th fnding fathers, first thing after signing decl of ind, prohibtd entail & primogeniture, fixed clergy salaries [see letter jeff to adams, oct 28, 1813] to limit fortunes - they believed limitatn of fortunes is essential for capitalism, democracy, justice, survival, law, order, liberty - everything good - they were against wealth concentration - they warned that the corporation would get round their provisions to prevent wlth cncntrtn
they knew that money is power, & therefore huge fortunes are overpower, unjust, theft, monopolous, corruption, and tyrannous - they fled tyrannies, they wanted to establish liberty, they knew that superwealth = superpower = tyranny = warmongering, cannonfoddering of the people
overpower is power to steal & kill [war, conquer, plunder] with impunity, home & abroad - overpower is above the law & govt, buying, owning law & govt
monoply = pricegouging = theft [causes boom & bust, depressions]
ovrpay = undrpay = starvtn, war [kills 100mn/yr]
2006-10-08 01:52:48 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
<< capitalism, justice, democracy, survival, society, happiness, liberty >> have all flourished for the past 300 years. Democracy has spread from a few countries to most of the world in the past 75 years.
Why change the rules now? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2006-10-11 20:09:11 · answer #1 · answered by MBK 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, limitations of doing well/succeeding/having endless opportunities is never good. Limitations = socialism/communism/tyranny/dictaroship.
You are able to use this computer because someone had an idea and took it all the way - and made money - which created other great ideas. Made our world smaller.Just as a small example.
For example, I don't smoke BUT I would never vote, in USA, for a LAW that would prohibit it. It is a personal choice.
So, in short, NO.
2006-10-08 02:06:54 · answer #2 · answered by CJ 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there is not any considerable argument which could be made to help that concept. additionally, "freemarket capitalism" and "constrained fortunes" are contradictory words. additionally, you propose that there replace right into a while whilst freemarket capitalism, democracy, peace, liberty & justice for all exisited to a greater degree than they do now. whilst replace into that? And have been fortunes "justly constrained" at that factor greater desirable than they're now? additionally, many right here could be nicely served to tell apart between the introduction of wealth and the distribution of wealth. To posit that wealth isn't created, yet is in simple terms moved from one individual to a distinctive, is as igorant an financial theory as i will conceive. evaluate our life to the lives of human beings 50, one hundred, or a million,000 years in the past and you could desire to in the present day comprehend how ridiculous that concept is.
2016-12-13 04:16:15 · answer #3 · answered by marianna 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Is limiting wealth essential:
1-for capitalism-no one in need should be denied disability
2-for justice-I believe in the bad spending police
3-democracy-is limiting education essential?
4-survival-yes it seems so
5-society-yes it seems so
6-happiness-yes it seems so
7-liberty-angry mob might seem violent but isnt really
2006-10-08 02:59:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋