Changes

<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>{{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=https://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 such as [[Samuel Adams]] 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=https://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.

Likewise, [[William Bradford]] wrote in his book (p.&nbsp;135) ''History of the Plymouth Plantation'':

Likewise, [[William Bradford]] wrote in his book (p.&nbsp;135) ''History of the Plymouth Plantation'':

<blockquote>The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; – that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, without any recompence. The string, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it.<ref name=bradford>{{cite web |last1=Bradford|first1=William |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4IoKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA137 |title=History of Plymouth Plantation |work=William Bradford |date=1650 }}</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos & other ancients, applauded by some of later times; – that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing in comunitie into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion & discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour & service did repine that they should spend their time & streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, without any recompence. The string, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails & cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to doe a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and [97] equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner & yonger sorte, thought it some indignite & disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brooke it.<ref name=bradford>{{cite web |last1=Bradford|first1=William |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4IoKAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA137 |title=History of Plymouth Plantation |work=William Bradford |date=1650 }}</ref></blockquote>

After a few years of strife, deaths, and other calamity, Bradford wrote (p.&nbsp;136) that he was thankful to God for showing the colonists the error of 'comunitie' of 'propertie' and 'comone wealth', saying "God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them."<ref name=bradford />

After a few years of strife, deaths, and other calamity, Bradford wrote (p.&nbsp;136) that he was thankful to God for showing the colonists the error of 'comunitie' of 'propertie' and 'comone wealth', saying "God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them."<ref name=bradford />

<blockquote>Mr Elseworth was for disagreeing to the remainder of the clause disqualifying Public debtors; and for leaving to the wisdom of the Legislature and the virtue of the Citizens, the task of providing against such evils. Is the smallest as well as the largest debtor to be excluded? Then every arrear of taxes will disqualify. Besides how is it to be known to the people when they elect who are or are not public debtors. The exclusion of pensioners and placemen in England is founded on a consideration not existing here. As '''persons of that sort are dependent on the Crown, they tend to increase its influence'''.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Madison|first1=James |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_726.asp |title=Madison Debates, July 26 |work=[[Constitutional Convention]] |date=July 26, 1787 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YsapejLQstkC&pg=PA147|last1=Zeckhauser|first1=Richard|title=Strategy and Choice|date=1991|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262240338|pages147-151}}</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>Mr Elseworth was for disagreeing to the remainder of the clause disqualifying Public debtors; and for leaving to the wisdom of the Legislature and the virtue of the Citizens, the task of providing against such evils. Is the smallest as well as the largest debtor to be excluded? Then every arrear of taxes will disqualify. Besides how is it to be known to the people when they elect who are or are not public debtors. The exclusion of pensioners and placemen in England is founded on a consideration not existing here. As '''persons of that sort are dependent on the Crown, they tend to increase its influence'''.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Madison|first1=James |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_726.asp |title=Madison Debates, July 26 |work=[[Constitutional Convention]] |date=July 26, 1787 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YsapejLQstkC&pg=PA147|last1=Zeckhauser|first1=Richard|title=Strategy and Choice|date=1991|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0262240338|pages147-151}}</ref></blockquote>

During the [[2016 presidential election]], then candidate [[Ben Carson]] discussed the role of [[welfare]] and the buying of votes.<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/10/13/why_is_dr_carson_s_common_sense_totally_foreign_to_the_modern_day_gop Why Is Dr. Carson's Common Sense Totally Foreign to the Modern-Day GOP?], [[Rush Limbaugh]]</ref>  He said: "You can’t take care of yourself and I’m going to give you food stamps, a housing subsidy and free health care, and all the things you need so you can stay dependent and vote for me."<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/12/ben-carson-welfare-perpetuates-poverty-buys-votes/ Ben Carson: Welfare Perpetuates Poverty, Buys Votes]</ref>

During the [[2016 presidential election]], then candidate [[Ben Carson]] discussed the role of [[welfare]] and the buying of votes.<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/10/13/why_is_dr_carson_s_common_sense_totally_foreign_to_the_modern_day_gop Why Is Dr. Carson's Common Sense Totally Foreign to the Modern-Day GOP?], [[Rush Limbaugh]]</ref>  He said: "You can’t take care of yourself and I’m going to give you food stamps, a housing subsidy and free health care, and all the things you need so you can stay dependent and vote for me."<ref>[https://dailycaller.com/2015/10/12/ben-carson-welfare-perpetuates-poverty-buys-votes/ Ben Carson: Welfare Perpetuates Poverty, Buys Votes]</ref>

===Influence Peddling===

===Influence Peddling===

==Liberal Attempts to Redefine the Term==

==Liberal Attempts to Redefine the Term==

Liberals have attempted to redefine the terms "income redistribution" and "redistribution of wealth" to demonize [[free market]] [[capitalism]] and small government. They claim that [[trickle down economics]], deregulation, and tax cuts have redistributed income from the poor and middle class to the rich.<ref>Robinson, Eugene. "Have and Have-not Nation." October 28, 2011. Washington Post Writers Group. http://www.truth-out.org/have-and-have-not-nation/1319808459</ref> As evidence they point to income data, such as data in the report released by the Congressional Budget Office in October 2011.<ref>Condon, Stephanie. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20126373-503544/income-gap-will-keep-growing-without-changes-cbo-director-says/ Income gap will keep growing without changes, CBO director says.] October 27, 2011. [[CBS News]]</ref> However, the [[lamestream media]] and liberal politicians have heavily exaggerated this fact recently.

Liberals have attempted to redefine the terms "income redistribution" and "redistribution of wealth" to demonize [[free market]] [[capitalism]] and small government. They claim that [[trickle down economics]], deregulation, and tax cuts have redistributed income from the poor and middle class to the rich.<ref>Robinson, Eugene. "Have and Have-not Nation." October 28, 2011. Washington Post Writers Group. http://www.truth-out.org/have-and-have-not-nation/1319808459</ref> As evidence they point to income data, such as data in the report released by the Congressional Budget Office in October 2011.<ref>Condon, Stephanie. [https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20126373-503544/income-gap-will-keep-growing-without-changes-cbo-director-says/ Income gap will keep growing without changes, CBO director says.] October 27, 2011. [[CBS News]]</ref> However, the [[lamestream media]] and liberal politicians have heavily exaggerated this fact recently.

===Robin Hood Upside Down===

===Robin Hood Upside Down===