“No GOVERNMENT Should Be a Billionaire”: Bernie Sanders Explains Why Having Billionaire [or ANARCHIST] Governments In Society Is Economically and Morally Wrong

Opinion by Sylvia Silverstone, 2/25/23, Womenio

SOURCE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/no-one-should-be-a-billionaire-bernie-sanders-explains-why-having-billionaires-in-society-is-economically-and-morally-wrong/ar-AA17XyjT?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=b47a9ccf7f3346a0b3c6d66fccb13c09&ei=84

EDITORIAL: Under the concept of equality of opportunity and treatment, ALL are TREATED equally in a truly free society.

“A statutory provision which is not a legitimate police regulation cannot be made such by being placed in the same act with a police regulation, or by being enacted under a title that declares a purpose which would be a proper object for the exercise of that power.

It being self-evident that, unless all things are held in common, some persons must have more property than others, it is from the nature of things impossible to uphold freedom of contract and the right of private property without at the same time recognizing as legitimate those inequalities of fortune that are the necessary result of the exercise of those rights.

“The Fourteenth Amendment recognizes “liberty” and “property” as coexistent human rights, and debars the states from any unwarranted interference with either.

Since a state may not strike down the rights of liberty or property directly, it may not do so indirectly, as by declaring in effect that the public good requires the removal of those inequalities that are but the normal and inevitable result of the exercise of those rights, and then invoking the police power in order to remove the inequalities, without other object in view.

“The Fourteenth Amendment debars the states from striking down personal liberty or property rights or materially restricting their normal exercise excepting so far as may be incidentally necessary for the accomplishment of some other and paramount object, and one that concerns the public welfare. The mere restriction of liberty or of property rights cannot, of itself, be denominated “public welfare” and treated as a legitimate object of the police power, for such restriction is the very thing that is inhibited by the Amendment. [236 U.S. 3]”

[Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915)]


No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government.”

[Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U.S. 150 (1897)]

Thus, no GROUP of people called “government” can have any more rights or authority than a SINGLE human being. Thus, in this interview, substituting the word “individuals” with the word “collective”, “group”, “state”, or government leads the reader to conclude that the same thing applies to ALL governments!

The wealth he is talking about is PROPERTY. Indirectly, he is also advocating that the government (a COLLECTIVE that has no more rights than a single human being) should be prohibited from owning or controlling more than a billion dollars of property.

He also says no one should be able to do whatever they want. Well, we’ve got news for you Bernie: The GOVERNMENT right now is the ONLY one who can do that. For proof, see:

Your Lawless, Irresponsible, Anarchist Beast Government, Form #05.054

The US Government and ALL republican governments are based on DELEGATED authority ALONE. You CAN’T logically delegate an authority to a COLLECTIVE called a “state” or “government” that the people INDIVIDUALLY do not also possess:

“The Government of the United States is one of delegated powers alone.  Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution.  All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to the States or the people.” 

[United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)]


“Quod meum est sine me auferri non potest.

What is mine [sovereignty in this case] cannot be taken away without my consent”
[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, p. 2159]

“Derivativa potestas non potest esse major primitive.

The power [sovereign immunity in this case] which is derived cannot be greater than that from which it is derived.”

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, p. 2131]

“Nemo potest facere per obliquum quod non potest facere per directum.

No one can do that indirectly which cannot be done directly.”

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, p. 2147]

“Quod per me non possum, nec per alium.

What I cannot do in person, I cannot do through the agency of another.”

[Bouvier’s Law Dictionary Unabridged, 8th Edition, p. 2159]

[SOURCE: http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm]

Whatever he says has to be applied EQUALLY to ALL, not just to everyone but his employer or the government or collective or state. Otherwise, he is the same type of ELITIST that he criticizes the right for and a supreme HYPOCRITE.

More on the MANDATE for equality of treatment and opportunity between the GOVERNED and the GOVERNORS as the foundation of legal justice itself at:

What Is “Justice”?, Form #05.050

There is no need to go to post July 4th, 1776 laws or court rulings to determine that government has no more power than what exists in one person. It’s all laid out in the 1st law of the USA per July 4th, 1776 (hold on, you can read that in a bit.). In order to see this, one has to understand what a “station” is. Hint: These are stations in life and authority. What did history tell you for the intent of the 1776 document? Wasn’t it to in essence escape the King of England? (The King has a station called King). Recall once you were a subject of the King, you were a permanent subject anywhere in the world. And of course you desired to be free from any of his officers and judges, correct? So a “station” is an authority figure of someone attempting power over the top of you. Let’s give some examples of stations: King, President, judge, sheriff, IRS or FBI agent, etc. AND how do you get free from the authority of someone who declarers you are his subject anywhere on earth? Hint: Man’s world vs God’s dominion. Answer: You place yourself outside and superior to that man’s world authority.

Enter the words in the 1776 document: “The laws of nature and nature’s god”. So now if as the document states (and its the 1st law of the USA) that you can simply “ASSUME among the POWERS on earth the SEPARATE and EQUAL STATION to which the LAWS of nature and nature’s God ENTITLE them”…..what power is left on earth in the form of some person with an authority-figure station over the top of you? Answer: NONE! You can just ASSUME you have a separate and equal station (i.e. and power) to what they have. And how many people does it take to do so? “One people”. Read the words in the document and all you have to do is dissolve a “political band” which is in essence a political association. (Hint: Can you see why government cannot force political association? That prevention is not in the CONstitution; it’s hidden in the 1st law of the USA.) To government one evidence of a political band is by voting as government laws equate this to “elective franchise”. They simply assuming you are electing (i.e volunteering [remember they cannot force political association]) to franchise with them as evidence by voting for one of their officers. Another is by declaring yourself a citizen of their government as all citizen implies allegiance. BUT it gets better as the 1776 document deciares its a SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH that all men are created equal. Why would ANYONE need the truth of a judge connected with a court government claims is supreme (hint: supreme only over that branch) to provide you with his EVIDENCE , disguised as helping you, (i.e. his opinion, laws, etc.) when all you need is YOURSELF because its all SELF EVIDENT.

The next concept you need to understand is the common used phrase “consent of the governed.” When you see that phrase insert the word “personal consent” for “consent”. (Personal consent of the governed”) Government is fond of implying that you somehow consented to being governed by virtue of some past lifetime group of people or some other group that voted something away. Nothing could be further from the truth. You couldn’t have a SELF EVIDENT TRUTH if all your evidence was in the form of ANOTHER from a previous generation or even from another person. And what about that (personal) consent of the governed? Notice that the 1776 law document states government gets its “JUST POWERS” from the (personal) consent of the governed. That means anything less than personal consent is an UNJUST power of government–so says the law that the USA claims is its first LAW. When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–

[Declaration of Independence, 1776]

In a recent interview with The News Agents, US Senator Bernie Sanders revealed why he believes no one should be a billionaire. 

Sanders Bernie argues in his book that it is both economically and morally wrong for so few individuals to control the wealth of the rest of the population. He concludes that there should be no billionaires at all. 

During the interview, Sanders was asked about billionaires who pay their taxes and have earned their wealth through success, and what’s wrong with them holding onto their money.

“Well, if you had a tax structure that was fair, they would not be billionaires,” he answered.

According to the US Senator, it’s acceptable to become wealthy by working hard, earning money, and running a successful business. However, he argues that having billionaires in society is wrong, and there should be a cap on their wealth.

While the exact level of the cap is subject to debate, Sanders finds it “insane” and “absurd” that there are people with hundreds of billions or even tens of billions of dollars, suggesting that the system simply can’t sustain such wealth. 

Sanders highlights that in the United States, there are half a million homeless people and 85 million individuals who cannot afford health insurance. 

Also read: 21 of the Biggest Lies in American History

He suggests that concentrating wealth in the hands of so few individuals [such as 535 people in the house of representatives and 100 people in the Senate] is both “economically and morally wrong.” 

Bernie Sanders clarifies that he does not oppose making money, but he questions whether it is fair for just three individuals to possess such wealth. He also believes that having such an enormous wealth gap in America is not “appropriate.” 

He then posed a question to successful businessmen who make a few hundred million dollars whether they think that amount could provide adequate housing and food for their family.

Sanders believes that it is possible for someone in that position to provide for their family without accumulating immense wealth.

However, he disagrees with the culture that allows people to do whatever they want – even if it means stepping on anyone or destroying the environment – to amass tens of billions of dollars.

Also read: 30 Horrible Things Men Wear That Women HATE

Viewers had a lot to say about the interview. 

Many have taken to the comments section to highlight the massive amount of a billion dollars, with one person stating, “Just for context: a million seconds is 12 days. A billion seconds is 31 years.” 

Another added, “I don’t think people understand how much a billion is.”

In response to an interview question posed to Bernie Sanders about where to draw the line, one individual wrote, “He has told you the line – a billion,” while another person simplified it, “The line is 999 million. Simple as that.”

A further commenter dropped a hint about a statement that’s worth thinking deeply about, suggesting, “‘The system cannot afford them’ The facts & answers are in that statement.”

Related Articles