Who said anything about cafeteria constitutionalism? I’m simply pointing out the reality of the situation. We know CEOs make too much damn money, hundreds of times what their average employees are making. We’ve known that for decades. We know that they continue to treat their workers worse and worse. We know that they now treat their customers like crap too. These are facts. And we also know that if you kick a dog enough eventually the dog fights back.
No, accepting that there is no law and order in this country is step one to fixing it. You can’t fix what you won’t admit is broken. Once you’re rich, once you’re a big donor, you are immune from the laws. That’s a fact. Been that way for a long time (like a REALLY long time, read up on how the railroads happened). It’s not because it’s the foundation of our republic, it’s because the foundation has been subverted.
We have to live under laws THEY pass. And THEY don’t. That is what is happening. Has been for a long time. Will continue to happen. Which is why the dogs are biting.
It was me who brought up “Cafeteria Constitutionalism. Perhaps you have never heard it in the form of “Cafeteria Catholics” or “Cafeteria Christians”.
It has to do with the concept of picking and choosing what parts of something in Catholicism or Christianity you choose to pay attention to, and which ones you don’t.
I was making the analogy to Constitutional Principles, and was describing people who are “Cafeteria Constitutionalists” where they pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they wish to observe and which ones they wish to ignore or discard, if that wasn’t clear.
I am of the opinion that when it comes to the Constitution of the United States, we cannot pick and choose lest the document becomes meaningless.
We either abide and support abiding by it, or we do not. If we don’t, we are not a Constitutional Republic and there is no way around that.
This is where we disagree, I think. There are many conservatives (including myself) who know that law and order is broken in this country and that laws are enforced unequally, but they will not capitulate to lawlessness and instead hold onto the hope that can be remedied. But as you correctly state, knowing it is unequal is the first step to addressing it, and there are plenty of us who DO recognize it.
If you and I disagree on this because you feel that the disparity in law enforcement (among other things) cannot be remedied, then we have to agree to disagree because I don’t see that as a lost cause yet.
By the way-I discount completely the issue that the money that CEOs make in comparison to their workers. Primarily I don’t see that as having any bearing on the cold-blooded murder of someone who makes more than they do.
It is wrong enough in my eyes to justify the murder of someone because that person is a rich CEO that people want to make responsible for the deaths of of people (for whatever justification they have) without compounding that issue by conflating the issue of class with the issue of culpability in the deaths of others, because you are making that linkage (with your opening comment about CEOs making too much money) and I think one has nothing to do with the other.
This has always been the case that people who run companies have, and always will make in salary many multiples more than those they employ, and although it is a fertile field for those inclined to class warfare (where plenty of people will always be found who will sign on) if we are going to start talking about corporate greed and CEO salaries should be limited, we are leaving the domain of conservatism and entering a domain where we begin to allow a government to decide the worth of a person’s work, and as Frederick Hayek eloquently describes in his book by the same name, that is “The Road To Serfdom”.
We can disagree, but I see no reason we have to be crosswise with each other about it.