|
[QUOTE=detbuch;817249]The founders did not seem to be concerned with fairness. It seems the guiding principle of the governance they created was individual freedom--freedom being that state in which we are not dependent on the coercion of someone else. If you depend on the coercion of another, neither you nor he are free. To be free, interaction must be by consent. They seem to have based their model on nature, human nature, as they saw it, and its natural laws. There being no such thing as "fair" in nature, the only fairness that one can derive from their Constitution is that every individual has a right to his life, his liberty, and his pursuit of happiness so long as it does not deprive another the same. =QUOTE]
OK Smart A$$, if there is no such thing as"fair" in nature, how do you come to talk about it?
"Fair" point. Outside of human nature it might be difficult to find an existence of what we conceive as "fair." Unless all of nature is fair, in which case the word is useless. But we humans can see what is fair only if we create and agree to rules of what is fair and what is unfair. The Constitution is that set of rules for governance, and when the Constitution is disobeyed, the referees, the Judges, are supposed to call a foul and mete out the penalty. It seems that those politicians who cry "unfair" when individuals gain "too much" wealth, and try to "bring a level of fairness to the process" by taxing the wealthier at a higher rate, are the very ones who are breaking the rule of "equality before the law." Nowhere in the Constitution is there a rule that citizens are restricted from gaining too much wealth. And when those politicians gain enough advantage to pack the court with Judges who allow them to create rules that contradict the Constitutional intent to preserve individual freedom by mandating the coercion of redistributing one's wealth to another, then "fairness" is just a whim of those who have the power to fix the game.
[QUOTE=detbuch]And there being no such thing as "equal" in nature, the only equality they seemed to be concerned with was an equality before the law. Such guiding principle constrained the Congress and Courts against imposition of unequal taxes for over 100 years. Things have changed.=QUOTE]
So then, we have established that "fair" DOES exist in nature and you can eat your own pontification. Now, about there being no such thing as "equal" in nature, how could the Founders claim that we are created equal?
Good one. All living things have life. It's circular, redundant, and unecessary to say so. It is, as claimed in the Declaration of Independance, self evident. And, insofar as you have life, you are inherently free to pursue your desire--again, self evident. It is only those self evident qualities that the Founders referred to as being created equal. In no way, did they see the qualities as guarantying equal outcomes of wealth, or property, or happiness. And since they considered these qualities to be unalienable, they created the set of rules, principles, that would protect them from the power of an oppressive government.
[QUOTE=detbuch]If we are to have a consistent method and rate of taxation, shouldn't it have a principle that maintains that consistency and prevents indiscriminate changes?
What is that principle?=QUOTE]
Blah, blah, blah. It's an outdated document written by old white slave owners who were only interested in keeping their money and power at the expense of the working man. And you're a fool if you believe any of it.
Last edited by detbuch; 12-13-2010 at 02:10 AM..
|
Hybrid Mode
