Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Title redux: Monarchy vs. Democracy; You decide, or not.

Posted 11 years ago on March 11, 2013, 7:05 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Here’s a link to a story on the French 75% rate talking about people leaving the country among other things.


Interesting thing here is that it was not ruled too high as some would have you believe but it was ruled unfair because some income was treated differently from other income, as a result people making the same amount could face different tax rates depending on how they made their money.

Does that sound familiar to anyone?

Is it not simply a fact that if we raise taxes to a certain point very wealthy people will simply give up their citizenship as one of the founders of Facebook did before it went public. Is denying that fact somewhat like denying climate change?

In some ways it may be, but it may be a price worth paying, to not do so is to give up on democracy completely. In America we have not yet experienced outright corporate blackmail; however states face it all the time. The blackmail that says if you enforce policy supported by most of the people who live here, we will take our business elsewhere and you will lose jobs. When faced with bending a knee and going hungry almost everyone bends the knee once children are involved and they almost always are at one time or another. We should remember though that those corporations are ran by people, so when we bend our knee to them, we are bowing to Them, (and their children after all the death tax being evil and all)

State after state has decided to offer special treatment to the people who own corporations at the expense of the people who elected them. The people can often be convinced that it is the best thing to do, give privilege to some so they will allow you to work, as we do with cap gains and dividends, it is a form of government that is as old as time, much older than democracy, it is up to us if it will outlive democracy.

Monarchy or Democracy the choice is ours, but will we make it or will They?



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

People must really hate this one.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Hey why'd that poster deleted all his comments? and now we can't reply in the thread good way to shut down the message.

I thought he was just bumping the post, but now maybe it was planned?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 10 years ago

man I just saw this from a year ago, oddly enough it still speaks to the issue at hand

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

I wonder if this has been "shadow banned"?

[-] 1 points by DtChavezMorrisZhagrib (25) 11 years ago


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

oh might of been that other one

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Is this title better?

[-] 4 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 10 years ago

it appears the people wining the state does seem to translate to property

in this case, big business threatening to take their money out

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 10 years ago

sounds like you almost wanted to say something Matt but your writing form may have gotten in way,good to hear from you though, you know the plan of the 1% equate money with freedom then attack any restriction on that "freedom" then protect the power of money to make money and to be passed to childern and you have a defacto Monarchy

[-] 1 points by gsw (3411) from Woodbridge Township, NJ 11 years ago

We must have democracy amendment


Nevertheless, the fundamental concepts of our republic are defined in the Preamble of the Constitution—it should be a government of we the people that promotes the general welfare. To promote special interests over the people is dysfunctional. Institutionalization of Problems In fact, many of our representatives initially run for office with the best intentions of working diligently for the People. Once seated, freshmen find that they can achieve nothing without the support of longer-serving members and a willingness to trade favors for that support. Many of these older members have become very powerful because, for example, they have: Inherited power as senior committee members or chairpersons Built and are familiar with a system of complex and self-serving rules The ability to influence allocation of special interests' contributions to incumbents Built their quid-pro-quo favor-exchange network The ability to influence budget allocations The freshman members usually decide that achieving something for their constituents is better than achieving nothing, so they yield to the pressure of other members. As time goes by they accept that these are the rules by which they must play or they must leave their vocation. Believing (perhaps correctly) that they can juggle this moral dilemma game better than most, they decide to stay and abide by the rules, making the best of the system that they cannot change, and later completing the cycle as an older member. Normally, no laws are broken—but then, Congress currently makes all the laws and sets its own rules without any enforceable oversight. Since almost everyone in Congress eventually joins the game, the game is the norm and no longer appears as a moral issue. Despite all these obstacles, the system does produce some good for the People, though less than in the past and much less than is possible. Eventually, most congresspersons do not want to modify the system because it is their way of life. They have succumbed gradually to the trappings of power and prestige that few can resist. As a result, Congress has institutionalized the Problems; they cannot and will not solve them. Evidently, a deep constitutional vacuum has caught Congress and special interests, which they are collectively unable to change. They must work as best they can until the Problems are solved for them by the only ones who can wield the power to change things—the People through their States. Ultimately, it is the People's initial responsibility to wield their power since we are the victims. Moreover, it is the People's moral responsibility to regulate the temptations to which we expose those we elect—as, for example, we would hold a business to be grossly negligent if it persistently exposes its employees to inappropriate temptations. Special interest groups and congresspersons are subject to their situation and their human nature—their collective behavior cannot change of its own accord. If, out of apathy we should fail to accept this responsibility, then "we have met the enemy and they is us". Even worse, we impose the legacy of an intergenerational tyranny of debt and failure on our children and grandchildren, making them the principal victims of our apathy.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Quite a bit here, one problem with "special interest" is they are of very different types ranging from those seeking cleaner air to those looking for an "orphan" (bill) profit boost. So the term is one I try to avoid, not to be critical just passing that along.

Much of the rest can be summed up as "folks are folks" sure we can hope for better try to get better, but we should not expect better.

The problem as I see it, is that words like "freedom" have been distorted into something that really makes no sense when examined. I think that the hearts and minds of millions of Americans can be freed if we can show them how they have been deceived.

This is why I speak of Monarchy, to gut your elected government in the name of freedom only to allow acquiring money and the power to command the will of others that comes with it to become the prevailing power in the land. Then to allow that money and power to be transferred down through the generations is in fact a return of Monarchy not freedom of any kind, except for the King.

Many would write off such talk as the ranting of a madman, I mean "Monarchy" really?

When freedom is define as your right to ask your employees why they need birth control the whole concept of "freedom" has been twisted out of recognition.


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Glad you could make it.


[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Who is that?


[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

Seen stuff on local media, don't follow trainwreck news much, after all folks are folks, did see a bit on it caught my interest because it appears they were "lifestyle" never saw them at any events that I remember, my read would be that she's a sociopath but I haven't met her.

[-] -2 points by Builder (4202) 11 years ago

Why is this case important to #ows?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

Good question.

It doesn't have anything to do with the thread either.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (8314) from Phoenix, AZ 11 years ago

thanks for the bump, what do you think of the piece?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 years ago

What can I say?

I've tried to explain the neolibe(R)tarian mindset numerous times.

Welcome to the Ayn Rand Planet.


I say keep chasing them wherever they go.