It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


One person should only be so rich.

page: 25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:32 PM

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by maestromason

We already addressed the issues I brought up and you couldn't "shut me down" because the points I was making were that the US does not have a "free market economy" because it is in fact heavily regulated and that leaving the US involves more than just denouncing your citizenship.

I ended up being a bot, someone who didn't really leave the US and someone who doesn't exist to you. Don't think there is more to add to that.

Well, it looks like everything really is in a state of flux, there are variations such as State Capitalism, Market Socialism, mixed economy, keynesian, etc. Nothing is so black and white is it?

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by maestromason

What, that your well connected and the rules don't apply to you? That just proves my point because it means that the economy is more crony capitalism than free market capitalism.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:36 PM
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Why wouldn't you equate it. It is part of a properly laid out post with each idea clearly defined in seperate paragraphs. It is clearly a continuation of the idea that taxing the super-wealthy will keep them from being in a position to do the things that these have done.

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Unrealised
To me, Communism is the way of the future.

According to this site, Ignorance is frowned upon, but it is the prehistoric-like fear of Communism that, to me, is a blatant red-flag that people do not understand the true miracle that Communism could be for the World.

The biggest secret of economics is that Communism is a very powerful system.

Of course, in a sick and perverted system such as Imperialism, it is called, basically, The Devil.

Get educated and elect people who aren't in it for the money.

Communism is nothing new nor is it the *way of the future*
Having Dictators has never been a good idea. Nor will it ever be.
edit on 27-12-2011 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 12:51 AM

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by maestromason

What, that your well connected and the rules don't apply to you? That just proves my point because it means that the economy is more crony capitalism than free market capitalism.

Only if you knew how to construct a proper sentence in PROPER ENGLISH!

Then your badly butchered attempts to gain my attention might somehow succeed.
edit on 28-12-2011 by maestromason because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:12 AM
reply to post by maestromason

Lame. You know good and well what I'm saying. I stand by my assertion that the US is rife with regulations which keeps it from meeting the definition of free market capitalism. If you are somehow standing outside of the jurisdiction of said norms then my last post is true regardless of whatever grammer filter you choose to place upon it.

edit on 28-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 06:51 AM
If the rationale behind the limit the wealth campaign is to limit the power weilded by them, it will fail. Those who seek wealth for the power it gives them, will find other ways to acquire the power. It is not as if wealth is the only way to power. Those who feel powerless and manipulated today because they don't possess wealth, will continue to remain powerless and manipulated. Nothing will change in that respect.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 08:48 AM

Originally posted by lucid eyes
Yet another "liberal" wanting to impose a personal beef on the rest of the world.

Haha yeah, god forbid those crazy "Liberals" get there own way and we end up living in a society where everyone who works 40hrs a week earns a decent wage in which they can take care of themselves and there families! /facepalm

/end sarcasm.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

No, I believe the two share enough similarities to work.

Of course, there will be exceptions to the rules, but overall the majority of the super-rich are there because they are the best at what they do and weren't held back.

You restrict that, well it's just not human.

I think you miss what im saying, your comparing physical endurance with business with the notion that they are two sides of the same coin - To which they are not. Physical endurance is more of a personal attribute, whereas business on a whole is like a machine.

(this part of my post is aimed at everyone reading this thread)
As for the majority of the super-rich being there because they are "the best" Then why do they have expensive private education that no poor or even middle class citizen can afford? Could it be, COULD IT JUST BE, that the super rich breed there offspring to take there place and perpetuate this capitalistic cycle!?

The clue is in the political name - CONSERVATISM.

Golly gosh, wonder what they're trying to conserve!

The British conservative party is a "political tool" the wealthy and elite use in order to have there tax slashed, wages frozen, cuts on public sector (NHS, education, police, firefighters etc) while encouraging investment in private sector etc (selling off the NHS, Privatizing transport etc)
All designed to take money from the poor and give to the rich. The poor dont "envy" the rich, its really nothing to do with jealously, its more to do with the lack of opportunity to earn a liveable wage.
For further information please refer yourself to thatchers government of 1979-90, Thank you.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 11:37 AM
Talking about this issue is like talking about religion: there are so many moral, ethical, ideological and cultural aspects involved that we all should ‘agree to disagree’ on principle to even participate on this thread. That being said, I would like to offer my opinion, if only for the sake of adding to the discussion.

I believe it is not, has never been, and ultimately will never be, a matter of money, or economics, or even government, that there always (trust me, ALWAYS) will be inequality and injustice in this world. It has nothing to do with how much money you make, or how much money you’re stealing, or what underhanded (or correct) means you use to acquire your wealth. In the end, it’s all a matter of human nature. The world today may be bedazzled by technological achievements and trinkets, but truth of the matter is, we have changed very little. If at all. Human beings are exactly the same at the core as they were 2000 years ago. Or do you think that corruption and thievery and dishonesty are all evils of the XXI century, in the advent of so called ‘capitalism’ or ‘corporativism’ or whatever ism you prefer? That is being pretty naïve, in my opinion.

I do not wish to offer any feeble analogies, but sometimes looking at the smallest element helps put things in perspective: A lot of you say that most millionaires, if not all, are selfish scumbags whose fortunes come from underhanded and illegal schemes. And I say, well, sure, there are a lot of those. But there also are a lot of very qualified, driven people who made their fortunes by simply clinging to an idea and putting everything they had behind it, and lo and behold, it turned out to be an idea that would change the world, and make them impossibly rich in the process. Is that so wrong? What do you say to the new wave of young entrepreneurs, those kids building blockbusting websites and applications in their college dorms, which although ‘immaterial’ as some here claim, have as much of an empirical, intellectual value as any other product being offered? What about the artist whose art is being priced in six figures, or the writer who sells millions of copies? Are they scamming the rest of us too? Now, to flip the side of the coin --because everything has two sides in this dual world: Can you honestly say that the underhandedness, corruption, or plain thievery is not present on the other side of the spectrum too? Because just as there are a lot of poor people that is constant and determined, working a minimal-wage job to feed their kids and almost magicking their way into making ends meet, doing whatever they can to adjust to their circumstances, and doing so in an honest, lawful manner, there are also a part of that group that prefer to take the easy route, and therefore we have drug dealers, prostitution rings, gangs, etc at the lower levels. You can all say that it’s a matter of opportunity and education, that crime related activities are nothing but the result of the injustice of the system. But then I would have to ask, why then aren’t ALL poor people petty thugs and drug dealers, given they all suffer from the same lack of opportunities. And thus I hope my main point is made clear: it’s not a matter of sociological, economical or educational means. Not even a matter of luck. It’s a matter of principles, what we all carry within us, that dictate what we will do in any given situation.

Thus you have the poor man than upon being given a fortune becomes a despot, and the wealthy heir who abandons his fortune to give it and himself to the people. Human nature.

I know this is simplistic beyond belief, but I really don’t know how else I could express this. If humanity won’t change itself, from the inside out, no matter what we do, how many regulations we pass, how many systems we create or theorize, it will always end up in the same unbalanced, unfair mess we have now, where millions die of hunger and millions don’t even notice. Anyways, I am 29 years old, and though I hope I’ll live many years, I know that, however long it is, I won’t be able to see this precious change happening. I don’t know what it will take for us to change. Maybe the awful truth is that we are incapable of changing. All I know is that I try to be the one little grain of sand that adds to the right side of things. Everything else is, unfortunately, beyond me. Cheers to you all.

edit on 28-12-2011 by DarkVeela because: spelling

edit on 28-12-2011 by DarkVeela because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-12-2011 by DarkVeela because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:00 PM

1 in 5 US Children is Poor

Posted by Alex.I

Rating: 0

The number of children in the United States considered poor rose by 1 million in 2010, the U.S. Census said on Thursday, with more than one in five of the youngest Americans now living in poverty.

"Children who live in poverty, especially young children, are more likely than their peers to have cognitive and behavioral difficulties, to complete fewer years of education, and, as they grow up, to experience more years of unemployment," the Census said.

In 2010, when the Census survey was conducted, 21.6 percent of children across the country were poor, compared to 20 percent in 2009.

That was mainly due to a rise in the number of children living below the federal poverty threshold, defined as an annual income of $22,314 for a family of four, to 15.7 million from 14.7 million in 2009.

The figures reflect the overall state of the economy. The national poverty rate stands at 15.3 percent and the unemployment rate is at 9 percent some two years after the recession that began in 2007 officially ended.

The number of people living in poverty has reached an all-time high in the United States, despite the country's position as one of the wealthiest in the world. Its gross domestic product per capita of $47,184 was 3,095 percent more than India's $1,477 in 2010.

In 24 states and Washington, D.C., more than 20 percent of those up to 17 years old lived at or below the poverty threshold.


The Census found that the percentage of white children in poverty increased in 25 states in 2010 from the year before.

Overall, "white and Asian children had poverty rates below the national average, while black children had the highest poverty rate at 38.2 percent," it said.

"The poverty rate for Hispanic children was 32.3 percent, and children identified with two or more races had 22.7 percent living in poverty."

Children in some states fared worse than in others.

"About one of every three children in poverty lived in one of the four most populous states, each of which saw increases in the number and the percentage of children in poverty between 2009 and 2010," the Census said.

There were 2 million children in poverty in California, followed by Texas, where 1.8 million children were considered poor. Slightly less than 1 million children lived in poverty in Florida and New York.

The Census found that the number and percentage of children in poverty rose in 27 states in 2010. New Mexico's rate increased the most, by 4.7 percent.

Among states, Mississippi had the highest proportion of children in poverty, 32.5 percent. In Washington, D.C., and in New Mexico, child poverty rates also neared one-third.

In 10 states child poverty rates are 25 percent or higher, including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.

New Hampshire has the lowest child poverty rate, 10 percent. Source: Reuters



Home > Russian heiress, 22, buys NYC apartment for $88 million; proceeds to charity?
Russian heiress, 22, buys NYC apartment for $88 million; proceeds to charity?
By Freya Petersen
Created 4020-12-28 13:24
Override Title:
Russian heiress, 22, buys $88m NY pad

Yekaterina Rybolovleva, daughter of Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev, has broken New York real estate records by paying $88 million for a Manhattan apartment, Forbes magazine reported.
Russian heiress, 22, buys NYC apartment for $88 million; proceeds to charity?
News Desk
Member Content:
Normal Content

Yekaterina Rybolovleva, daughter of Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev, has broken New York real estate records by paying $88 million for a Manhattan apartment, Forbes magazine reported.

Yekaterina Rybolovleva, daughter of Russian billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev, has broken New York real estate records by paying $88 million for a Manhattan apartment, Forbes magazine reported [3].

The 6,744-square-foot apartment at 15 Central Park West, which reportedly boasts 10 rooms, including four bedrooms, a wrap-around terrace (itself over 2,000 square feet) and two wood-burning fireplaces, was previously owned by Sanford Weill, a former chairman of Citigroup.

Weill, who bought the apartment with his wife Joan for a then record $42.4 million, has said that the proceeds of this sale would be donated to charity, according to the New York Observer [4].

Forbes quoted a representative for Rybolovleva, 22, as saying the heiress — a resident on Monaco — was "currently studying at a US university. She plans to stay in the apartment when visiting New York."

Dmitry Rybolovleva, a former fertilizer magnate, became rich during the post-Soviet privatization of the economy, according to Agence France-Presse [5].

The oligarch paid $95 million in cash for Donald Trump's Palm Beach mansion, Maison de L'Amitie in 2008.

His net worth is reportedly $9.5 billion, and in 2011 he was ranked No. 93 on Forbes' billionaire list [6].

However, the Daily Mail reported [7]that Dmitry Rybolovlev, who once spent 11 months in jail for murder (he was later acquitted), was in the middle of a bitter divorce with wife Elena, to whom he has been married for 23 years, that could cost him dearly.

Elena, with whom Rybolovlev has two daughters, has accused him of serial infidelity.

Two years ago, she filed a lis pendens — where a court gains jurisdiction over a property — on their home in Palm Beach after claiming her husband 'has a history of secreting and transferring assets in order to avoid his obligations', the Palm Beach Daily News reported.

It was later removed, although it could be reinstated after an agreement is reached on how to settle the assets.

Yekaterina Rybolovleva paid full asking price for the apartment, the magazine reported on Monday, calling it a record for an individual transaction in New York City.

The previous record for real estate sale in Manhattan was $53 million — paid by J. Christopher Flowers for the Harkness Mansion in 2006, according to the Daily Mail.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by ofhumandescent

Now for anyone that thinks my last two articles is normal, okay and just you in my opinion are clueless, heartless and what goes around comes around.

Wait, the brown stuff will eventually hit your fan and than you will understand.

The pie needs to be more evenly sliced.

The current way our planet is being run is completely insane.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:13 PM

Book should be read by all ATS members replying to this thread. Double dare you!

5.0 out of 5 stars How 1% of Americans Take From the Other 99% and Why We Tolerate It, January 3, 2008
Frederick S. Goethel "wildcatcreekbooks" (Central Valley, CA) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)

The author has written a well documented and detailed account of how less than 1% of Americans are getting rich of the backs of the other 99%. And, it isn't just individuals who are reaping millions of dollars from's also corporations.

Some of the items presented in detail in the book include how one of the largest baseball teams in the country destroyed a public park for a new stadium, had it paid for by the citizens, and then gave payback to politicians who helped.

Or the two major hunting and fishing chains that got millions and millions in tax subsidies to build stores based on false and unsustainable promises, and continue to try to rape the treasuries of communities across the country with more false promises.

Or the company who built a call center in Buffalo using tax subsidies and sold it to the public through a newspaper owned by the same company.

These are just several examples of the material detailed in the book. In addition to showing who is taking, and how, the author details who is fighting back and how they are trying to in an era when the courts and politicians are held by corporate interests.

The book is well written, and well documented. In addition, the author took what can be a very dry subject and made extremely readable. This book should be read by every American, particularly in light of the upcoming presidential elections. Some familiar names will pop out at you as individuals who made their fortunes off our backs. Source:

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:41 PM
One day you kids will all actually grow up and realize that the world is not "fair". When you do you will also realize that thoughts like this originate from the minds of those who have no concept of basic economics nor of human nature. I would actively do everything that I could to oppose this kind of law.Including violent use of force. It is immoral and against all human reason to set the limits on how much a person can acheive. There is nothing stoping you from setting up this kind of fantasy world in your own little commune. The minute that you try to impose this abomination on a state or national level you deserve to be stamped out. I suspect that you would violently oppose the idea of someone else using the police power of government to force you to worship a man nailed to a cross. That very thought would turn your stomach but you seem to LOVE the idea of telling someone else how much wealth they can earn.
All these various progressive tropes that have been dusted off and rolled out on this thread is hilarious. Wealth is not distributed, Those who have wealth do not have to lose it so that others can gain it because wealth is not a zero sum game. Thats just so stupid I cant even.....its like thinking the moon is made of cheese!

Please I know that I will not convince the kool-aid drinkers that started and ra-ra! this thread but if you are reading this because you generally are interested in economic systems and are wondering what is best google Ludwig Von Mises and visit the site of the Von Mises institute. They offer alot of free PDF's that spell out the Austrian schools principles. You have only to compare the result of the last 100 years to see the failure of these "wealth" limiting ideas.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 01:59 PM
After reading so many anti-cap replies what strikes me is how viscerally emotional most of them are, seldom offering even a fig leaf of sustainable logic to support them.

Mostly they are screaming tantrums of spoiled brats who claim that their "hard work" is solely and uniquely responsible for their success, not inherited position, wealth or contacts, not the political giving that brings contracts, not the sleazy underpaying of employees, not the corrupt tax avoidance schemes, and any of the myriad of other not-so-honest factors that effect economic outcomes. They claim they somehow have a "right" to take as much as they please and can from the economy and the infrastructure that supports it which we have collectively created..

One of the favorite cries is about "Constitutional rights" without ever citing where in the Constitution these "rights" reside and what exactly they are. For the extremely slow: the Constitution is mostly about placing limits upon the amount of power any one person can wield over others; if it isn't mainly about checks and balances, it is about nothing at all. The economy is a shared resource, and like all resources shared by members of a society, there must be rules to govern how much any one individual is permitted to take from it and how much damage one can do to it.

Apparently some here think that because they can afford a car that can do 200 mph, it is an affront to their rights to place a speed limit on the roads. Or that the mere possession of a rifle and cases of ammo means they have a right to kill every deer in the forest for the simple pleasure it gives them. How would these people feel if their neighbor brought a trawler to their favorite fishing lake and proceeded to strip the lake of every fish in it for their sole benefit?

Let me repeat the fact that the economy is a shared and finite resource to which all contribute, and from which all must sustain themselves. Allowing individuals to take more than they can possibly use is always a recipe for societal disaster.

Some also confuse capping wealth with capping income: they aren't the same thing and would be treated differently under a wealth cap.

You would be free to have any size income you could manage, but once you hit the wealth cap, you are RETIRED. You've won, you made it, now relax and enjoy life, raise your kids, love your other, grow a garden, build something great. Spend a little of what you have, or give it away if you want to continue earning, although what the fascination with that aspect is somehow escapes me.

And for those who claim that a cap would result in loss of incentive for them to create or work: what incentive do you think minimum wage is for good hard work? Minimum wages that leave a worker further behind than not working are zero incentive to do more than be physically present and the minimum one can get away with. It is an insult to workers. How same folks who say that capping wealth would remove all incentive for them when they cap incomes themselves and expect world-class effort for it is cognitive dissonance at its most blatant extreme.

Inside the person who argues against reasonable wealth caps is the kid in kindergarden who absolutely hated having to share his birthday cake or the daily cookies and resented those who made him do it.


posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:38 PM
reply to post by apacheman

The capping of individual wealth is certainly the pinnacle of your rhetoric, but it comes at the expense of the giving of unlimited power to others. Your words are noble in their unction, but they are entirely incapable of encapsulating and nurturing back to health the actual problem.

Good Judgment is the only way for these great issues to be preserved. In good judgment, there is no concern as to whether one area might be Capitalist or Communist, but the concern is in what serves Truth. So long as we are united under any flag and apart from Truth, your desire for the mass and blind controlling of others is immoral and provably unfruitful far more than any natural system. Until you can show a system of utter control which produces the compassionate consideration you intend, your words are empty and self-destructive.

Sadly, but thankfully, no Empire in this world is able to be the Kingdom of Life. Therefore, it is pertinent and urgent for us to mature within the Kingdom of Animals instead of pretending that we can control things in such a way as you advocate.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 02:42 PM

Originally posted by apacheman
Inside the person who argues against reasonable wealth caps is the kid in kindergarden who absolutely hated having to share his birthday cake or the daily cookies and resented those who made him do it.

I do not celebrate birthdays or holidays as every day should be a holy day. Your condemnation is overreaching and wrong. Stop such conduct. It is that sort of conduct which should be capped. It is that sort of conduct, which, if manifested in a slightly different form, would appear as a wicked master with infinite wealth. You are very much echoing the very principle you are against (although, in the differing expression of "control" rather than "money").

Added note - You acted this way before in that you made a condemnation against another (me, in the previous case) which was both wrong and steeped in arrogance. You simply do not have the right to judge what you cannot observe and the fact that you do so exposes your inability to understand that you rail against one form of freedom in the name of protecting your neighbors while exercising another freedom to the point of trampling your neighbors.
edit on 12/28/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:00 PM
Sorry, I couldn't read more than 4 or 5 pages so I might be repeating something already said. The OP threw a 100 million pound figure out there. For argument sake lets call it dollars. Sorry, but no one earns a 100 million dollars by the sweat of their brow. A 2% annual return on that is what someone earning 50K a year earns in 40 years. Any talk of oppression or preventing someone from getting rich is severely lacking perspective. The same goes for the argument of manufacturing a "fair" society. There is plenty of disparity between the masses who make low or below six figures and those making tens of millions. This isn't so much an argument against wealth, as it is influence and power. Individuals with such excess have influence to rig the game against the masses and that needs to be addressed.
Then there is the issue of what one does to earn this kind of money. Is their hourly effort worthy of this? Of course not, it's not greater in terms of effort than say someone who sweats away in an unsafe factory 10 hours a day. This wealth is earned by leveraging the wealth and efforts of others. So, at some level there is an element of shifting wealth from employees, investors, customers, etc to ones own pocket... and that's in an honest model. There sre plenty of examples that include exploiting workers and the environment. At what point is it none of society's business how much someone makes? Does a dictator who buys a private army and a media empire to control and own an entire country qualify as too much? I would suggest there is a place for us to ask these questions. We might all have different opinions as to what level of wealth, influence and power is acceptable but it's not right to say the question itself is some socialist plot.
This argument about jealousy is false as well. Most of us can't comprehend 100 million let alone be jealous of it. If it was a question of jealousy we'd be discussing a much lower figure and even then, people aren't jealous usually of wealth, they're jealous of opportunity. The reason most of us don't make 100 million, or even 1 million is not because we don't work hard enough, or we're intellectually inferior... it's because we don't have the opportunity to do so regardless how hard we work or how smart we are.
Finally, sorry for any spelling or grammar errors above... typing this on my phone has been a lesson in frustration management.

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by Dasher

Exactly how is allowing someone to amass enough wealth to ensure the prosperity of his or her family for several generations to come "trampling upon their freedom"?

When is more than enough, enough?

It is those who demand the"right" to take and withhold from others' use vastly more than they can use, vastly more than they can ever use or their children, or their grandchildren who are trampling upon freedom.

I fear good judgment is already lacking when you can't judge when to say when.

Excessive wealth building is an addiction, an unappeasable desire for more that destroys whatever it touches. You can be successful within your lifetime, amass hundreds of billions, but what has your "success" wrought for the billions of people who have no chance at any sort of success, because you've hogged all the economic oxygen in the room?

Actual, realized wealth is always finite. The idea that wealth is infinite stems from the concept that potential wealth is infinite. They aren't the same thing: one is fact, the other is abstract theory, not applicable to the real world.

If wealth were truly infinite, why are there poor people?

It is because realized wealth is not infinite. It is because accumulating wealth is a zero-sum game: more for some means less for others.

Capping wealth for a few doesn't take a single thing from you, not one iota. It truly doesn't take a single genuine thing from the wealthy either, save a decrease in their ability to to cause harm to others; there isn't anything they can buy with $10 billion that they couldn't with $1 billion.

Your position is based entirely upon emotion, not logic or economics.
edit on 28-12-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 28 2011 @ 03:40 PM
reply to post by apacheman

- Again you have extended your judgment into condemnation and that is both ugly and wrong. Please stop.

How does it trample freedom? ... or ... How does exercising an unreasonable amount of authority become fascism/poor judgment? By it's very nature it tramples freedom and is poor judgment. You are advocating the restriction of a person's ability to obtain what they desire by suggesting that another/others should be allowed the moral authority and rational physical ability to do so. What is a greater crime? Unfettered economic success or unfettered social control?

Ironically, it is/was the allowing of social/economic control which has taken the power away from all of the people and placed it within political/economic structures such as corporations. It is strange, if you wish for such large structures which hide their wealth from others to be limited, for you to also suggest that we institute more systems of control (they are what empower them in the first place!). If you truly think that the same systems that you advocate will not be abused by the very same people who you sold your own power to in order to facilitate this issue, you are missing the entire point of your own argument. We must disallow/stop authorizing such massive pools of power and economic normality will be far more likely. Your method is a form of societal suicide.

It is more reasonable to restrict positions of power than it is their desire.
I cannot restrict your contentedness to condemn without proper observation, but I can refuse to acknowledge any laws which give you authority to act upon your power hungry methods.
In this, amassing wealth in economic shelters would not be possible, and the selfish desires of men, like your own condemnation, will only be bark and have no bite.
edit on 12/28/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in