Baking (rec.food.baking) For bakers, would-be bakers, and fans and consumers of breads, pastries, cakes, pies, cookies, crackers, bagels, and other items commonly found in a bakery. Includes all methods of preparation, both conventional and not.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2018, 12:01 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
*- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has been
delegated authority /from/ individuals.
*- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose, the
powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
*- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and that is
to support and sustain the execution of the authority that has been
legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation has
been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_ individual is equally
obligated to support and sustain that protection.* It is up to the
people of that society to define that equal obligation (e.g. it could be
that all serve in the armed forces for some period of time, and/or
individuals are obligated to financially support the maintenance and
execution of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....).* If an individual
refuses their obligation, they are subject to punishment or removal from
society.


That's one example. Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?


We have always agreed on that. Where we disagree is the scope of
government's delegated authority over individuals.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2018, 01:59 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has been
delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose, the
powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and that is
to support and sustain the execution of the authority that has been
legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation has
been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_ individual is
equally obligated to support and sustain that protection.* It is up to
the people of that society to define that equal obligation (e.g. it
could be that all serve in the armed forces for some period of time,
and/or individuals are obligated to financially support the
maintenance and execution of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....).
If an individual refuses their obligation, they are subject to
punishment or removal from society.


That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?


For us, US Constitution.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?


We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope of
government's delegated authority over individuals.


If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can authority
over another be delegated to government? It can't, ergo government has
no authority over individuals.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2018, 02:35 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has been
delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose,
the powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and that
is to support and sustain the execution of the authority that has
been legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation
has been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_ individual is
equally obligated to support and sustain that protection.* It is up
to the people of that society to define that equal obligation (e.g.
it could be that all serve in the armed forces for some period of
time, and/or individuals are obligated to financially support the
maintenance and execution of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....).
If an individual refuses their obligation, they are subject to
punishment or removal from society.


That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?


For us, US Constitution.


So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for the
general welfare has been delegated to government and individuals are
obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?


We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope of
government's delegated authority over individuals.


If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can authority
over another be delegated to government?* It can't, ergo government has
no authority over individuals.


Let me rephrase. We agree no individual has authority over another.
Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally and justly
delegated to the government.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2018, 06:03 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has been
delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose,
the powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and that
is to support and sustain the execution of the authority that has
been legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation
has been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_ individual is
equally obligated to support and sustain that protection.* It is up
to the people of that society to define that equal obligation (e.g.
it could be that all serve in the armed forces for some period of
time, and/or individuals are obligated to financially support the
maintenance and execution of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or
....). If an individual refuses their obligation, they are subject
to punishment or removal from society.

That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?


For us, US Constitution.


So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for the
general welfare has been delegated to government and individuals are
obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?


No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for the
welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be delegated to
government. Our government, using legislative authority it doesn't
have, created the SS welfare program.

This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the General
Welfare clause. It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare of the nation
(government), not the people. Individuals have no authority over
others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be delegated and
necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW clause.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?

We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope of
government's delegated authority over individuals.


If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can
authority over another be delegated to government?* It can't, ergo
government has no authority over individuals.


Let me rephrase.* We agree no individual has authority over another.
Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally and justly
delegated to the government.


If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident. Since we don't
agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.

Take your above example of SS. You argue that it is just and authorized
via the General Welfare clause. In order to do so, you must assume that
an individual DOES have authority over another (in that they can compel
one person to provide for the welfare of another AND that you can compel
that individual to provide for the welfare of their self).

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2018, 06:33 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/2/2018 10:03 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has
been delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose,
the powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and that
is to support and sustain the execution of the authority that has
been legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation
has been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_ individual is
equally obligated to support and sustain that protection.* It is up
to the people of that society to define that equal obligation (e.g.
it could be that all serve in the armed forces for some period of
time, and/or individuals are obligated to financially support the
maintenance and execution of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or
....). If an individual refuses their obligation, they are subject
to punishment or removal from society.

That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?

For us, US Constitution.


So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for the
general welfare has been delegated to government and individuals are
obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?


No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for the
welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be delegated to
government.* Our government, using legislative authority it doesn't
have, created the SS welfare program.

This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the General
Welfare clause.* It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare of the nation
(government), not the people.* Individuals have no authority over
others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be delegated and
necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW clause.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?

We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope of
government's delegated authority over individuals.

If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can
authority over another be delegated to government?* It can't, ergo
government has no authority over individuals.


Let me rephrase.* We agree no individual has authority over another.
Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally and justly
delegated to the government.


If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident.* Since we don't
agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.

Take your above example of SS.* You argue that it is just and authorized
via the General Welfare clause.* In order to do so, you must assume that
an individual DOES have authority over another (in that they can compel
one person to provide for the welfare of another AND that you can compel
that individual to provide for the welfare of their self).


My example (Social Security) is no different than your example (the
military draft). In both cases, neither of us assumes an individual has
authority over another. Instead, we assume an authority has been
delegated to the government (in my case, providing for the general
welfare, and in your case protecting the sovereignty of the nation) that
justifies the government requiring the individual to do something that
other individual has the authority to require.

Where we disagree is the scope of has been delegated to the government.



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2018, 11:05 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/2/2018 10:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:03 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has
been delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and purpose,
the powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and
that is to support and sustain the execution of the authority that
has been legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the nation
has been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_ individual
is equally obligated to support and sustain that protection.* It
is up to the people of that society to define that equal
obligation (e.g. it could be that all serve in the armed forces
for some period of time, and/or individuals are obligated to
financially support the maintenance and execution of the armed
forces (i.e. taxes), or ....). If an individual refuses their
obligation, they are subject to punishment or removal from society.

That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?

For us, US Constitution.

So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for the
general welfare has been delegated to government and individuals are
obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?


No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for the
welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be delegated to
government.* Our government, using legislative authority it doesn't
have, created the SS welfare program.

This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the General
Welfare clause.* It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare of the nation
(government), not the people.* Individuals have no authority over
others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be delegated and
necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW clause.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?

We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope of
government's delegated authority over individuals.

If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can
authority over another be delegated to government?* It can't, ergo
government has no authority over individuals.

Let me rephrase.* We agree no individual has authority over another.
Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally and justly
delegated to the government.


If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident.* Since we don't
agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.

Take your above example of SS.* You argue that it is just and
authorized via the General Welfare clause.* In order to do so, you
must assume that an individual DOES have authority over another (in
that they can compel one person to provide for the welfare of another
AND that you can compel that individual to provide for the welfare of
their self).


My example (Social Security) is no different than your example (the
military draft).


Absolutely not. Welfare of the nation has nothing to do with welfare of
the individual.

We've established a nation, and the citizens must protect that nation.

We have NOT established an individual; nature has. The individual is
responsible for their welfare. Period.

In both cases, neither of us assumes an individual has
authority over another.* Instead, we assume an authority has been
delegated to the government (in my case, providing for the general
welfare, and in your case protecting the sovereignty of the nation) that
justifies the government requiring the individual to do something that
other individual has the authority to require.

Where we disagree is the scope of has been delegated to the government.


No, this is not about scope, it is about authority.

Society is our creation, and we are protecting that. The authority of
that creation resides with the people, and we can and have delegated
certain powers to government to secure and protect the nation, and our
rights.

The same is not true of the individual.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2018, 03:05 AM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/6/2018 3:05 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:03 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has
been delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and
purpose, the powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and
that is to support and sustain the execution of the authority
that has been legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the
nation has been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_
individual is equally obligated to support and sustain that
protection.* It is up to the people of that society to define
that equal obligation (e.g. it could be that all serve in the
armed forces for some period of time, and/or individuals are
obligated to financially support the maintenance and execution of
the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....). If an individual refuses
their obligation, they are subject to punishment or removal from
society.

That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?

For us, US Constitution.

So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for the
general welfare has been delegated to government and individuals are
obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?

No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for
the welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be delegated
to government.* Our government, using legislative authority it
doesn't have, created the SS welfare program.

This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the General
Welfare clause.* It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare of the
nation (government), not the people.* Individuals have no authority
over others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be delegated and
necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW clause.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?

We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope of
government's delegated authority over individuals.

If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can
authority over another be delegated to government?* It can't, ergo
government has no authority over individuals.

Let me rephrase.* We agree no individual has authority over another.
Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally and justly
delegated to the government.

If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident.* Since we
don't agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.

Take your above example of SS.* You argue that it is just and
authorized via the General Welfare clause.* In order to do so, you
must assume that an individual DOES have authority over another (in
that they can compel one person to provide for the welfare of another
AND that you can compel that individual to provide for the welfare of
their self).


My example (Social Security) is no different than your example (the
military draft).


Absolutely not.* Welfare of the nation has nothing to do with welfare of
the individual.


On this point, we disagree.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2018, 07:33 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/6/2018 7:05 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/6/2018 3:05 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:03 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has
been delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and
purpose, the powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and
that is to support and sustain the execution of the authority
that has been legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the
nation has been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_
individual is equally obligated to support and sustain that
protection.* It is up to the people of that society to define
that equal obligation (e.g. it could be that all serve in the
armed forces for some period of time, and/or individuals are
obligated to financially support the maintenance and execution
of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....). If an individual
refuses their obligation, they are subject to punishment or
removal from society.

That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?

For us, US Constitution.

So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for
the general welfare has been delegated to government and
individuals are obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?

No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for
the welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be
delegated to government.* Our government, using legislative
authority it doesn't have, created the SS welfare program.

This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the General
Welfare clause.* It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare of the
nation (government), not the people.* Individuals have no authority
over others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be delegated and
necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW clause.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?

We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope of
government's delegated authority over individuals.

If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can
authority over another be delegated to government?* It can't, ergo
government has no authority over individuals.

Let me rephrase.* We agree no individual has authority over
another. Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally
and justly delegated to the government.

If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident.* Since we
don't agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.

Take your above example of SS.* You argue that it is just and
authorized via the General Welfare clause.* In order to do so, you
must assume that an individual DOES have authority over another (in
that they can compel one person to provide for the welfare of
another AND that you can compel that individual to provide for the
welfare of their self).

My example (Social Security) is no different than your example (the
military draft).


Absolutely not.* Welfare of the nation has nothing to do with welfare
of the individual.


On this point, we disagree.


Back to our simplification (the three of us):

Do any of us have the authority to compel any other to provide for the
welfare of someone else?

Do any of us have the authority to compel someone to provide for their self?
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2018, 08:01 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/7/2018 11:33 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/6/2018 7:05 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/6/2018 3:05 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:03 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it has
been delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and
purpose, the powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and
that is to support and sustain the execution of the authority
that has been legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the
nation has been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_
individual is equally obligated to support and sustain that
protection.* It is up to the people of that society to define
that equal obligation (e.g. it could be that all serve in the
armed forces for some period of time, and/or individuals are
obligated to financially support the maintenance and execution
of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....). If an individual
refuses their obligation, they are subject to punishment or
removal from society.

That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is the
exhaustive list of obligations?

For us, US Constitution.

So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for
the general welfare has been delegated to government and
individuals are obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?

No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for
the welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be
delegated to government.* Our government, using legislative
authority it doesn't have, created the SS welfare program.

This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the
General Welfare clause.* It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare of
the nation (government), not the people.* Individuals have no
authority over others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be
delegated and necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW
clause.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?

We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope
of government's delegated authority over individuals.

If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can
authority over another be delegated to government?* It can't,
ergo government has no authority over individuals.

Let me rephrase.* We agree no individual has authority over
another. Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally
and justly delegated to the government.

If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident.* Since we
don't agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.

Take your above example of SS.* You argue that it is just and
authorized via the General Welfare clause.* In order to do so, you
must assume that an individual DOES have authority over another (in
that they can compel one person to provide for the welfare of
another AND that you can compel that individual to provide for the
welfare of their self).

My example (Social Security) is no different than your example (the
military draft).

Absolutely not.* Welfare of the nation has nothing to do with welfare
of the individual.


On this point, we disagree.


Back to our simplification (the three of us):

Do any of us have the authority to compel any other to provide for the
welfare of someone else?

Do any of us have the authority to compel someone to provide for their
self?


Those questions aren't relevant to our disagreement as to whether the
welfare of the nation has nothing to do with welfare of the individual.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2018, 06:50 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/7/2018 12:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/7/2018 11:33 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/6/2018 7:05 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/6/2018 3:05 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:33 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/2/2018 10:03 AM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 6:35 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 5:59 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/1/2018 4:01 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/1/2018 1:09 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

A couple of points that need clarifying:
**- Government does not have authority over individuals, it
has been delegated authority /from/ individuals.
**- That authority is to exercise, in a general sense and
purpose, the powers and authority of the individual.

Regarding obligations:
**- The obligations of the individual are few and defined, and
that is to support and sustain the execution of the authority
that has been legally and justly delegated.* No more, no less.

An example: the authority to protect the sovereignty of the
nation has been delegated to government.* Therefore, _every_
individual is equally obligated to support and sustain that
protection.* It is up to the people of that society to define
that equal obligation (e.g. it could be that all serve in the
armed forces for some period of time, and/or individuals are
obligated to financially support the maintenance and execution
of the armed forces (i.e. taxes), or ....). If an individual
refuses their obligation, they are subject to punishment or
removal from society.

That's one example.* Since they are few and defined, what is
the exhaustive list of obligations?

For us, US Constitution.

So for example, Social Security taxation in order to provide for
the general welfare has been delegated to government and
individuals are obligated to pay taxes for that purpose?

No, no such authority exists (i.e. forcing a person to provide for
the welfare of their self or others), therefore it can't be
delegated to government.* Our government, using legislative
authority it doesn't have, created the SS welfare program.

This is why I've argued with you on numerous times about the
General Welfare clause.* It pertains to, and ONLY to the welfare
of the nation (government), not the people.* Individuals have no
authority over others, therefore welfare by compulsion can't be
delegated and necessarily constricts the interpretation of the GW
clause.

Now can we agree that no individual has authority over another?

We have always agreed on that.* Where we disagree is the scope
of government's delegated authority over individuals.

If an individual doesn't have authority over another, how can
authority over another be delegated to government?* It can't,
ergo government has no authority over individuals.

Let me rephrase.* We agree no individual has authority over
another. Where we disagree is the scope of what has been legally
and justly delegated to the government.

If we agree on the former, the latter is self-evident.* Since we
don't agree on the latter, we de facto don't agree on the former.

Take your above example of SS.* You argue that it is just and
authorized via the General Welfare clause.* In order to do so, you
must assume that an individual DOES have authority over another
(in that they can compel one person to provide for the welfare of
another AND that you can compel that individual to provide for the
welfare of their self).

My example (Social Security) is no different than your example (the
military draft).

Absolutely not.* Welfare of the nation has nothing to do with
welfare of the individual.

On this point, we disagree.


Back to our simplification (the three of us):

Do any of us have the authority to compel any other to provide for the
welfare of someone else?

Do any of us have the authority to compel someone to provide for their
self?


Those questions aren't relevant to our disagreement as to whether the
welfare of the nation has nothing to do with welfare of the individual.


They are entirely relevant.

If there no authority to compel the individual on behalf of the
individual, then there is no authority to compel the individual on
behalf of the nation.

I'll repeat the questions one last time:

Do any of us have the authority to compel any other to provide for the
welfare of someone else?

Do any of us have the authority to compel someone to provide for their
self?

If you refuse to answer, then I will take that as your implicit
admission that there is no such authority.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2018, 07:42 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/19/2018 10:50 AM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

If there no authority to compel the individual on behalf of the
individual, then there is no authority to compel the individual on
behalf of the nation.


I disagree. Again, consider the military draft. I suspect you agree
there is no authority to compel someone to join the military on behalf
of the individual, but there is authority to compel someone to join the
military on behalf of the nation.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2018, 08:03 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/19/2018 11:42 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/19/2018 10:50 AM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

If there no authority to compel the individual on behalf of the
individual, then there is no authority to compel the individual on
behalf of the nation.


I disagree.* Again, consider the military draft.* I suspect you agree
there is no authority to compel someone to join the military on behalf
of the individual, but there is authority to compel someone to join the
military on behalf of the nation.


You didn't answer the questions, therefore I've taken that as your
implicit admission that there is no such authority to compel the
individual on behalf of the individual or on behalf of the nation.

Returning to the head point:

Franks: And he is free to conduct his business as he sees fit.

Rosenbluth: No, he isn't free to conduct his business as he sees fit.

Now that it is implicitly established that an individuals can't be
compelled, the baker is free to conduct his business as he sees fit,
insomuch as he does not violate the rights of others.

Therefore, he can't be compelled to enter into a contract (e.g. sell) a
cake to someone against his will.

Therefore, the only recourse that the "Liberals and *** activists" have
in this case is to take their business elsewhere. If they (the
"Liberals and *** activists") demand tolerance of their viewpoints and
behaviors, then they are under the same obligation to be tolerant of
others viewpoints and behavior, which means that they can not call for
boycotting of the baker or other tactics designed to interfere with the
baker's business.


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2018, 10:18 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/19/2018 12:03 PM, Peter Franks wrote:
On 9/19/2018 11:42 AM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On 9/19/2018 10:50 AM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

If there no authority to compel the individual on behalf of the
individual, then there is no authority to compel the individual on
behalf of the nation.


I disagree.* Again, consider the military draft.* I suspect you agree
there is no authority to compel someone to join the military on behalf
of the individual, but there is authority to compel someone to join
the military on behalf of the nation.


You didn't answer the questions, therefore I've taken that as your
implicit admission that there is no such authority to compel the
individual on behalf of the individual or on behalf of the nation.


Huh? I just said there *is* an authority to compel the individual on
behalf of the nation. And either you agree or you think there is no
authority to compel someone to join the military. Which is it?
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-09-2018, 10:36 PM posted to rec.food.baking,co.politics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.republicans,alt.politics.homosexuality,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 16
Default 'Bake the cake or else' is back: Baker who won high court rulingis under renewed assault

On 9/19/2018 12:03 PM, Peter Franks wrote:

{snip}

If they (the
"Liberals and *** activists") demand tolerance of their viewpoints and
behaviors, then they are under the same obligation to be tolerant of
others viewpoints and behavior, which means that they can not call for
boycotting of the baker or other tactics designed to interfere with the
baker's business.


Not tolerating a person because they belong to a certain class of people
(what the baker is doing) is far different than not tolerating behavior
(what the boycotters are doing).


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm a cannibal baker and I bake humans! Ed Zagmoon Baking 2 01-02-2015 10:42 AM
TN: A love affair renewed Mark Lipton[_1_] Wine 2 02-12-2007 03:09 PM
High Cake Layers Diane W. Saunders Baking 26 16-12-2004 06:53 AM
Inept baker question - Baker's brownie recipe brushfire General Cooking 8 27-07-2004 07:48 PM
Sweetening & Renewed Fermentation Tom Winemaking 28 16-12-2003 02:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017