XPost: rec.food.baking, alt.politics.usa.constitution, alt.politics.republicans   
   XPost: alt.politics.homosexuality, misc.legal   
   From: none@none.com   
      
   On 11/20/2018 10:25 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   > On 11/20/2018 10:14 AM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >> On 11/19/2018 12:07 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:   
   >>> On 11/19/2018 12:03 PM, Peter Franks wrote:   
   >>>> 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?   
   >>>   
   >>> The baker's ability to pursue happiness is not impacted because some   
   >>> other customer will buy his product.   
   >>   
   >> Equivalently the customer can go buy a cake from some other baker.   
   >   
   > I addressed that below, and have addressed your other points in previous   
   > posts.   
   >   
   >> The only way that you can force the baker to bake is by using a model   
   >> of inequality.   
   >>   
   >> Rights are bounded by the free exercise of the rights of another.   
   >>   
   >> You have given no evidence that rights overlap, and that one person   
   >> has the authority to compel another against his will.   
   >>   
   >> You lost the argument.   
   >   
   > That is what trolls say.  Non-trolls say we have an area of disagreement.   
      
   What we have here is an inability on your part to acknowledge the facts   
   of the situation, and that is that your position requires that people   
   are not equal, that some have the right to control others, but you won't   
   acknowledge that.  This isn't a disagreement, it is simply your willful   
   ignorance or deceit.   
      
   It is that attitude that you espouse that starts wars, my friend.  You   
   feel that you can control others, and some push-overs you can control,   
   but the few that know otherwise and stand up for their rights, fight   
   back in response to your aggression on our rights.   
      
   You have NEVER heard of a war started over a state of equality, it is   
   always due to a state of inequality.   
      
   You force the baker to bake, you create a state of inequality.   
      
   I may be a troll, I may be an ass, but that changes NOTHING about what   
   I've asserted here -- your position is one of inequality.  Mine has   
   been, is, and always will be one of equality.  You have not once   
   provided any evidence to support your deception, you can't explain where   
   your 'overlapping' authority comes from other than to pawn it off on to   
   someone else (e.g. government, supreme Court, or whomever), yet you   
   can't explain one whit about it.  Everything I've said is transparent,   
   logical, rational, fair, and *equal*.   
      
   Troll on that, bro.   
      
   >> The ONLY way you can force the baker to bake is if you believe that   
   >> you have the authority to control someone else.  You don't, and you   
   >> can't.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> In contrast, the customer's ability to pursue happiness is impacted   
   >>> because he has a limited number of bakers to choose from, and the one   
   >>> he prefers may very well be the one who makes the best cakes   
   >>> (delivering the greatest happiness).   
   >>   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)