your model that the rich expand government to benefit them?
To both Tim's.
If you're Behemoth Corp. and have nationwide business, you still seek profits, do you not? But what when you are so big that it is harder to grow demand? People in the US can only drink so many Coca-Colas or afford to buy so many GM cars, or smoke so many cigarettes.
Even though you might try to grow supply, you still look for cost-cutting measures. If you have regulations from each of the states, that means you have 50-sets of regulations. Some tend to be a little more "pro consumer" than you might prefer. So what do you do?
You go to Washington! There, you can go through one channel and one set of laws! You have your laws made in Washington because (1) it is cheaper and easier to buy 1 legislature as opposed to 50 legislatures, and (2) you can get a one-size fits all law that sets the standard pretty much the way you want it. Now, to get this standard, you have to have some regulation against yourself. You can't overtly have the legislature give it all away. So, you put some regulations in there - ones that are okay by you. Cost-effective ones that protect profits and operate to PREEMPT any state from passing contrary laws that might screw your game.
Tim: Why did the rich lobby for health care? It's a mandate to buy a product. As an attorney, I'd LOVE to lobby for a law that said, "Though shalt always keep attorneys on retainer just in case."
If you say so. Enjoy! Meanwhile, the plunder continues.
When did it start?
Tim said: "The only powers that the super rich can use, if they did corrupt our government, would be the powers granted to the government in the first place. This prevents the evil super rich from violating the property rights of the poor by stealing their money simply because the government does not have that power to begin with."
Dare to dream!!!!!
At some point, you'd think a few millenia of history would dispel a person of "purist" theories. Look at what has HAPPENED and join reality.
Even Jefferson saw this coming over 200 years ago. Did you think he said to himself, "Never fear. We can restrain the rich and keep them from hi-jacking the government."? What do you think the 2nd Amendment was about and all the various famous quotes of his?
These guys were realists and not purists - a BIG difference. Learn from them. Reality demands a greater depth of understanding than any pure theory could possibly command.
Learn from them. OK
"To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
Thomas Jefferson
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/10/29/the-founders-...
Under the constitution of limited powers the government is only able to do the things it is granted to do so anyone who corrupts the system will only be able to do no more than what the government is capable of doing and since people will not give the government powers that will harm them no one will be able to have any power that will be able to harm them since the government is incapable of doing anything beyond what they wanted it to do.
What happens when that constitution breaks down and willy-nilly happens then people can leave the state which protects their own rights so a poor person who does not want his toys stolen can leave and escape into the jurisdiction of another state that is not doing that and a wealthy person who knows that everything he/she earns will be taxes away can also leave thus protecting their rights from a government.
Further; anyone who feels that the rich are not getting taxed enough can move to states where they have those policies. From this point everyone can live under the government that they think is most just and fair and have everyone happy with what they picked for themselves and not what others picked for them through the democratic process.
You said, quoting Jefferson, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association — the guarantee to every one of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
But see the previous quote where he talks about wealth inequality. You haven't though hard enough about how these two quotes reconcile.
Let me suggest that you ask yourself, what about people who labor equally; yet, one is ungodly rich, and the other lives paycheck-to-paycheck? THERE lies the difference. He is expressing his view on free-loading, and that IN NO WAY should slight his views on wealth inequality among those who work hard and are NOT freeloaders. See the difference?
They don't reconcile because one is probably grossly exagerated and the other is not. I'm guessing mine is the accurate one but that could be because people are more likely to favor what they say as accurate vs what others say.
What reward someone gets for their labor usually is the result of an agreement that person makes with other people but the issue is not pay equality because if getting paid equal is the goal then everyone should make min wage and life for everyone will be just. Equality of that kind is not the goal in a free society because that would inhibit someone in their free actions. What is the goal is equality under the law where everyone, no matter how rich or poor, are treated equally by the same law. This ensures the rich and powerful will get punished the same as the poor and weak since everyone is being treated equally by the govt.
There you go again. It's ALL this way or ALL that way. How about just think of these issues along a continuum? You have a more equitable distribution of wealth and income without being communists and all equal.
And let's not forget comrade, Noah Webster, another founder. He said, “An equality of property, with a necessity of alienation, constantly operating to destroy combinations of powerful families, is the very soul of a republic.”
Read more: Noah Webster Quotations, Biography - ( 1758 – 1843 ), An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution http://www.jrank.org/quotations/pages/1729/Noah-W...
This is impossible! Treason! Communists!
HeHe. LOL!!!! I love trying to get people to open their eyes to the founding of this country. Lassaiz-faire is a hoax put on by the rich and drilled into the depths of your skull until you believe in it with all your heart.
Where is that written in the constitution? What sentence in the original constitution expresses that principle because it is the constitution that guides the government and its actions, not the words of Noah Webster (whoever he was).
What is expressed is limited government with specific powers that prevented anyone from corrupting human being from creating "powerful families" which is what happen in europe. A republic, prevented anyone from pulling the levers of power to their advantage simply because the people in charge were limited by what was written in the constitution.
You said, "A republic, prevented anyone from pulling the levers of power to their advantage simply because the people in charge were limited by what was written in the constitution."
Oh, it did? Well, wake me up. I must be in a bad dream. It seems to me corruption abounds, and I can't name a single person in the middle class who has materially corrupted the government in any way. Do you really think government has been corrupted by the middle class?
You are right, though, in that those words are not expressly grafted in the Constitution. That, I will grant you. In which case, nor were the words of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin or any of the founders. No, they just wrote in a pure vacuum and left all their ideals behind to die in the dust.
I'll tell you what. The Constitution was never designed that way, but it was never designed to allow the rich to ignore it, abuse it, and thereby take over practically all of society. So, if massive hoards were created by hi-jacking the Constitution, I ask, do these hoards deserve Constitutional protection?
Yes. The massive hordes get protection because I believe that their is something called equal protection clause which basicaally says everyone is entitled to the same protections that any law provides as anyone else so if you are going to deny legal protections to the rich then you must deny that same protection to everyone else.
This protects people from those that think they don't deserve protection of the law simply because they think they don't deserve it because my rights under the law are not subject to your opinion.
Our current government operates outside the limits of power and if did operate strictly by the constitution every act would be subject to review and since every act is governed by a visible set of rules it is impossible for it to act outside those rules. The only powers that the super rich can use, if they did corrupt our government, would be the powers granted to the government in the first place. This prevents the evil super rich from violating the property rights of the poor by stealing their money simply because the government does not have that power to begin with.
The supposed communist ideas of Jefferson, madison, and Franklin never fell onto the constitution either...
Ben Franklin was another "communist." Ben Franklin argued 'that no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state'....
I wish I could cite the exact source, but you will find this quote all over the place and in many published books as well.
I just can't fathom why so many of our founders were in support of prohibitions on amassing wealth. It doesn't fit my "Republican" brainwashing very well. I'm soooo.... confused!
I'm not actually agreeing with that quote but, assuming that is true, by what right did the state have to decide how much is to much or what right does it have to say I can sell 1000 hamburgers at $5 and make $5,000 to people who have agreed to the interaction but then have the right to tell the 1001 person that they can no longer make the same deal a thousand people did before?
Also, where were all the wealth confiscation laws that so many of the founders supposely believed in? There wasn't any because most of the founders believed that someone sense of morality was not enough to legal restrain them so even if someone thought it was immoral to do so no one believed that was enough to restrain the free choice someone makes in their own lives.
It was why prostitution was never illegal up until the progressive era.
Now, you are getting very, very close! Every state (society) has a right to enact rules under which its inhabitants will live. There is the answer to your first question.
You asked would it be unfair to the rest to enact more confiscatory laws when those before them had more or less free reign? The answer is "NO." The idea is not to prevent wealth accumulation from the bottom-up, but to discourage it from the top-down. Once a limit is reached, then, there is no doubt a point of comfort is attained where the affected can really be hard to describe as "suffering" under the rule. "Boo Hoo! I need to add to my fleet of yachts! How oppressive!"
"Where are those wealth confiscation laws?," you ask. At the time, recall, state representatives had been in place for quite some time as rulers in the colonies. It was easy for the Hamiltonian types to corrupt them, and that is what happened. It is not that "no one believed" it was immoral to enact such laws. To the contrary, the maggot hoards were not exactly the type to afford nice operas and banquets to which they could invite their favorite representatives. It just happens that law-writing never quite went in their favor. Go figure....
And alas! You see the expanding inequality of wealth and income - a clear threat to government "by the People."
Query: Can you name one time when a revolution did not aim to topple an oppressive upper class? I doubt you can, because revolutions never erupted over gay rights and global warming.
So, if you want to get on the fast track to a revolution and collapse of government, keep promoting the status quo as to the "sacred" property rights of the rich. The richer they get, the faster the revolution will be coming.
I can't think of one and in fact most revolutions were never against their neighbors but against their oppressive governments and no I do not believe that property rights are just for the rich. What I said was that property rights exist for every person but only over the property that they have because I have never said that the rich have a right to violate the property rights of the poor just like the poor do not have the right to violate the property rights of the rich. The reason why is that no one has the right to violate the rights of anyone else so the outspoken can't legally violate the quiet's freedom of speech just like the rich can't violate the property rights of the poor.
Every state authority is also governed by their own constitution and people in that state are allowed to create a constitution that enables the government to confiscate the property of others for whatever reason. I have no problem with people in one state choosing that for themselves but people in other states have the right to not to do those things.
Now these states that enact these laws are violating a person's natural rights since natural law is the foundation of free will within any society but when natural law buts up against government law natural law usually loses but not because the state is correct but because the state has force and natural law functions based on mutual choices of its citizens where there is no force.
And so what? Are you saying as long as there are laws in place to allow the rich to plunder the middle class, all is well? Are you not more keen to the needs of a People, as opposed to a subset of them who get to write the laws? Our founders, as I have shown, thought more about People than laws.
Here is Madison's writing: "But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/...
Here, Madison speaks of stockpiles held by churches as leading to abuse. He then goes on to say the power of all corporations should be limited in the amount of wealth they can grab up because the growing wealth acquired by them NEVER fails to be a source of abuses.
This is one of your great "communist" founders speaking.
Why on earth would the man say a crazy thing like that? Do you have any idea?
He mentioned corporations specifically and not the wealthy because a corporation is a legal charter granted by the government that separates any property held under it from the individuals who compose it so perhaps he was talking about the legal scope that a corporation is granted because why would he just mention corporation and not the super-rich?
Wow! It must be hard letting go.
What is the difference between a person and a corporation - the charter. One is a fiction; the other is real. But who drives that fiction and steers it and tells it what to do? People! A distrust of corporations is a distrust of people that run them. And there is no reason to distrust a rich person who owns a corporation more than a rich person who does not. They are equally not to be trusted. Is this not obvious?
They are to be distrusted but only because they are people and not all people are good but that distrust is not a license to automatically imprison them in jail until a punishable crime is committed which makes us all subject to the law not to your opinion of who should be "targetted" and who should not.
A coroporation is not a person but a legal charter that is incapable of doing anything good or evil simply because it is not a thinking person. This makes me wonder if he was not talking about the ethical behavior of a "corporation" but the property corporation are allowed to put under its umbrella.
Yes. If your act did not violate that law then it is not a LEGAL crime that is punishable by the law therefore you are free to do that act however moral or immoral that act is according to whatever religious or moral beliefs other people might hold onto but that is really between you and yourself.
This means that the rich guy can do whatever is within his power to get whatever law changed as long as his acts did not violate any laws in the process because the state only punishes laws that are broken not things outside of that. The things outside of those legal restrictions might be unfair or immoral but the state has not power to stop those behaviors until a law is created which is why there are laws against bribery and corrupting public officials that state specific acts such as money changing hands. This is what should be punished, not the mere existence of someone's money.
Here is the crux of your argument. You are saying that a rich guy's crimes are crimes because they violated your sense of morality. That is a crime of conscience that is punished by one's own belief system and not by the law. It only becomes a crime punishable by law when it violates the law not when it violates your conscience.
Okay, Tim. Let me try a different angle. Here is a new law: "Income will be taxed at 80% of the first $100,000, and a mere 1% after that."
Now, you tell me..... If a rich guy gets the benefit of that law - probably lobbied for by another rich guy - is he a criminal? No. But should we stop the political process of discussing what is societally "just" simply because "everyone had the same law?" Certainly, that cannot be your argument.
But yet, that is the relative essence of most laws in this country (all I did was exaggerate them so you could readily see the injustice). Your view has been clouded because the capital gains tax is 15% (being half the marginal rate for most people) and therefore, it is more insidious and harder to spot it as particularly immoral.
You cannot tell me that property rights are inviolate. They are violated day in and day out. Every civil law that exists violates your right to hold onto your income. And you would only hold "criminals" accountable for this? In that case, you must readily accept your lot and let the status quo be. Because if that is "the law," it cannot be a crime, by definition. Wow!!!! If only I could be Webster and define "crime." Hell, I'd be rich and break no laws doing it!!!!
Tim said, "In free-enterprise a person is not restricted to accumulate wealth by the government so it is not possible to deny some people the ability to accumulate wealth while allowing the "privelaged" to do so."
So, tell me, how much does our economy reflect "free enterprise?" Take a look at the number of laws, rules and regulations our there, and tell me how "free" it is.
Obviously, ours is not lassaiz-faire. The laws come from somewhere.... but where? How many laws did you make? How many lobbyists do you have? How many times did your senator hop on the phone and ask how high he could jump for you?
So, give me your take. Do you think the system of laws we have is fair?
Its not free because most regulations are designed to control how businesses operate not protect others from their harmful actions and all attempts at undue influence caused by someone's actions such as handing money over or making huge campaign donations should be illegal but what shouldn't be illegal is someone's own property. That is where I disagree with you because you seem to suggest that just being rich is a crime punishable by law where I want to punish people actions that might give them an unfair influence within government. One is punishing someone's actions which they choose to do and the other is punishing their existence which isn't fair to those who do not do the things that result in corruption of the government.
You keep resorting to "crime." Look, if taxing you is legal, then, please tell me why taxing them is not. If we had laws that taxed them even more, how on earth would that be a crime? Please tell?
You need to get off the crime-kick. It doesn't work. Any law that allows something is, by definition, not a crime. I agree with you. Let's go beyond.
It is not a crime to own property. I agree. It is likewise, not a crime, for the government to tax it and take part of it. Isn't this true?
Once you realize how little the ruling elite care about your property, you might have a little less concern for theirs. You so readily go to bat for their cause. Just curious, are you rich or something?
You know, they pay FAR, FAR less of a percentage in taxes than the middle class. FAR less. So, which is right? To make a little money and pay 30-40%, or to make a lot of money and pay 15%?
Its not a crime for the govt to tax something because the constitution allows them to but if the law protects my property and protects everyone's property from the invasion of others then are we not protected from the supposed ruling elite? This means I go to bat for a right that everyone has and not just the ruling elite because I have not said that I do not have property rights and only the super rich do.
I think neither of your taxes are fair. There should be a single flat tax or no income tax of any kind.
Jeff,
I should say our tax laws are quite the opposite of your example here, the first 10000 of income is taxed at 10%, there are income tax rebates for the working poor, and I don't have the figures in front of me, but close to 50% of the populace (the poor) who use most of the social services pay no taxes at all, and thus have no stake in our society.
Tim, once you start making about $50k or so, you are up in the 28% bracket and still VERY middle class. If you are so rich that you do not work and all your money comes from capital gains on trades and stock dividends (unearned income), your rate is a mere 15%.
Did you not see the Buffet video I posted on the facebook page of TAC?
Here is the definition of an aristocracy:
Aristocracy is a form of government in which a few of the most prominent citizens rule. The term is derived from the Greek aristokratia, meaning 'the rule of the best'.[1] See Aristocracy for the historical roots of the term. The concept evolved in Ancient Greece, where rule by a council of prominent citizens was commonly used and contrasted with monarchy, in which an individual king held the power.[2] Later, aristocracies primarily consisted of an elite aristocratic class, privileged by birth and wealth. Since the French Revolution, aristocracy has generally been contrasted with democracy, in which all citizens hold political power.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristocracy
Aristocracy is the rule of the privelaged but how do you create the privalaged without the raw force of government that declares some citizens privelaged and others not. In free-enterprise a person is not restricted to accumulate wealth by the government so it is not possible to deny some people the ability to accumulate wealth while allowing the "privelaged" to do so.
Now what Jefferson was referring to was corruption of the political process by the rich which is a crime that should be punished but shouldn't we punish those INDIVIDUALS that participate in the crime by the particular acts that they do instead of everyone who is capable of doing the crime because if we punish people who happen to live in a certain class that are more susceptable to committing a particular crime then we should punish all poor people because statistics shows they are more likely to commit violent crimes than any other group of people.
Should we start rounding up the poor for fear of what they might do to us for the same reason we should destroy the wealthy for the fear of what they can do?
On the facebook page to TAC, I provided a quote by Jefferson.
Here is a quote from Adams in a letter he wrote to Jefferson:
"You suppose a difference of Opinion between You and me, on the Subject of Aristocracy. I can find none. I dislike and detest hereditary honours, Offices Emoluments established by Law. So do you. I am for ex[c]luding legal hereditary distinctions from the U.S. as long as possible. So are you. I only say that Mankind have not yet discovered any remedy against irresistable Corruption in Elections to Offices of great Power and Profit, but making them hereditary.
But will you say our Elections are pure? Be it so; upon the whole. But do you recollect in history, a more Corrupt Election than that of Aaron Burr to be President, or that of De Witt Clinton last year. By corruption, here I mean a sacrifice of every national Interest and honour, to private and party Objects.
I see the same Spirit in Virginia, that you and I see in Rhode Island and the rest of New England. In New York it is a struggle of Family Feuds. A fewdal Aristocracy. Pensylvania is a contest between German, Irish and old English Families. When Germans and Irish Unite, they give 30,000 majorities. There is virtually a White Rose and a Red Rose a Caesar and a Pompey in every State in this Union and Contests and dissentions will be as lasting. The Rivalry of Bourbons and Noailleses produced the French Revolution, and a similar Competition for Consideration and Influence, exists and prevails in every Village in the World."
Even Adams was perplexed and disappointed that wealthy families inevitably control politics and corrupt it. He commented that he could see no way to stop this. So, in other words, he observed that massive wealth is, almost by definition, corruption.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents...
BTW, deTocqueville's work is on-line. You don't need to go buy it. It is a free education, easily available to anyone who wants to appreciate what it takes to have a strong Republic.
What you are talking about is corruption being the problem and not the mere existence of wealth in the hands of the few because it is possible for someone to be very wealthy and not have that same influence in government that anyone else has such as legally voting or using their freedom of speech to influence the public. These rights exist for every person and are equal to everyone no matter what their income level is.
Now if you are talking about corruption then that should be dealt with but don't treat a person's wealth as the same act as a person bribing a senator or doing anything illegal in the political process because those are actual crimes that are punishable by law while having wealth is not (at least not yet).
I would also like to point out that property rights is not a mythical thing because if I were to take your drink you would feel that I stole something from you and would insist that the government should use its force to protect your right of property over your drink which would result in throwing me in jail. Now that protection not only exist for your cup but for anything else you own so it exist for every piece of property you own and because of that the right associated with every piece of property is protected by law so whatever amount is owned by any person the right of ownership is protected under the law.
You are wrong. You need to study the founders a little more carefully. Google "Thomas Jefferson" + "wealth inequality." That is but one example. You will find they were closer to being "communists" than you will ever be.
Now, you can use the "take my drink" example, but that is a silly "extreme" argument. We are not talking about sodas here. We are talking about an entire economy. And nobody was ever stupid enough to separate economics from politics, so please don't go there.
Treat yourself to some education. After you Google and read-up, then, take a stab at deTocqueville's "Democracy in America." There, you will be enlightened to find out that a more equal distribution of wealth was at the HEART of a republican form of government. It really is a good read. There are countless other readings of the day. Go there. You cannot possibly educate yourself through the blogs of today, where people have lost sight and veered from our founding principles. The rhetoric abounds and it is so off-the-mark, it is truly almost laughable. Again, don't take my word for it. Read up and learn, directly from writings of the day - not mine, not Rick's, not anyone else's. Get it straight from the horse's mouth.
By the way, I don't mean this to be condescending, so please don't take it that way. I am just a bit weary of how misguided our collective thinking is. It is time to start a new study into our founders and their thoughts and beliefs. If we don't bother to know them, we will never understand the Constitution.
I think many people decried the wealth inequality including Adam Smith but the solution lied in free enterprise because in there day the wealthy were well connected to the buercracy of the state which was used to surpress individuals who wanted to get rich. What, and I am guessing here, is that most people who advocated for free-enterprise believed that the government should be removed from the economy completely so that individuals can go out there and prosper without having the government restrict them from doing so which is why it is called free-enterprise, free-speech, free-press, and free-anything because free meant free from the restrictions of government not being restrained by it.
My drink analogy is accurate but if you did not like it then lets substitute the word drink with the term anything you own and now combine you and your right to own anything you own with every person in a society and you will see that the total economy is really just the sum of individual rights over property in which each individual has absolute say over their property.
They have say over how their property is to be given to others but do not have a say over how others can use their property because all property rights, like any other right, ends when they violate the rights of others. This means I do not have a say in how you can spend your money and you do not have a say over how I can spend mine and neither one of us has a say over how Bill Gates can do with his because our rights to our property only exist over our property and no one elses.
Obviously there is a disagreement over the issue of property rights here but that is why federalism in any society can function very well and have every citizen live under the laws that they wish to. I believe that property is the sole right of the individual while you may think differently but since we live in different states (i'm assuming) we can have different laws based on our local authorities laws. This ensures everyone the right to live under the laws we wish to live by so everyone is happy.
This is what federalism is really about.
Yes, the brilliance of federalism. On that, I certainly agree! I tend to be a bit more radical on these issues than most and have been described as an extreme libertarian or free marketeer by some. But, that doesn't mean I have any intention of forcing it on people in other states. Here in CA, I doubt I will ever get anywhere close to my happy vision anyway...
Yes, it is this same thinking that has allowed "legal" excesses. "$100 OFF!" in giant print. "(Not valid in any of the 50 states)" in small print. "Hey! It's your fault. You should have read." But please tell me, why would anyone put language in place like this if not for the very purpose of taking advantage where possible. If you have any familiarity with trade customs in the Middle East, you will find this is the way it works. If you can screw the hell out of someone on a technicality, then, that's the order of the day.
You guys know a little something about the laws because you can look them up. But you have to devote more time into legal principles and not laws. Only then, will you have a better appreciation and understanding. If someone steals, that which they steal is not worthy of legal protection. If they defraud, the same rule applies. If they obtain by undue influence, that same rule applies.
Libertarianism is something for which I have a fair degree of fondness, but anyone who seriously contemplates reality knows pure Libertarianism is rife with flaws. You can't just "Live and let live, provided though shalt do no harm." What the heck kind of rule is that? Define harm.
If free trade allows a single person to hoard everything in a society, so that all 306 million of the remainder of Americans have nothing but to accept work for 2 crackers a day and a glass of water, will you defend that until your dying day?
Whatever you do, do not be shallow enough to pretend that can never happen. It has happened time and time again throughout history. If you think this country is immune to becoming worse than Mexico (maybe a Guatemala or even a Haiti), think again.
So, to what end will you defend such a path? Once you subsist on crackers and water? Or will you do something before it gets that bad? How bad would it have to be before you step and say, "This isn't working?"
There is no doubt you have been made the suckers, thus far. The laws are written against you. If you are happy, I'll buy you a jar of Vaseline to extend your hours of pleasure. LOL!!!!
Just think how much better your life might be if it hadn't been lobbied away from you.
Saying that someone does not have the right to free trade because it might have some undue negative impact on some other segment of society is like saying that someone does not have the right to free speech because we might promote neo-naziism (which does happen). It is simply your right to do so and it has always created more wealth for society than any other economic model in the world.
Do you think you enjoy unfettered free speech and can say ANYTHING you want ANYTIME you want? Nope! So, enter the rules. Once you have rules to curb abuse for the betterment of a society, you must now admit that rules and limits CAN make a better society.
After reading the article thoroughly, let me offer a rebuttal as to why the issue being discussed is more complex than a mere "almost religious respect” for property rights.
First, Rick, you are right in the sense that turbulence from inflation was the thrust of the rule. But why?
It so happens that at the time we obtained our independence from British rule, we had been oppressed for many decades by the British ruling class. Concentrations of wealth among British elites had so corrupted the politics and laws that it was literally breaking the backs of Americans.
So, on the one hand, the evil of mass concentrations of wealth was quite evident.
On the other hand, at this same time, we had a largely agrarian economy. The industrial revolution was just beginning to take off. As a newly-independent country, we had a need to preserve our independence from the possibility that a British reprisal might occur or from the possibility of a sinister influence from other European great nations. Remember, France was still a major player in America and claimed vast territories.
Our independence was rather fragile. We needed capital, because no nation of modest wealth could repel a rich, powerful enemy for too long.
So, on the one hand, we despised the corruption of concentrations of wealth, and on the other hand, laws that protect wealth were needed in the form of encouraging the rich to invest capital in America. Hamilton was without reservation in his desire to fashion politics in order to invite the elite of the world to bring their capital stockpiles to America, where, in the land of opportunity, they could become immensely rich. The colonial "printing press" problem had been an impediment to attracting such capital.
Over the years to follow, we granted great monopolies in exchange for attracting huge investment - in railroads and communications infrastructure, for examples. We sorely needed the infrastructure, and paid a dear - and to this day, almost permanent - price to get it. That is why so much of this nation's bounty is held by a few families and will continue to be held that way for generations to come.
Recognizing, however, that this was a double-edged sword (as America had long been oppressed by British oligarchs), the founders were not just concerned about an "almost religious respect” for property rights.
It is for this reason you see the 2nd Amendment. We all agree the 2nd Amendment has, as its express purpose, preserved the ability of an oppressed people to overthrow a dictator or ruling class of oppressors. It is no secret that oppression is invariably the robbing of wealth and opportunity from a weaker class. I have yet to see any point in history where the dictators and oligarchs have been poor and downtrodden.
So, it seems that the 2nd Amendment is the antithesis to capital preservation and the "almost religious respect” for property rights. That right does not exist, and the 2nd Amendment was the means to make sure that property rights would never remain perfectly inviolate.
So, here we are, today, having cultivated this conservative and almost religious respect for wealth accumulations, while the wealthy are continually infiltrating our political process with their lobbyists, campaign contributions and ownership of the MSM. There is no doubt that equality of opportunity - the very essence of our Constitution - has suffered mightily at the hands of the scribes who write the laws as dictated by the ruling class.
If property rights, in this manner, are worthy of an almost religious respect, it might be time to start thinking about a new religion.
Again, though, your point is well-taken that an out-of-control printing press for money threatens stability of the availability of capital. But, at some point, stability is no longer good for the American people.
That is, for example, why we all spend lots of time on this site and many other sites - struggling with ideas as to how to remove power from the hands of 535 Congressmen and 1 President. We have seen the corruption of it and are protesting. We don't want stability in the federal government; we want to chop it down to size.
Does anyone think the federal government became corrupt, and then, the rich began to lobby it? I think you will find it is the other way around - that the rich lobbied the federal government and corrupted it, effectively taking it over. The federal government is doing the bidding of the rich, and that is what upsets us, but for whatever reason, people have been unwilling to see this. We are angered at the general feeling of oppression, but we argue "wealth must be preserved at all costs" as if to not recognize that it is the wealth that buys and controls the government which oppresses us. This is odd....
If you continue to have an almost religious respect for protecting the wealth of corrupters and only want to focus on the politicians - I am afraid you are setting your target on the dukes and not realizing there are some monarchs behind the scenes sitting on a pile of resumes for any duke vacancies that might occur.
Property rights are not inviolate. Any concept that property rights are inviolate is the antithesis of a Republic.
You are perfectly allowed to have a society that believes a person's property is not theres but you should do it in your own state. That is what the tenthamendment and the sovriegnty of states is really about. Its about the citiziens of any state to choose the laws they want to live by without having those laws affect anyone else outside those states.
Iowa can marry gays, California can smoke pot, but we can own our property and have our rights over them protected by law. That is the domain of the state authorities and not of the federal government.
Good luck, in confiscating the wealth of the wealthy in your state. They will probably move which demonstrates the power of federalism to protect the rights of individuals from a government that they feel no longer is interested in their rights.
Jeff,
You said:
"Property rights are not inviolate. Any concept that property rights are inviolate is the antithesis of a Republic."
based on notions like:
"We are angered at the general feeling of oppression, but we argue "wealth must be preserved at all costs" as if to not recognize that it is the wealth that buys and controls the government which oppresses us."
Much of what you said here makes sense, but a lot of it does not. For instance, a "republic" without property rights is socialism. That is not a republic. Individual rights including property rights are at the root of any genuine republic.
Allow me to take issue with some of your notions.
Who is the "we" who argues "wealth must be preserved at all costs"??? And to *whose* wealth are you referring when you assign this to "we"?
*WE* are individuals. I never argue that "wealth must be preserved at all costs", which is distinctly different from property rights, aside from being self-contradictory. I argue for property rights, not the preservation of ownership of wealth obtained by fraud or theft, such as your statement infers.
Please first understand what property rights are. Do not equate ill-gotten gains with rightfully gotten gains.
I try to build and preserve my own wealth, modest though it may be. No one has the right to take any of it from me. Others do the same. That is done by the grace of property rights. There are no contradictions or problems here. Yet you are concluding that the *assumption* of property rights is invalid since your logic is faulty and goes backwards, from your apparent acceptance of conclusions readily available from THEIR MSM and THEIR schools. Let us instead start from valid assumptions and work forward.
Whatever rights we have, we ALL have those rights. (“Where one man is not free, no man is free” – M. L. King, Jr.) NO ONE (individual, group or govt) has the right to remove / violate the rights of another. Your right to remove any right of another is his equal right to remove the same from you. Where does that go? The ONLY way that anyone loses their OWN rights is to violate the rights of someone else.
If you eliminate property rights in order to remove ill gotten wealth that buys govt favor from the hands that seek that favor, YOU JUST ELIMINATED YOUR CLAIM TO ALL YOUR OWN PROPERTY, and YOUR RIGHT to own any property. Try living without ANY property.
Due to such misunderstandings, you have evidently accepted as history the nonsense taught by minions of the same people about whom you complain. Who bought those govt favors? You call them the “wealthy”. Not all wealth is ill gotten, but some is.
Let us take the example of the Federal Reserve, the root cause of so many problems today. (Read “Creature from Jekyll Island”, G Edward Griffin) The Fed was sold to us on the claim that the “free market had failed”, e.g., the Panic of 1907, and other previous panics / recessions / etc, as though the market, meaning supply and demand, is somehow inherently unstable. In fact all of those panics resulted from inflating the currency supply via fractional reserve banking, resulting in the inevitable, unavoidable panic, crash and recession, that occurs when people realize that the bank does not have what it claims to have. (Money is currency, currency is not necessarily money. “Paper money” is not money, it is currency. Precious metals are money.)
(continued below)
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] Paper Money and the Constitution [...]
[...] Paper Money and the Constitution – Tenth Amendment Center Dec 30, 2009 … Printing paper money was one thing, but to actually nullify preexisting contracts and force … [...]