Re: DOLLAR COLLAPSE NOW IMMINENT

On May 15, 6:26=A0pm, The Trucker <mik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:44:00 -0700, BobR wrote:
>
> >> > Ok, you posed a question earlier now let me pose a question to you
an=
d
> >> > the rest of the participants.
>
> >> > Lets deal with just the United States and discuss a hypothetical
> >> > situation and what the results would be. =A0Take all of the wealth
in=

> >> > all forms from all the people of this country and divided it
equally
> >> > among all of the population so that each person starts on an equal
> >> > position. =A0What would be the result of such a distribution 10
years=
,
> >> > 20 years, 40 years later and why?
>
> >> Without government all the wealth would be in the hands of a few
people=

> >> all over again. =A0
>
> > Exactly. =A0Within the 40 years or two generations the distribution of
> > wealth would be virtually identical to what it is now.
>
> >>The "all at once" redistribution of the wealth in the
> >> way you describe has never happened before. =A0
>
> > And I would never propose that it should happen but the concept is
> > what I was getting at.
>
> >>But it has happened slowly
> >> through the combined use of a highly progressive income tax and
governm=
ent
> >> infrastructure investments. =A0But that observation begs the real
quest=
ion.
> >> And that is how to maintain a government that would use such methods
to=

> >> prevent the harm caused by extreme disparity in power and wealth. The
> >> removal of government is not the answer. =A0The control of government
b=
y the
> >> common people as well as the rich _IS_. =A0I would highly recommend a
b=
etter
> >> understanding of the pur****ted goals of the United States Government
at=

> >> its inception. =A0Such goals were not obtainable based on the
technolog=
y of
> >> that time. =A0That is no longer the
case:http://GreaterVoice.org/extend=

>
> > The real point of the question is that government can not successfully
> > equalize the distribution of wealth by law.
>
> Oh... =A0I might be able to do so, but the vast majority of us would not
> want that.
>

Only at the cost of your freedoms.

> > The pursuit of happiness
> > mentioned in the Constitution is not a guarantee of achievement or an
> > equality of results, only the op****tunity to try.
>
> Quite so.
>
> > =A0If we as
> > individuals fail to take advantage of the op****tunities it is not the
> > governments place to see to it that we protected from the
> > consequences.
>
> But it is the purpose of a "republican form of government" to preserve
> equal op****tunity.
>

The key element of your statement is to preserve equal op****tunity and
for that part I concur and believe it is the equilivent of governments
prime directive.  When government goes beyond that directive in an
attempt to equalize results it may be causing more harm than good.

> =A0 =A0 "A government is republican in pro****tion as every member
composin=
g
> =A0 =A0 =A0it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not
in=
deed
> =A0 =A0 =A0in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of
a =
city
> =A0 =A0 =A0or small town****p, but by representatives chosen by himself
and=

> =A0 =A0 =A0responsible to him at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson to
Sam=
uel
> =A0 =A0 =A0Kercheval, 1816.
>
> http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/American_Republic.php--------
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 In 1787, republicanism then was positioned between monarchy
an=
d
> =A0 =A0 =A0 "mere democracy". As it benefited from experience of the
years=
 after
> =A0 =A0 =A0 1776 and struggled to contain the tension between
"inalienable=

> =A0 =A0 =A0 rights", and majority rule, republicanism became both more
mod=
erate
> =A0 =A0 =A0 and more intricate. A broadly based lower house of a
legislatu=
re
> =A0 =A0 =A0 continued to be basic to government by consent, but
increasing=
ly,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 the election of other officials came to be regarded as good
> =A0 =A0 =A0 republican practice. Also, mindful of colonial experience,
and=

> =A0 =A0 =A0 following the arguments of Montesquieu, the idea that the
> =A0 =A0 =A0 legislative, executive, and judicial powers had to be
"separat=
ed",
> =A0 =A0 =A0 made to "check and balance" each other in order to prevent
tyr=
anny,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 gained wide acceptance. This often validated devices of
govern=
ment
> =A0 =A0 =A0 that would restrain or "refine" the will of the majority in
or=
der to
> =A0 =A0 =A0 protect rights, or "higher law".
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> History teaches a lot. =A0Some fail to learn.
>

Boy, You said it.  The problem now is that so very few want to look at
history and even attempt to learn from it.

> --
> "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
> of society but the people themselves; and
> if we think them not enlightened enough to
> exercise their control with a wholesome
> discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
> them, but to inform their discretion by
> education." - Thomas Jeffersonhttp://GreaterVoice.org/extend-
Hide
quoted =
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -