Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
and what was my argument, when i said the federal government has no authority in the life's liberty and property of the people......what do i always talk about the interpretation of the constitution by the founders.

i have said several times on this forum, by placing a income on the people, government has the ability to control them.......as i have said many times"...the power to tax is the power to destroy", but even though they have the income tax, that does not give them authority to levy laws on the backs of people which does not concern taxes.

Therefore because the constitutional provides congress with the power to tax citizens, the federal government does indeed have the power to control property, because money is property. NOT ONLY THAT, but while that is a restricted type of property, THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES THE POWER DEMONSTRATES THAT CONGRESS DOES HAVE POWER OVER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. This is because the amendment demonstrates the type of power that the constitution CAN bestow upon congress. In other words it is possible that the constitution can bestow power over other types of property on congress.

ernst barkmann said:
the Constitution authorizes them to take money...by creating laws concerning taxes.......other then that the congress has no authority over the people...notice i said congress, not the executive branch or judicial.

why would the founders throw off the the centralized power of a king, to turn around an put on the centralized power of a federal government........simple they didn't..... states where to govern their own people independently. but staying inside constitutional law.

The constitution does indeed authorize congress to take money, therefore, contrary to your assertion, congress does have power over people's property. I am not saying that the sixteenth amendment gave congress unlimited power with regards to citizen's property. But what I am saying is that YOU ARE WRONG WHEN YOU SAY CONGRESS HAS NO POWER OVER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

Throwing off the centralized power of a king is irrelevant. The point is that Congress has power over people's property. And although the sixteenth amendment provides for power over a restricted type of property, that amendment demonstrates that YOUR CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE POWER OVER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY IS WRONG!

ernst barkmann said:
again you are wrong, does the constitution mention people in the 16th amendment concerning taxes.....saying the people income will be taxed,

The constitution does not have to mention people in the sixteenth amendment to give Congress power over people's property, a particular type of property in this instance, income. The constitution gave congress the power to take people's money. That is a type of property. Therefore, YOUR CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWER OVER PEOPLE'S MONEY IS WRONG.

ernst barkmann said:
does the 13th say the people will not have slaves...no

the constitution makes it unconstitutional.....(constitutional law here).......for governments to not allow slavery

WRONG!!!! The thirteenth amendment is not limited to merely governments. Again, here is the text

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Here there is no restriction on governments. Where in the text does it say "congress shall make no laws that legalize slavery?" Where is it? It is not there. It is an absolute declaration that slavery shall not exist in the United Stated. PERIOD. It's not to be in the United States. It's not to be in laws. Neither can citizens practice it. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE AMENDMENT. So again you are wrong. The thirteenth amendment is not limited to governments, but it also applies to citizens as well.

ernst barkmann said:
the constitution creates federalism , the separation of powers between the federal government and state government, it created no relationship between the people and the federal government.

again show me where the federal government is given power over the people, ...the federal government is not even given power over the states in the constitution.

I just showed you. The 13th and 16th amendments clearly give the government power over people. To state otherwise is absurd.

Excon · May 19, 2014

Geoist said:
That is exactly what is being done.

Wrong. That is not what is being done. Nor would it be detrimental.
You are just making false claims that come from your ridiculous ideology.

Geoist said:
They pay some tax on it but nothing close to the full value.

Bs! As it is they pay the taxes on it full value.
But as it should be, all they should pay is a sales tax.

Geoist said:
At the same time, we pay taxes on things we should pay no tax on to make up for the loss in our common wealth (property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc.).

Bs! you are not paying taxes on certain things to "make up for".
That is another absurd claim.

Geoist said:
(Even though they shouldn't have to, as that is counter to ownership.)

Click to expand...

Ownership isn't the end-all-be-all. Masters once owned slaves. Kings once owned countries. Ownership is fine as long as it is the rightful owner. The value of a hospital or road does not belong to a land speculator.

What you said is irrelevant to what you quoted.
Paying taxes on something that is your property, you know, that **** you already paid taxes on, is counter ownership.

Geoist said:
Why not?

As already stated.
They are profiting. That is a good thing. They also risk losing and do lose.
That should not be discouraged.

Geoist said:
That is your opinion.

Wrong. It shows no such thing as stated.
It does not show any out of control military spending.
That is nothing more than your false claim.
All it showed was our spending as compared to others.

Geoist said:
Your perspective.

And again.

iLOL :doh
No. That was me putting your opinion into perspective.

Geoist said:
Too bad.
It isn't outrageous, and like I said it is how much we need; As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development so we can keep it that way for a good long time.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you have answered my question: How much defense spending is enough?

Wrong. I did indeed answer you question. You even quoted it.

As much as we need to project our power and support our interests and continue research and development so we can keep it that way for a good long time.

All you do is rant about your ideology as if it is correct compared to our current form of capitalism.
And frankly, you and it, are just wrong. Period.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
Therefore because the constitutional provides congress with the power to tax citizens, the federal government does indeed have the power to control property, because money is property. NOT ONLY THAT, but while that is a restricted type of property, THE FACT THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES THE POWER DEMONSTRATES THAT CONGRESS DOES HAVE POWER OVER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY. This is because the amendment demonstrates the type of power that the constitution CAN bestow upon congress. In other words it is possible that the constitution can bestow power over other types of property on congress.

The constitution does indeed authorize congress to take money, therefore, contrary to your assertion, congress does have power over people's property. I am not saying that the sixteenth amendment gave congress unlimited power with regards to citizen's property. But what I am saying is that YOU ARE WRONG WHEN YOU SAY CONGRESS HAS NO POWER OVER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.

Throwing off the centralized power of a king is irrelevant. The point is that Congress has power over people's property. And although the sixteenth amendment provides for power over a restricted type of property, that amendment demonstrates that YOUR CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS DOES NOT HAVE POWER OVER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY IS WRONG!

The constitution does not have to mention people in the sixteenth amendment to give Congress power over people's property, a particular type of property in this instance, income. The constitution gave congress the power to take people's money. That is a type of property. Therefore, YOUR CONTENTION THAT CONGRESS HAS NO POWER OVER PEOPLE'S MONEY IS WRONG.

WRONG!!!! The thirteenth amendment is not limited to merely governments. Again, here is the text

Here there is no restriction on governments. Where in the text does it say "congress shall make no laws that legalize slavery?" Where is it? It is not there. It is an absolute declaration that slavery shall not exist in the United Stated. PERIOD. It's not to be in the United States. It's not to be in laws. Neither can citizens practice it. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO ENFORCE THE AMENDMENT. So again you are wrong. The thirteenth amendment is not limited to governments, but it also applies to citizens as well.

I just showed you. The 13th and 16th amendments clearly give the government power over people. To state otherwise is absurd.

well still i have asked you questions and you have refused to answer.

i will ask them again.

where in article 1 section 8 , do you see a power of congress over the people.

name for me, people who have violated constitutional law, and it upheld by the court......

people have sued, claiming a violation of constitutional law by people, however it has never stood on those grounds.

will you answer this time...no, because there is no proof to back up your case and you know it.

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
well still i have asked you questions and you have refused to answer.

i will ask them again.

where in article 1 section 8 , do you see a power of congress over the people.

name for me, people who have violated constitutional law, and it upheld by the court......

people have sued, claiming a violation of constitutional law by people, however it has never stood on those grounds.

will you answer this time...no, because there is no proof to back up your case and you know it.

I have answered your question by saying that it does not matter where in the constitution congress is given power over people's property, because it is clearly in the 13th and 16th amendments.

Furthermore, your statement that the 13th amendment only applies to governments is blatantly false because it is an absolute declaration, without any type of restrictions whatsoever, that slavery is not be practiced in the United States.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

mildsteel said:
i have answered your question by saying that it does not matter where in the constitution congress is given power over people's property, because it is clearly in the 13th and 16th amendments.

Furthermore, your statement that the 13th amendment only applies to governments is blatantly false because it is an absolute declaration, without any type of restrictions whatsoever, that slavery is not be practiced in the united states.

no you have noT ...what power in article 1 section 8 gives government authority in people life's.

What people have been convicted of a constitutional violation.................stop deflecting and answer the questions

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
no you have noT ...what power in article 1 section 8 gives government authority in people life's.

What people have been convicted of a constitutional violation.................stop deflecting and answer the questions

You keep wanting to refer to article 1 section 8, but at the same time YOU admit that the 16th amendment gave Congress the power to enact laws that take people's property in the form of income.

Since you want me to answer questions, you answer this one. Where in the 13th amendment is there a restriction to government? It's not there. It's an absolute statement that slavery shall not exist in the United States.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

mildsteel said:
you keep wanting to refer to article 1 section 8, but at the same time you admit that the 16th amendment gave congress the power to enact laws that take people's property in the form of income.

Since you want me to answer questions, you answer this one. Where in the 13th amendment is there a restriction to government? It's not there. It's an absolute statement that slavery shall not exist in the united states.

you have asked me several questions...its your turn ..you answer mine now.

Where is a power in article 1 section 8 to have authority over the people.

What citizen has been convicted of a constitutional violation........answer and don't give me the haymarket maneuver.

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
you have ask me several questions...its your turn ..you answer mine now.

Where is a power in article 1 section 8 to have authority over the people.

What citizen has been convicted of a constitutional violation........answer and don't give me the haymarket maneuver.

I'm not giving you a haymarket maneuver. I answered your question. Here's the relevant passages from Article 1, section 8

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...............
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

So the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes and to make laws to execute those powers were established. In particular, the 16th amendment states

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That's what you don't want to talk about because the 16th amendment SPECIFICALLY states that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on income, WHICH ARE PROPERTY.

MOREOVER, WHERE IN THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT IS THE RESTRICTION FOR GOVERNMENT ONLY AS YOU HAVE STATED?

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
I'm not giving you a haymarket maneuver. I answered your question. Here's the relevant passages from Article 1, section 8

So the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes and to make laws to execute those powers were established. In particular, the 16th amendment states

That's what you don't want to talk about because the 16th amendment SPECIFICALLY states that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes on income, WHICH ARE PROPERTY.

MOREOVER, WHERE IN THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT IS THE RESTRICTION FOR GOVERNMENT ONLY AS YOU HAVE STATED?

you answer again nothing, and are trying to deflect by posting information ,not on the subject i am asking.

why?.....because you have no case, and you know you don't...i can bet you went out on the net and searched for constitutional violations by people and you could find....none!

you are a disappointment, because you refuse to answer and state your case, on the subject at hand.

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
you answer again nothing, and are trying to deflect by posting information ,not on the subject i am asking.

why?.....because you have no case, and you know you don't...i can bet you went out on the net and searched for constitutional violations by people and you could find....none!

you are a disappointment, because you refuse to answer and state your case, on the subject at hand.

I posted article 1 section 8 that clearly states that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Then I posted the 16th amendment that says that Congress has the power to tax income. It's there. It's right in the Constitution, contrary to your claim that the Constitution of the United States does not give Congress the power over people's property. Income is property and the Constitution gives Congress the power to extract from income as it sees fit.

YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN WHERE THE RESTRICTION TO GOVERNMENT IS IN THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
I posted article 1 section 8 that clearly states that Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes. Then I posted the 16th amendment that says that Congress has the power to tax income. It's there. It's right in the Constitution, contrary to your claim that the Constitution of the United States does not give Congress the power over people's property. Income is property and the Constitution gives Congress the power to extract from income as it sees fit.

YOU STILL HAVE NOT SHOWN WHERE THE RESTRICTION TO GOVERNMENT IS IN THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT

you still will not answered my question, and are attempting to turn things around, and ask me a question,...after i have answered many of your questions...you answer mine...first...and we will go from there.

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
you still will not answered my question, and are attempting to turn things around, and ask me a question,...after i have answered many of your questions...you answer mine...first...and we will go from there.

I'm not attempting to turn things around. I have demonstrated that you are wrong. You have said that the Constitution does not give Congress power over people's property, but that is false. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to tax income. It's there, it's right in the Constitution. You can't avoid it. It's clear as day.

Moreover you have said the 13th amendment only applies to governments, not individuals. BUT THAT IS BLATANTLY FALSE. The 13th amendment is an absolute declaration that slavery is not to exist in the United States and that applies to individuals as well as governments.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
I'm not attempting to turn things around. I have demonstrated that you are wrong. You have said that the Constitution does not give Congress power over people's property, but that is false. The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to tax income. It's there, it's right in the Constitution. You can't avoid it. It's clear as day.

Moreover you have said the 13th amendment only applies to governments, not individuals. BUT THAT IS BLATANTLY FALSE. The 13th amendment is an absolute declaration that slavery is not to exist in the United States and that applies to individuals as well as governments.

you have nothing and they still refuse to answer.

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
you have nothing and they still refuse to answer.

I have answered your question. I have discussed article 1 section 8 and the sixteenth amendment. And you are wrong. The constitution does give Congress power over people's property.

Moreover, you have made a false statement. You have said the 13th amendment only applies to governments and that is false. And you don't want to talk about that at all.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

appropriate legislation= creating a federal criminal law.

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
AMENDMENT XIII

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

appropriate legislation= creating a federal criminal law.

There is no restriction in the 13th amendment to government. Therefore there are no federal or state statutes that ban slavery, because an absolute declaration was made in the 13th amendment.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
There is no restriction in the 13th amendment to government. Therefore there is no federal or state statutes that ban slavery, because an absolute declaration was made in the 13th amendment.

you really have no understanding of law.

if a person were to make another person a slave, it would fall under federal criminal law...not constitutional law.

article 1 section 8 clause 18, grants congress the power to make federal laws....amendment 13 grants congress the power to make federal laws concerning slavery...federal law is not constitutional law.

any slavery which would manifest itself, would be a criminal act, and that person would be taken to a federal place of detention.....to be placed on trial for a federal crime!

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
you really have no understanding of law.

if a person were to make another person a slave, it would fall under federal criminal law...not constitutional law.

article 1 section 8 clause 18, grants congress the power to make federal laws....amendment 13 grants congress the power to make federal laws concerning slavery...federal law is not constitutional law.

any slavery which would manifest itself, would be a criminal act, and that person would be taken to a federal place of detention.....place on trail for a federal crime!

You are the one who does not understand the law. The 13th amendment applies to individuals as well as governments. Even the Supreme Court has stated such.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
You are the one who does not understand the law. The 13th amendment applies to individuals as well as governments. Even the Supreme Court has stated such.

you seem to be lost........its not a constitutional violation for a person....its a federal crime!

no citizen can violate the constitution,...they can only commit a federal crime.

counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and tax cheating are all federal crimes.......falling under criminal law...even though they are mentioned in the constitution.

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
you seem to be lost........its not a constitutional violation for a person....its a federal crime!

no citizen can violate the constitution,...they can only commit a federal crime.

counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and tax cheating are all federal crimes.......falling under criminal law...even though they are mentioned in the constitution.

No you are lost. You have said that the 13th amendment does not apply in individuals and that is a false statement. The Supreme Court has said so.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
No you are lost. You have said that the 13th amendment does not apply in individuals and that is a false statement. The Supreme Court has said so.

it does not apply...period...

but the laws the federal government makes, because amendment 13 gives them the power to create,[federal laws]..makes it a federal crime if a person does it.

a person does not commit a constitutional violation, by engaging in slavery, he commits a federal crime..

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
it does not apply...period...

but the laws the federal government makes, because amendment 13 gives them the power to create,[federal laws]..makes it a federal crime if a person does it.

a person does not commit a constitutional violation, by engaging in slavery, he commits a federal crime..

The Supreme Court has said that it does apply. Period.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
The Supreme Court has said that it does apply. Period.

tell me then...can you explain what the procedures and the punishment is then for slavery in america according to amendment 13...........no!

because that is determined by the congress creating federal legislation [criminal law], making the action a federal crime.....not a constitutional violation.

if a person were convicted of a constitutional violation,...there is no way to determine that person's punishment............because its not listed in the amendment...

MildSteel · May 19, 2014

ernst barkmann said:
tell me then...can you explain what the procedures and the punishment is then for slavery in america according to amendment 13...........no!

because that is determined by the congress creating federal legislation [criminal law], making the action a federal crime.....not a constitutional violation.

if a person were convicted of a constitutional violation,...there is no way to determine that person's punishment............because its not listed in the amendment...

You tell me, what is the federal statute that specifically sets a punishment for slavery? Answer there is none, because according to the constitution there is no such thing as slavery in the United States.

Master PO · May 19, 2014

MildSteel said:
You tell me, what is the federal statute that specifically sets a punishment for slavery? Answer there is none, because according to the constitution there is no such thing as slavery in the United States.

when this amendment was passed by congress, it outlawed slavery in america.....by just a general statement..it listed no punishment no procedures no specifics, for handing the issue of slavery.

governments....cannot go to jail, only people can go to jail.

when a state violates the 13th, they go to court, for a constitutional violation against the people that were harmed, with the people represented by the federal government.

when a citizen commits slavery,. it is a federal crime, because amendment 13 gives the congress authority to write federal criminal law, with states what the specifics of the law are, and what the punishment will be for the crime.

so constitutional law,rules when a government violates the constitution, criminal law rules when a person commits a crime of the against another citiznen, or violates a federal power....

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Was Karl Marx Right About Capitalism?

Yes

No

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate

Mixed Government advocate