Restaurant refuses service to Huckabee Sanders

[MennoSota]

You're avoiding the issue. Whatever methods are used to elect a leader the chances are there wil lbe people who are unhappy with the person elected. The US right now is a perfect example where either a Republican or a Democrat is elected to the White House and approximately 50% of the country is unhappy about it. It's a perfect example of why we need the government to have less power.

Your arguments are little more than repeating "anarchy doesn't work" over and over. Nobody is saying anarchy does work. The question is whether or not I am free if the government tells me I have to do business on their terms rather than my own terms.

A new party. The Republicans created a new party at a small building in Wisconsin. No one says people have to be tied to two parties.
You are free to start a business or not, but you must work within the regulations setup by elected officials. The regulations happened because of something bad happening due to little or no oversight.
Are you free if God tells you what to do and holds you accountable to do that which He demands?
Your argument is weak. It is a cover up for individual, self-centered, narcicissm that feeds your selfishness. This is the nature of the human condition. Left unchecked, it will seek power for self over all others.

 

[MennoSota]

You are what is called a "Statist." Other people value freedom.

This stuff is easier than it is being made out to be in some of these posts.

Most people value power over others. Your freedom ultimately results in another person's submission to your yoke. Only when human self-centered behavior is checked by the social good can their be a balance. Unregulated "freedom" results in chaos and ultimately war.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, because killing people is an obvious progression from not wanting to make a cake for them.

Quite a lot of businesses would rather just take the money than fuss about the person handing over the money. The ones that really don't want to go there are probably places the customer wouldn't want to go either. If a business found some aspect of me sufficiently troubling that they didn't want to take my money I think I'd rather go elsewhere than give them my money. Why would I want to go to a restaurant that I knew didn't want to serve me, other than to cause trouble?

Why should you have to worry if they didn't want to serve you. If they are prejudice, racist and haters...let them live on a compound outside of Waco.

 

[Albion]

Most people value power over others. Your freedom ultimately results in another person's submission to your yoke.

I don't think that theory holds up to scrutiny.

Only when human self-centered behavior is checked by the social good can their be a balance. Unregulated "freedom" results in chaos and ultimately war.

You're back to talking about anarchism again, which never was really a part of this discussion.

 

[Albion]

A new party. The Republicans created a new party at a small building in Wisconsin. No one says people have to be tied to two parties.
You are free to start a business or not, but you must work within the regulations setup by elected officials. The regulations happened because of something bad happening due to little or no oversight.

A few of them. Libertarians would junk the other 80% that simply enrich the government, assist the labor unions to interfere in your business, suppress competition which benefits all consumers, comply with the demands made on us by foreign governments, and require a huge number of reports that must be made to various government entities that mainly serve to justify the jobs of those who read them.

Your argument is weak. It is a cover up for individual, self-centered, narcicism that feeds your selfishness.

Such is the rationalization all dictators use in order to justify tyranny--the people need to be ruled. As they explain, they, the rulers, of course are free of all self-centeredness, narcissism, and selfish urges, and so are the perfect ones to run the lives of everyone else.. eace:










.

 

[MennoSota]

I don't think that theory holds up to scrutiny.


You're back to talking about anarchism again, which never was really a part of this discussion.

Of course it holds up to scrutiny. We have 7 millenniums of selfish behavior by humans starting with Cain.
You are merely refusing to take libertarian thought to its ultimate conclusion.

 

[MennoSota]

A few of them. Libertarians would junk the other 80% that simply enrich the government, assist the labor unions to interfere in your business, suppress competition which benefits all consumers, comply with the demands made on us by foreign governments, and require a huge number of reports that must be made to various government entities that mainly serve to justify the jobs of those who read them.



Such is the rationalization all dictators use in order to justify tyranny--the people need to be ruled. As they explain, they, the rulers, of course are free of all self-centeredness, narcissism, and selfish urges, and so are the perfect ones to run the lives of everyone else.. eace:










.

You refuse to accept that libertarian thinking would lead to anarchy, which would result in a power vacuum filled by a tyrant or warlords. Just look at Albania and Somalia. They truly are your shining examples. This is why the majority of humans reject libertarian ideology.

 

[Albion]

You refuse to accept that libertarian thinking would lead to anarchy

Of course I do. Its a ridiculous notion which, if you notice, found favor with nobody else here. Its just your personal theory.

The history of governments shows that the trend is in the opposite direction, with more and more regulations and control over time.

 

[MennoSota]

Of course I do. Its a ridiculous notion which, if you notice, found favor with nobody else here. Its just your personal theory.

The history of governments shows that the trend is in the opposite direction, with more and more regulations and control over time.

The regulations are a direct response to the selfish and sinful nature of man. However, an unchecked government becomes a tyranny. The question then is to determine if your dictator is benevolent.
God's Kingdom will be a dictatorship with the saints as rulers. Kinda sounds like big government to me.

 

[Albion]

The regulations are a direct response to the selfish and sinful nature of man. However, an unchecked government becomes a tyranny. The question then is to determine if your dictator is benevolent.

Good grief.

 

[MennoSota]

Good grief.

Is King Assad of Jordan a benevolent dictator or not? I say he's benevolent.

 

[Lamb]

I read today that Sander's husband claims that the restaurant owner followed them across the street as they dined at another restaurant to shout at them. Can't people just grow up? I'm so tired of politics turning people into poorly behaved children.

 

[tango]

A new party. The Republicans created a new party at a small building in Wisconsin. No one says people have to be tied to two parties.

Suuuuuure.... amidst trying to run a small business and deal with the regulations why not take the time to start a new party that's unlikely to get anywhere because of the vested interests? Great idea.

You are free to start a business or not, but you must work within the regulations setup by elected officials. The regulations happened because of something bad happening due to little or no oversight.

Some regulations happened because of a bad outcome. Some regulations happened because of lobbying. Some regulations seem to serve little purpose beyond creating barriers to entry so that established players don't have to worry about new competitors entering the market. Hence the reason for wanting small government so they can do less of that sort of thing.

Are you free if God tells you what to do and holds you accountable to do that which He demands?

Of course I am free. I am free to curse the very name of God if I so choose. One day I will give account of what I have done. Why does it have to be different here? If I want to run a restaurant that is visibly unsanitary nobody is forced to eat there. If I decide that, for whatever reason, a particular visibly identifiable group of people are not welcome in my business any and every customer is free to take their business elsewhere if they find my stance unacceptable.

Your argument is weak. It is a cover up for individual, self-centered, narcicissm that feeds your selfishness. This is the nature of the human condition. Left unchecked, it will seek power for self over all others.

Self-centered narcissism? Are you serious? I think you'd need a better reason than narcissism to turn down a paying customer, especially if you're running a small business and know what the likely consequences will be. Maybe the silly baker just felt like having his entire livelihood put in jeopardy and taking a chance on losing everything he owned because he was just that selfish.

 

[tango]

Most people value power over others. Your freedom ultimately results in another person's submission to your yoke. Only when human self-centered behavior is checked by the social good can their be a balance. Unregulated "freedom" results in chaos and ultimately war.

Hence the whole point of minimal regulation, as opposed to no regulation at all.

As you've noted, if you take away all rules you end up with anarchy. Anarchy is little different to totalitarianism, except that instead of a North Korean style of government you end up with the local warlord whose word is law because he's got the biggest stick and beats anyone into submission if they dare to oppose him.

Your comment about freedom is an interesting one, given that the vocal elements of the gay community clearly want the Christian baker to submit to their yoke. Of course the Christian baker isn't trying to force anyone else to submit, he merely invited them to choose a different baker to get their cake.

But then once again you harp on about unregulated freedom, which isn't really what we're trying to get at here. I suppose a strawman is easier to knock down than an actual stance.

 

[tango]

The regulations are a direct response to the selfish and sinful nature of man.

Sadly many regulations are a direct response to lobbying. Arguable that's a "selfish and sinful nature" manifesting itself but it certainly isn't for the protection of the people.

However, an unchecked government becomes a tyranny. The question then is to determine if your dictator is benevolent.

Yes indeed, an unchecked government becomes a tyranny. Another good reason to limit the scope of government. Better not to let a dictator arise than to worry about whether he is benevolent and, if so, whether he will still be benevolent tomorrow, no?

God's Kingdom will be a dictatorship with the saints as rulers. Kinda sounds like big government to me.

And in the meantime God gives us absolute freedom to do anything from worship him with everything we have, to curse him with everything we have. Sounds like liberty to me.

 

[MennoSota]

Hence the whole point of minimal regulation, as opposed to no regulation at all.

As you've noted, if you take away all rules you end up with anarchy. Anarchy is little different to totalitarianism, except that instead of a North Korean style of government you end up with the local warlord whose word is law because he's got the biggest stick and beats anyone into submission if they dare to oppose him.

Your comment about freedom is an interesting one, given that the vocal elements of the gay community clearly want the Christian baker to submit to their yoke. Of course the Christian baker isn't trying to force anyone else to submit, he merely invited them to choose a different baker to get their cake.

But then once again you harp on about unregulated freedom, which isn't really what we're trying to get at here. I suppose a strawman is easier to knock down than an actual stance.

The baker invited them to choose another service because he refused service for something that is offered to the public. That discrimination is what got him in trouble. Don't provide a public service if not all the public is welcome. The discrimination becomes a slippery slope that reveals the heart of humanity.

 

[MennoSota]

Sadly many regulations are a direct response to lobbying. Arguable that's a "selfish and sinful nature" manifesting itself but it certainly isn't for the protection of the people.



Yes indeed, an unchecked government becomes a tyranny. Another good reason to limit the scope of government. Better not to let a dictator arise than to worry about whether he is benevolent and, if so, whether he will still be benevolent tomorrow, no?



And in the meantime God gives us absolute freedom to do anything from worship him with everything we have, to curse him with everything we have. Sounds like liberty to me.

God doesn't give absolute liberty. Second, God's patience allows the wickedness of man to thrive in the brutality of vast abuses contaminating every area of humanity. Even vile perversion is found in the church. When God's patience ends, His wrath and judgment will be swift and sure. He won't ask if people agree with Him. He won't need to be voted in. God is King and what He commands will be done. No questions asked.

 

[tango]

God doesn't give absolute liberty.

No? What am I unable to do because God prevents it?

Second, God's patience allows the wickedness of man to thrive in the brutality of vast abuses contaminating every area of humanity. Even vile perversion is found in the church. When God's patience ends, His wrath and judgment will be swift and sure. He won't ask if people agree with Him. He won't need to be voted in. God is King and what He commands will be done. No questions asked.

... and in the meantime we have freedom to do what we want. The consequences come later. Just like with the baker.

 

[MennoSota]

No? What am I unable to do because God prevents it?



... and in the meantime we have freedom to do what we want. The consequences come later. Just like with the baker.

God prevents everything you can't do.
Whatever actions you do are by God's ordained "yes." When God says "no" you cannot do it. See Balaam as a biblical example.