XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 11/16/2018 6:43 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 11/16/2018 5:24 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >> On 11/16/2018 5:04 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>> On 11/16/2018 4:55 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>> On 11/16/2018 4:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> {snip}   
   >>>   
   >>>>> How is it possible in your rights-based government for the baker   
   >>>>> and the would-be customer to be treated equally?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If both agree to the terms of the transaction, then the equal   
   >>>> transfer of one form of value in exchange for something else of value.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If either party disagrees for whatever reason, there is no   
   >>>> transaction. The customer can refuse to buy for whatever reason.   
   >>>> The baker can refuse to sell for whatever reason.  They are each equal.   
   >>>   
   >>> If the baker refuses to sell, the customer's right to pursue   
   >>> happiness is denied.  If the customer refuses to buy, the baker has   
   >>> no right denied.  That's not equal treatment.   
   >>   
   >> The baker was going to take the profits of the sale and go buy a candy   
   >> bar.  He has been denied the right to pursue his happiness.   
   >   
   > I disagree because of the small number of bakers compared to the large   
   > number of customers.   
      
   Rights are based on quantity?   
      
   No, rights aren't based on quantity.   
      
   Therefore your counter example is proved false.   
      
   Equality prevails, and that is that either you can force the seller OR   
   customer to enter into the contract, or you can force neither.  Forcing   
   one but not the other is inequality.   
      
   You can see that and are just playing stupid, right?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)