[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-21-2023).]

[This message has been edited by BHall71 (edited 09-21-2023).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Wrong person. It is the OP who makes that claim, not me.

It's a misconception to assert (by formulating it as a rhetorical question) that the Constitution does not spell out that the federal government needs to police the rich.

That is the misconception that I lay at the feet—or in this case, the hands, I would think—of Doug85GT.

It's true to say that the Constitution does not spell out that the federal government needs to police the rich, but it's a misconception to use the Constitution as a counterargument to fredtoast's saying that the policing of the rich is one of the federal government's most important responsibilities.

That is fredtoast's opinion about a policy issue that is beyond the scope of the Constitution. It's not a Constitutional issue. That is the meaning of my previous remarks in this thread, where I described the Constitution as "policy agnostic." So it is not any kind of argument against fredtoast's opinion on this matter, to bring up the Constitution.

Now when you get into the nitty gritty of the specific federal laws, Executive Orders, and the federal regulatory agencies and their decisions that comprise the policy of "policing the rich," there could be Constitutional issues on more specific grounds, but it wouldn't (or shouldn't) be an argument about whether the government can police the rich. It would be an argument about what is allowed to the government in the specific ways and means that the government is using (or wants to use) to police the rich.

We would all be better served if fredtoast had not stopped at saying that policing the rich is one of the most important jobs for government.

He could have said that policing the rich has become one of the most important jobs for government in the current day United States, which has evolved from the 13 newly established United States of George Washington's presidency, into the much larger and more complex nation that we are today. Had fredtoast extended his "policing the rich" remark in this way, it would have sharpened the focus of this discussion, and very possibly, the conversational door (so to speak) that gave entrance to the misconception about the relevance of the Constitution, would not have become an open door. (But that is just speculation on my part.)

But this is not to impeach fredtoast in any way, for his not having elaborated on his too brief remark about "policing the rich."

It cannot be overlooked that fredtoast's "police the rich" remark is the very foundation upon which I constructed the more complete and informative construct that the policing of the rich has become one of the most important jobs for government in the current day United States, which is a much larger and more complex nation than the original 13 United States. So in that sense, I have—to reprise Newton's famous words—"stood on the shoulders of giants," in the way that I have taken my inspiration from fredtoast's all too brief remark, and enlarged on that foundation to erect a mighty edifice of Reason that will doubtless stand for centuries to come.

"Am I wrong?"

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-22-2023).]

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: Wealth inequality is not a problem. It is not the government's job to deal with it.

That's your opinion. It's obviously a far cry from being a unanimous opinion among the people of the United States.

quote Originally posted by Doug85GT: It is not surprising that leftists cannot think of any laws that protect the "rich" from the poor. Every law that defines property crime is a law that protects the "rich". A few examples of laws that protect the "rich" from the poor: trespassing, workman's comp fraud, unemployment fraud, embezzlement, shoplifting, robbery, theft, kidnapping.

Those laws are not entirely for the purpose of protecting the rich from the poor.

Take the laws against fraudulent claims for workman's compensation fraud and unemployment benefits. Those laws protect people with honest claims from people who would file fraudulent claims. Those laws are of value in ensuring that when honest claims are filed, there is money available for the claimants as compensation. The honest claimants could be among the poor. They certainly wouldn't be restricted to the ranks of the rich.


There's an unseemly air of condescension about a sentence that begins with "It is not surprising that leftists cannot think of any laws..." It reminds me of a certain other forum member. No one should ever want to be like that certain other forum member.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-22-2023).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: That's your opinion. It's obviously a far cry from being a unanimous opinion among the people of the United States. Those laws are not entirely for the purpose of protecting the rich from the poor. Take the laws against fraudulent claims for workman's compensation fraud and unemployment benefits. Those laws protect people with honest claims from people who would file fraudulent claims. Those laws are of value in ensuring that when honest claims are filed, there is money available for the claimants as compensation. The honest claimants could be among the poor. They certainly wouldn't be restricted to the ranks of the rich. There's an unseemly air of condescension about a sentence that begins with "It is not surprising that leftists cannot think of any laws..." It reminds me of a certain other forum member. No one should ever want to be like that certain other forum member.

LOL

I can make the same claim that laws listed prior are not exclusively to protect the poor from the rich. If you want to claim it is the job of the government to do x because of certain laws, I get to do the same. All it illustrates is how dumb the argument is from the OP.

[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 09-22-2023).]