Changes

Progressives try to sell ideas of egalitarianism as new, however historically the concept of wealth redistribution is very old.  [[Benjamin Franklin]] at the [[Constitutional Convention]] mentioned how the Pharoahs engaged in it.<ref name=convention /></ref>

Progressives try to sell ideas of egalitarianism as new, however historically the concept of wealth redistribution is very old.  [[Benjamin Franklin]] at the [[Constitutional Convention]] mentioned how the Pharoahs engaged in it.<ref name=convention /></ref>

Benjamin Franklin was not the only one who noticed.  Another Founding Father, [[James Madison]] who also made the observation at the Convention said:

Benjamin Franklin was not the only one who noticed.  Another Founding Father, [[James Madison]] made multiple observations regarding the theft of income or assets, "levelling", from one person to another.  On June 26th, 1787, he said:

 

<blockquote>In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labour under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in in this Country, but symptoms, of a leveling spirit, as we have understood, have sufficiently appeared in a certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. How is this danger to be guarded against on republican principles? How is the danger in all cases of interested coalitions to oppress the minority to be guarded against? Among other means by the establishment of a body in the Government sufficiently respectable for its wisdom and virtue, to aid on such emergencies, the preponderance of justice by throwing its weight into that scale. Such being the objects of the second branch in the proposed Government.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Madison|first1=James |url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/40861/40861-h/40861-h.htm |title=The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which Framed the Constitution of the United States, Volume I (of 2) |work=[[Constitutional Convention]] |date=June 26, 1787 }}</ref></blockquote>

 

Again, on August 7th, he observed:

 

<blockquote>"As the holders of property have at stake all the other rights common to those without property, they may be the more restrained from infringing, as well as the less tempted to infringe the rights of the latter. It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger.

<blockquote>"As the holders of property have at stake all the other rights common to those without property, they may be the more restrained from infringing, as well as the less tempted to infringe the rights of the latter. It is nevertheless certain, that there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger.

"On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property. Bodies of men are not less swayed by interest than individuals, and are less controlled by the dread of reproach and the other motives felt by individuals. Hence the liability of the rights of property, and of the impartiality of laws affecting it, to be violated by Legislative majorities having an interest real or supposed in the injustice: Hence agrarian laws, and other leveling schemes: Hence the cancelling or evading of debts, and other violations of contracts. We must not shut our eyes to the nature of man, nor to the light of experience. Who would rely on a fair decision from three individuals if two had an interest in the case opposed to the rights of the third? Make the number as great as you please, the impartiality will not be increased; nor any further security against injustice be obtained, than what may result from the greater difficulty of uniting the wills of a greater number.<ref name=Madison>{{cite web |last1=Madison|first1=James |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41095/41095-h/41095-h.htm |title=The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, Volume II (of 2) |work=[[Constitutional Convention]] |date=August 7, 1787 }}</ref></blockquote>

"On the other hand, the danger to the holders of property cannot be disguised, if they be undefended against a majority without property. Bodies of men are not less swayed by interest than individuals, and are less controlled by the dread of reproach and the other motives felt by individuals. Hence the liability of the rights of property, and of the impartiality of laws affecting it, to be violated by Legislative majorities having an interest real or supposed in the injustice: Hence agrarian laws, and other leveling schemes: Hence the cancelling or evading of debts, and other violations of contracts. We must not shut our eyes to the nature of man, nor to the light of experience. Who would rely on a fair decision from three individuals if two had an interest in the case opposed to the rights of the third? Make the number as great as you please, the impartiality will not be increased; nor any further security against injustice be obtained, than what may result from the greater difficulty of uniting the wills of a greater number.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Madison|first1=James |url=http://www.gutenberg.org/files/41095/41095-h/41095-h.htm |title=The Journal of the Debates in the Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, Volume II (of 2) |work=[[Constitutional Convention]] |date=August 7, 1787 }}</ref></blockquote>

Outside of the Convention, other Founding Fathers have written:

Outside of the Convention, other Founding Fathers such as [[Samuel Adams]] have written:

<blockquote>It is observable, that though many have disregarded life, and contemned liberty, yet there are few men who do not agree that property is a valuable acquisition, which ought to be held sacred. Many have fought, and bled, and died for this, who have been insensible to all other obligations. Those who ridicule the ideas of right and justice, faith and truth among men, will put a high value upon money. Property is admitted to have an existence, even in the savage state of nature. The bow, the arrow, and the tomahawk; the hunting and the fishing ground, are species of property, as important to an American savage, as pearls, rubies, and diamonds are to the Mogul, or a Nabob in the East, or the lands, tenements, hereditaments, messuages, gold and silver of the Europeans. And if property is necessary for the support of savage life, it is by no means less so in civil society. The Utopian schemes of levelling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional. Now, what property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away by others, without their consent? This most certainly is the present case; for they were in no sense represented in Parliament, when this act for raising a revenue in America was made. The stamp act was grievously complained of by all the colonies ; and is there any real difference between this act and the stamp act? They were both designed to raise a revenue in America, and in the same manner, viz. by duties on certain commodities. The payment of the duties imposed by the stamp act, might have been eluded by a total disuse of the stamped paper; and so may the payment of these duties, by the total disuse of the articles on which they are laid; but in neither case, without difficulty. Therefore, the subjects here, are reduced to the hard alternative, either of being obliged totally to disuse articles of the greatest necessity, in common life, or to pay a tax without their consent.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Adams|first1=Samuel |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4IoKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA137 |title=THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO DENNYS DE BERDT. |work=House of Representatives, Massachusetts |date=January 12, 1768 }}</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>It is observable, that though many have disregarded life, and contemned liberty, yet there are few men who do not agree that property is a valuable acquisition, which ought to be held sacred. Many have fought, and bled, and died for this, who have been insensible to all other obligations. Those who ridicule the ideas of right and justice, faith and truth among men, will put a high value upon money. Property is admitted to have an existence, even in the savage state of nature. The bow, the arrow, and the tomahawk; the hunting and the fishing ground, are species of property, as important to an American savage, as pearls, rubies, and diamonds are to the Mogul, or a Nabob in the East, or the lands, tenements, hereditaments, messuages, gold and silver of the Europeans. And if property is necessary for the support of savage life, it is by no means less so in civil society. The Utopian schemes of levelling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitutional. Now, what property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away by others, without their consent? This most certainly is the present case; for they were in no sense represented in Parliament, when this act for raising a revenue in America was made. The stamp act was grievously complained of by all the colonies ; and is there any real difference between this act and the stamp act? They were both designed to raise a revenue in America, and in the same manner, viz. by duties on certain commodities. The payment of the duties imposed by the stamp act, might have been eluded by a total disuse of the stamped paper; and so may the payment of these duties, by the total disuse of the articles on which they are laid; but in neither case, without difficulty. Therefore, the subjects here, are reduced to the hard alternative, either of being obliged totally to disuse articles of the greatest necessity, in common life, or to pay a tax without their consent.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Adams|first1=Samuel |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4IoKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA137 |title=THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF MASSACHUSETTS TO DENNYS DE BERDT. |work=House of Representatives, Massachusetts |date=January 12, 1768 }}</ref></blockquote>

[[Samuel Adams]] has long been established as the author of this.

[[Samuel Adams]] has long been established as the author of this.