XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 11/13/2018 3:28 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 11/13/2018 1:28 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >> On 11/8/2018 11:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>> On 11/8/2018 4:12 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/8/2018 3:42 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>> On 11/8/2018 3:39 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>>> On 10/31/2018 4:52 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 10/31/2018 3:32 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 10/31/2018 11:31 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> On 10/31/2018 11:13 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> {snip}   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>>> You assert that being required to serve is a right of those   
   >>>>>>>>>> being served, which NECESSARILY REQUIRES that those that are   
   >>>>>>>>>> served have authority over those that serve.   
   >>>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>> I do not believe it requires those that are served have   
   >>>>>>>>> authority over those that serve.  Again, this is case of   
   >>>>>>>>> competing rights. The customer has the right to pursue   
   >>>>>>>>> happiness, and the baker has the liberty right to serve who he   
   >>>>>>>>> wants to.  Neither party has authority over the other.  And   
   >>>>>>>>> yet, the government can choose to secure either right it   
   >>>>>>>>> believes takes precedence.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Does forcing/requiring/mandating someone to do something against   
   >>>>>>>> their will require authority over that person?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Yes.   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> Where does that authority come from?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In this case, the government's authority to require the baker to   
   >>>>> serve the client comes from securing the right of the client to   
   >>>>> pursue happiness.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In essence what you said is that people pursuing happiness have more   
   >>>> authority than those that aren't.  That doesn't make sense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Further, suppose the baker derives happiness from not serving   
   >>>> certain clients.  Both are pursuing happiness, yet one is compelled   
   >>>> to provide for the other.  That also doesn't make sense.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Look at it objectively, your model does not make sense.  It   
   >>>> *requires* inequality.   
   >>>   
   >>> When to people each have a right that conflicts with the other, it is   
   >>> proper for the government to weigh in on which right takes precedence.   
   >>   
   >> No it doesn't, government (and in your model that means democratic   
   >> government, i.e. the will of the majority) doesn't have any special   
   >> powers that allow it to determine which takes precedence.  An in no   
   >> case can someone be compelled to act, again, because that requires   
   >> inequality.  How can you not see that?   
   >>   
   >> Further, rights are BOUNDED by the free exercise of rights of another,   
   >> they do not overlap.  That bound may be flexible, but it does not   
   >> overlap -- Only in totalitarianism can one be compelled because of the   
   >> 'rights' of another.   
   >>   
   >> Do you not believe in equality of men?  You sure come across that you   
   >> do, yet fundamentally your entire argument seems based on inequality.   
   >   
   > Inequality is inevitable in this case.  One party will necessarily   
   > prevail over the other.   
      
   Inequality is inevitable in a democratic system of governance, and in   
   that form of governance, one party always prevails over the other.   
      
   However, in a rights-based government, equality is paramount and never   
   compromised.   
      
   You support and advocate for inequality.   
      
   I support and advocate for equality.   
      
   Societies based in inequality are fundamentally flawed and fail.   
      
   Societies based on equality are few and far between, but have the best   
   chance of success.  The US is based on that principle, and will succeed   
   as long as we keep democracy at bay.  It may be a losing battle, not   
   because the foundation is flawed, but because so many people are blinded   
   by the lies and false hope that is endemic in democracy.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)