"Income Inequality"...

But it does propose that there is some third party who has the privilege -- not the right, mind you, but the privilege -- to step in and decide how much inequality is too much. I contend that there is no such privilege for any third party.

See, that last part is where things get fuzzy, because government has grossly expanded it to areas and to degrees unwarranted by the power we allow government to have.

You're sort of taking it as a given, however, that that is an injustice to begin with.

One important quibble. We do grant the government that power. It is an agent of the people and we grant it the power Nova referenced.

No, we don't. We grant it the power to secure the general welfare, but that's not what the Framers meant by 'welfare.' To be fair, that's certainly a topic up for debate -- in my opinion, however, what is meant by 'the general welfare' is merely an absence of coercion by force. But when the government itself becomes the instrument of coercive force, it has most certainly lost perspective of its role in this area.

There's that line above which says "IF it can be demonstrated" - it is always up to the party in contention to demonstrate they have a valid case, just as it is in any sort of dispute.

Whether or not the government has over-reached in any area, it does not by having done so invalidate the thesis that the role of government inherently includes being the final arbiter of dispute between those under it's jurisdiction.

No, the only legitimate role for government is in adjudicating disputes of contract between consenting parties.

If your employer has offered to pay you $5.00 an hour, and you have agreed to work for $5.00 an hour, the government has no purchase in a dispute where you want to renegotiate. The contract, as written, is being fulfilled. See what I'm getting at? The government can't simply step the fuck in and renegotiate a contract that your employer is fulfilling. To do that is wrong and an overreach.

And yes, if the party providing labor wants to renegotiate, that should always be an option -- but the party wishing to renegotiate should have something more to bargain with than, "But I waaaaaant it!" That's the bargaining of toddlers. You must bring something more to the table. You must. Your value must match or exceed your cost.

Otherwise what we're talking about is having the government fucking steal from people on your behalf. And there just isn't any ethical justification that can support that.

so your argument is that the government is NEVER charged to act in a dispute where there isn't a pre-existing contract? That's glaringly false on the face of it.

On what basis is that false? That is the definition of the limit of governmental authority. Beyond that, you might as well let them tell you what gender identity to express. I'm serious, and yes, this is personal -- once you let them stray beyond their strictly limited role of mediating disputes, you open up the door for them to meddle in literally everything, including YOUR gender identity.

Remember, the Socialist President we've got now isn't the Puritanical Bible-Thumping President we might get.

It's time to oppose a Bible-Thumping evangelical President's overreach now, while it's still a Socialist President's overreach.

You wanna show me where in the Constitution that power is granted? Welfare clause? Nope, that's not what the framers intended, the intended the welfare clause to coincide with the enumerated powers.

It's in the tenth amendment. You states rights folks always miss the last part.

What does the tenth amendment have to do with national legislation?

It has to do with the people having the right to grant authority to the fed gov. You no doubt don't like this, but it is there just the same.

You completely misunderstand what the tenth amendment is about. It's not about the people granting power to the federal government, the rest of the Constitution does that. It would make no sense to add an additional amendment for people to grant more power. The tenth amendment deals specifically with the states and the people of the several states, through the states to exercise their power. Any power that that is not granted to the federal government is differed to the states or the people of the several states. It has nothing to do with granting more power to the federal government. The powers have already been enumerated in section 8, no more power can be granted, unless through the amendment process. Your twisted retconning of the tenth amendment is false and one that renders the states useless. The framers didn't do that and would not have been able to do that.

Actually, the 10th amendment regards exactly what it says:

You are correct about everything up to that point defining the powers of the Federal government. But you are incorrect about the meaning of the 10th, which essentially says, whatever they didn't think of can be decided by the states and the people. This can be either a positive or negative decision. The states and people can denny anything else, or they can allow something else. The states speak on such issues through their senators, the people through our representatives. We can and quite often do grant additional powers to the federal government. As I said, you may not like it, but there it is.

Wrong.

So how do you interpret "or to the people"?

I believe his answer to you will be: "you're wrong."

You. Me. Bill Gates. the bum with the cardboard sign at the freeway exit. Private individuals. In other words, the US government has the authority to govern the things explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. Everything else is governed by the states. And if your state doesn't have a regulation you are free to do (or not do) something.

I don't see how that is difficult to understand but then again I don't see how the Second Amendment is difficult to understand either, yet liberals seem to consistently get that one wrong too. Of course maybe they understand it perfectly, they've just decided to interpret it in a way that suits their desires.

Especially when the government finds itself pushed into the position of directly subsidizing said injustice.

The people of the several states. There is no homogeneous "people." We don't all vote the same. we don't all share the same interests and "the people" did not ratify the Constitution. You can say I'm wrong till you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make it true. The tenth amendment was specifically designed to protect the states and the people of the several states against the federal government. It was put in because of fears that the enumeration of powers in section eight was not enough to protect against encroachments. Congress cannot arbitrary grant itself powers it does not posses and the tenth amendment does not refer to Congress, it refers to the states. This is another liberal misinterpretation designed to grant the federal government more power. It would defeat the purpose of the tenth amendment if it were meant to grant the federal government more power. It's funny though seeing a statist authoritarian defend the tenth amendment. Like I said up-thread, the left only defends the Constitution when it serves their purpose. They'll even defend the loathed tenth amendment as long as it means they can somehow twist the meaning to grant more power to the state. Boggles the mind. But hey, if you really think you're right, then by all means prove it. We can go through this again.

This.

Anyone else notice how originally we were discussing this in terms of ethics, but suddenly it's in terms of constitutionality?

If you can't find an ethical reason and you can't find any constitutional ground to stand on, then maybe it's just a bad idea.

Someone didn't read the thread then, since I've seen at least two reasons submitted thus far.

I'm sorry, legitimate ethical reasons.

So you're the arbiter of ethical legitimacy now? Somebody oughta tell Jesus...

Edited for accuracy.

Let me know when you have something real to contribute.

So by the concept of "people" that you ascribe to the founders, it would, for instance, be incomprehensible to think of some kind of total plurality, a "we the people" rather than an "I among the people", that could formulate any kind of joint political position of any relevance?

Do you think the government indirectly subsidizing large, highly profitable corporations through welfare benefits for the working poor is "constitutional?" Do you think it's ethical that taxpayers should be shouldering those costs instead of the corporation themselves, or at the very least the customers of those corporations?