SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[Steinlight]

Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.

No, more lies on your part. I said forcing her to sell her body to all individuals under "public accommodation" laws is rape. Because it is. By definition, rape is sex without consent. You are nullifying her ability to consent by forcing her into sexual relations she doesn't want to be in by law. What I said in regards to denying her the right to sell her body, from entering prostitution, through laws against prostitution; you are violating the self ownership principle, by denying her the ability to enter voluntary sexual relationships of her own volition.

I already acknowledge your erroneous claim of ceasing to do business. That violates the self-ownership principle, by denying individuals the ability to allocate their labor as they wish in voluntary arrangements with others. Labor is an extension of the self. If you do not own your labor, and have the ability to determine how you allocate your labor, you dont own youself.

 

[Steinlight]

They can close their business, but if they don't want to close their business, you are violating the self ownership principle by forcing them to provide goods and services to those they don't consent to provide goods and services to.

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

The fact is, you can't ignore the fact that your logic must allow for legalized rape. For if a prostitute offers services to one customer, she must provide them to all, thus nullifying her right to consent. Sex without consent is rape.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of 'fuck or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your system is an authoritarian nightmare. Bake or go to jail, fuck or go to jail. You are piece of shit and a control freak. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a society governed by your arbitrary laws and will fight to maximize liberty where I can.

You're taking hyperbole to a degree of panty shitting hysterics that requires a fainting couch and smelling salts for the 'vapors'. As you're equating any form of regulation as an 'authoritarian nightmare' and 'legalized rape'. Despite such regulation existing and being part of our system of laws since their inception, with the power to regulate commerce being an implicit power of the State under our constitution.

Our constitution is not an 'authoritarian nightmare'. Nor is any form of regulation 'legalized rape'. You're simply overreacting and taking an already melodramatically extreme argument to further, more silly extremes.

And if you don't want to live in a society that regulates commerce......there's Somalia. And that's about it.

You are the engaging in hyperbole and falsehoods. You are saying I support "no regulation(no laws)", because I don't support your philosophically inconsistent and arbitrary legal system.

A system in which you can go to jail for not baking a cake or not fucking someone is an authoritarian nightmare. That isn't hyperbole, that is reality.

I don't need to go to Somalia to try and maximize human liberty, I want to do it here.

 

[Steinlight]

Its funny how someone can unironically say the other person is engaging in hyperbole when the that person suggests the should go to jail for baking a cake and that if you dont support this you should move to Somalia.

 

[Skylar]

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of 'fuck or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your conception of ownership is the one that is inconsistent. Your idea that you stop owning your labor or your property once you sell your good to "the public", which you have yet to define, is convoluted and arbitrary. Because in our convoluted and arbitrary legal system, there are instances under which you can deny service, but others under which you can't. Your system is inconsistent, not absolute, and in philosophy we deal in absolutes.

Again, your argument isn't limited to PA laws. Its limited to ANY form of regulation. As you yourself have already admitted:

That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.

So its not the sale to the 'public' being the threshold of regulation that you take issue with. Its any threshold, any form of regulation. Again, that has never been our conception of ownership. Property has always been subject to regulation, especially in commerce. As your entire argument is predicated on this mythical form of ownership, and your legal unicorn has nothing to do with our laws.....your entire argument is similarly irrelevant.

Regulation of intrastate commerce is an implicit power of the States under the 10th amendment. And has been an implicit power since before the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Your system of near anarchy isn't ours. Nor ever has been.

There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today.

Given that your dismissal of all regulation isn't limited to PA laws, your distinction is irrelevant. As you have defined the scope of your argument to include 'any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor' as a violation of your conception of 'self ownership'.

Your conception of ownership isn't part of our laws nor ever has been. As the complete lack of regulation isn't a requirement or characteristic of ownership. That's part of your personal definition of 'ownership', which I and our laws soundly reject. And always have. As your personal definitions have no relevance to our laws.

Laws exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property. Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle.

More accurately, a violation of your made up concept of self ownership, based on your personal opinion, defined by you and citing only yourself.

Which has nothing to do with our law. Nor ever has.

My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical.

Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.

If we could get back to the point where States regulated commerce, that would be fucking fantastic, unfortunately, the Federal Government since the founding of the US has saw fit to continually span its legal scope further and further into voluntary market arrangements, to the detriment of a free society.

All PA laws in question to gay marriage and bakers are State laws. The baker who last week had the $135,000 fine upheld was fined under Oregon State law. With the State regulation of intrastate commerce implicit and constitutional.

Which you either know or should have known. Making your condemnation of federal regulation of commerce in regards to this matter either a hopeless red herring or an act of obtuse ignorance.

Pick which.

All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word.

The regulation reflects the values of the people making it. Which, bound by individual rights, is the beating heart of a democratic republic. And there's no conception of ownership rights ever recognized by our system of laws that places property beyond any form of regulation. Especially in terms of commerce. With intrastate commerce an implicit power under the 10th amendment.

And that is where your argument breaks, at exactly that point where the Ivory Tower ends and the real world application of law begins. To say nothing of your pseudo-legal gibberish about 'legalized rape'.

Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law, tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years.

A system in which there is no regulation save in the case of 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' is not ours. We've had all manner of regulation since the inception of our nation that went well beyond this. Meaning, that by your own logic....you must either condemn the entire history of our nation as an 'authoritarian nightmare', or recognize that your conception of ownership is not part of our laws nor ever has been.

Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership.
Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And exactly as predicted, what you're advocating is the beating heart of individualist anarchy.

Now how did I know that was coming?

 

[Skylar]

No, you aren't. As they still own everything they did before. They still own their mixers. They still own their labor. They still own their business. They simply don't offer their services to the public.

If they wish to do business with the public they are subject to the State's regulation. Your conception of ownership mandates that there can be no intrastate regulation of commerce of any kind. As any such regulation would, by definition, be backed by the 'gun' as you conceive of it. And thus rob them of either consent or ownership.

What you're arguing against is any regulation in any form.

Nope. As a woman can choose not to offer her services to the public. Removing your silly false dichotomy.

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of 'fuck or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your system is an authoritarian nightmare. Bake or go to jail, fuck or go to jail. You are piece of shit and a control freak. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a society governed by your arbitrary laws and will fight to maximize liberty where I can.

You're taking hyperbole to a degree of panty shitting hysterics that requires a fainting couch and smelling salts for the 'vapors'. As you're equating any form of regulation as an 'authoritarian nightmare' and 'legalized rape'. Despite such regulation existing and being part of our system of laws since their inception, with the power to regulate commerce being an implicit power of the State under our constitution.

Our constitution is not an 'authoritarian nightmare'. Nor is any form of regulation 'legalized rape'. You're simply overreacting and taking an already melodramatically extreme argument to further, more silly extremes.

And if you don't want to live in a society that regulates commerce......there's Somalia. And that's about it.

You are the engaging in hyperbole and falsehoods. You are saying I support "no regulation(no laws)", because I don't support your philosophically inconsistent and arbitrary legal system.

Your conception of 'philosophical consistency' is to equate any law regulating commerce with legalized rape. Demonstrating in a stroke that the only thing consistent about your philosophy is its lack of logic or reason.

Preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape. You can't get around that, despite the fact that your hopelessly broken logic mandates such a conclusion.

A system in which you can go to jail for not baking a cake or not fucking someone is an authoritarian nightmare.

And again, you ignore the very real third option: simply stop doing business with the public. Obliterating your fallacious and false dichotomy of 'bake or die'. And your fantasy of an 'authoritarian nightmare'.

You've overplayed your hand, taking hyperbole to a ridiculous extreme. And based your argument on hysteric overreaction and willful ignorance of a viable third option that you neither acknowledge nor can refute.

No thank you.

 

[Steinlight]

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of 'fuck or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your conception of ownership is the one that is inconsistent. Your idea that you stop owning your labor or your property once you sell your good to "the public", which you have yet to define, is convoluted and arbitrary. Because in our convoluted and arbitrary legal system, there are instances under which you can deny service, but others under which you can't. Your system is inconsistent, not absolute, and in philosophy we deal in absolutes.

Again, your argument isn't limited to PA laws. Its limited to ANY form of regulation. As you yourself have already admitted:

That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.

So its not the sale to the 'public' being the threshold of regulation that you take issue with. Its any threshold, any form of regulation. Again, that has never been our conception of ownership. Property has always been subject to regulation, especially in commerce. As your entire argument is predicated on this mythical form of ownership, and your legal unicorn has nothing to do with our laws.....your entire argument is similarly irrelevant.

Regulation of intrastate commerce is an implicit power of the States under the 10th amendment. And has been an implicit power since before the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Your system of near anarchy isn't ours. Nor ever has been.

There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today.

Given that your dismissal of all regulation isn't limited to PA laws, your distinction is irrelevant. As you have defined the scope of your argument to include 'any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor' as a violation of your conception of 'self ownership'.

Your conception of ownership isn't part of our laws nor ever has been. As the complete lack of regulation isn't a requirement or characteristic of ownership. That's part of your personal definition of 'ownership', which I and our laws soundly reject. And always have. As your personal definitions have no relevance to our laws.

Laws exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property. Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle.

More accurately, a violation of your made up concept of self ownership, based on your personal opinion, defined by you and citing only yourself.

Which has nothing to do with our law. Nor ever has.

My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical.

Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.

If we could get back to the point where States regulated commerce, that would be fucking fantastic, unfortunately, the Federal Government since the founding of the US has saw fit to continually span its legal scope further and further into voluntary market arrangements, to the detriment of a free society.

All PA laws in question to gay marriage and bakers are State laws. The baker who last week had the $135,000 fine upheld was fined under Oregon State law. With the State regulation of intrastate commerce implicit and constitutional.

Which you either know or should have known. Making your condemnation of federal regulation of commerce in regards to this matter either a hopeless red herring or an act of obtuse ignorance.

Pick which.

All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word.

The regulation reflects the values of the people making it. Which, bound by individual rights, is the beating heart of a democratic republic. And there's no conception of ownership rights ever recognized by our system of laws that places property beyond any form of regulation. Especially in terms of commerce. With intrastate commerce an implicit power under the 10th amendment.

And that is where your argument breaks, at exactly that point where the Ivory Tower ends and the real world application of law begins. To say nothing of your pseudo-legal gibberish about 'legalized rape'.

Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law, tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years.

A system in which there is no regulation save in the case of 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' is not ours. We've had all manner of regulation since the inception of our nation that went well beyond this. Meaning, that by your own logic....you must either condemn the entire history of our nation as an 'authoritarian nightmare', or recognize that your conception of ownership is not part of our laws nor ever has been.

Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership.
Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And exactly as predicted, what you're advocating is the beating heart of individualist anarchy.

Now how did I know that was coming?

I am aware of the Oregon ruling. It doesn't in anyway nullify my point that there exist federal "public accommodation" laws, and that if we could get rid of them, it would be fantastic. I also never suggested there was no state laws regulating commerce, so you really made no point here but to expose your snark. If we could actually establish a system of federalism of competing legal systems where an experiment of democracy could take place, that would be a fantastic step towards maximizing freedom. Leaving public accommodation laws to the purview of individuals states. If you want to go live in Oregon, where they can bankrupt you for not making a cake, go live there. Otherwise, go live in a state that protects free association. That would be a good first step towards decentralization and maximizing liberty. The fact is, you are advocating legalized rape when you force a woman against her consent to have sex with an individual.

Actually you are wrong, regulation on property has been expanding, it isn't constant. There were for example, no "public accommodation" laws at the time of the American Revolution so yes, there has been a time when property has been beyond the scope of regulation. Unfortunately that scope has expanded over the years, minimizing personal freedom in the process. So no, America wasn't an authoritarian nightmare to begin with, but it has become that way.

Everything I value, like free association, that is to enter into business with whom you want to because you own your property and yourself, was taken for granted in the United States until 1964, and has been part of Anglo Saxon common law for centuries. So the idea that self-ownership has no basis in Western philosophy or the legal system is absurd. The Declaration of Independence itself is based on the idea that a just government derives its consent from the governed(that is, self government). So you are really coming out of left field that your idea of centralization, hyper-regulation, and bureaucracy has been the norm throughout Western History, it hasn't. And you still haven't addressed the philosophical inconsistency of your position.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A state cannot have laws that require a driver's license to drive a car on public roads and then only make them available to heterosexuals.

That is how equal treatment under the law works. That is how constitutional prohibitions against discrimination work.

If from that some of you still can't figure out why states can be required to issue same sex marriage licenses and recognize same sex marriages,

say so, and I'll walk you through it, slower.

 

[Steinlight]

They don't own their labor if they cannot decide who to allocate it for, and they don't own their property(the mixers, the oven etc) if they cannot decide which clients they decide to use them for.

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

When the state tells a person how they are to allocate their labor and use their property(both labor and property are an extension of the individual) they are violating the self-ownership principle.\

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

If a woman owns her body, than she can decide to sell sexual services to whomever she wants to absent State regulation. Her body, her choice. By decreeing she must sexually service all men and women interested in her services, you are violating the self ownership principle, forcing her to give her body to others and denying her right of consent. This is rape.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of 'fuck or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your system is an authoritarian nightmare. Bake or go to jail, fuck or go to jail. You are piece of shit and a control freak. Sorry, but I don't want to live in a society governed by your arbitrary laws and will fight to maximize liberty where I can.

You're taking hyperbole to a degree of panty shitting hysterics that requires a fainting couch and smelling salts for the 'vapors'. As you're equating any form of regulation as an 'authoritarian nightmare' and 'legalized rape'. Despite such regulation existing and being part of our system of laws since their inception, with the power to regulate commerce being an implicit power of the State under our constitution.

Our constitution is not an 'authoritarian nightmare'. Nor is any form of regulation 'legalized rape'. You're simply overreacting and taking an already melodramatically extreme argument to further, more silly extremes.

And if you don't want to live in a society that regulates commerce......there's Somalia. And that's about it.

You are the engaging in hyperbole and falsehoods. You are saying I support "no regulation(no laws)", because I don't support your philosophically inconsistent and arbitrary legal system.

Your conception of 'philosophical consistency' is to equate any law regulating commerce with legalized rape. Demonstrating in a stroke that the only thing consistent about your philosophy is its lack of logic or reason.

Preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape. You can't get around that, despite the fact that your hopelessly broken logic mandates such a conclusion.

A system in which you can go to jail for not baking a cake or not fucking someone is an authoritarian nightmare.

And again, you ignore the very real third option: simply stop doing business with the public. Obliterating your fallacious and false dichotomy of 'bake or die'. And your fantasy of an 'authoritarian nightmare'.

You've overplayed your hand, taking hyperbole to a ridiculous extreme. And based your argument on hysteric overreaction and willful ignorance of a viable third option that you neither acknowledge nor can refute.

No thank you.

No it isn't, that is just a combination of your lies and hyperbole. What I said is that forcing a woman into sexual relations with an individual under "public accommodation" laws and nullifying her consent is rape. Because it is. I never said the forcing someone to bake a cake is rape, what I said is that rape is wrong because it violates the self-ownership principle, and forcing someone to bake a cake violates this principle as well.

Unless you have another rational for why rape is wrong, please explain.

I never ignored this "option". There are only two options. Either she can use her body as she wishes, or she can't. In the second option the the self ownership principle is violated because the State either prevents her from engaging in prostitution or forces her to service all individuals, lest she be "discriminatory". In both options of the State violates the self-ownership principle and the second option allows for a legal form of rape.

 

[Skylar]

Sure they do. As ownership doesn't denote a complete lack of any form of regulation in our system of law. Especially in commerce, which the state has implicit authority to regulate.

Your conception of ownership is flawed. As you acknowledge its existence only if there is no form of limit or regulation of any kind. As I said, what you're arguing against is any form of regulation of any kind. This is not nor has ever been our system of laws. Not in the founder's era, not now.

Nope. Again, per your conception of ownership......there can be no laws. As any restriction of one's own labor would be the State telling them how to allocate it. And thus a violation of self ownership.

Alas, your conception of ownership is flawed. As it can't exist when any law does. The only circumstances in which your conception of ownership could exist would be in a state of perfect anarchy. Where the state had no authority nor enforced any law.

No thank you. Logic has very little to do with your rhetoric.

Nope. As she can choose not to offer her body for sale to the public. You consistently pretend that this isn't an option, pretending she has only two options. Yet the option of not offering her services to the public remains.

And eliminates your false dichotomy of 'fuck or die'. Just as the same options eliminates the equally false dichotomy of 'bake or die'.

Worse, per your reasoning any law that would prevent her from selling her body is the equivalent to rape. As it violates your conception of 'self ownership'. Demonstrating the absurdity of your analogies yet again. Your ideal is not nor has ever been practiced in our country. Nor in any system of laws.

You're proposing something very close to anarchy. Again, no thank you.

Your conception of ownership is the one that is inconsistent. Your idea that you stop owning your labor or your property once you sell your good to "the public", which you have yet to define, is convoluted and arbitrary. Because in our convoluted and arbitrary legal system, there are instances under which you can deny service, but others under which you can't. Your system is inconsistent, not absolute, and in philosophy we deal in absolutes.

Again, your argument isn't limited to PA laws. Its limited to ANY form of regulation. As you yourself have already admitted:

That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.

So its not the sale to the 'public' being the threshold of regulation that you take issue with. Its any threshold, any form of regulation. Again, that has never been our conception of ownership. Property has always been subject to regulation, especially in commerce. As your entire argument is predicated on this mythical form of ownership, and your legal unicorn has nothing to do with our laws.....your entire argument is similarly irrelevant.

Regulation of intrastate commerce is an implicit power of the States under the 10th amendment. And has been an implicit power since before the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Your system of near anarchy isn't ours. Nor ever has been.

There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today.

Given that your dismissal of all regulation isn't limited to PA laws, your distinction is irrelevant. As you have defined the scope of your argument to include 'any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor' as a violation of your conception of 'self ownership'.

Your conception of ownership isn't part of our laws nor ever has been. As the complete lack of regulation isn't a requirement or characteristic of ownership. That's part of your personal definition of 'ownership', which I and our laws soundly reject. And always have. As your personal definitions have no relevance to our laws.

Laws exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property. Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle.

More accurately, a violation of your made up concept of self ownership, based on your personal opinion, defined by you and citing only yourself.

Which has nothing to do with our law. Nor ever has.

My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical.

Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.

If we could get back to the point where States regulated commerce, that would be fucking fantastic, unfortunately, the Federal Government since the founding of the US has saw fit to continually span its legal scope further and further into voluntary market arrangements, to the detriment of a free society.

All PA laws in question to gay marriage and bakers are State laws. The baker who last week had the $135,000 fine upheld was fined under Oregon State law. With the State regulation of intrastate commerce implicit and constitutional.

Which you either know or should have known. Making your condemnation of federal regulation of commerce in regards to this matter either a hopeless red herring or an act of obtuse ignorance.

Pick which.

All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word.

The regulation reflects the values of the people making it. Which, bound by individual rights, is the beating heart of a democratic republic. And there's no conception of ownership rights ever recognized by our system of laws that places property beyond any form of regulation. Especially in terms of commerce. With intrastate commerce an implicit power under the 10th amendment.

And that is where your argument breaks, at exactly that point where the Ivory Tower ends and the real world application of law begins. To say nothing of your pseudo-legal gibberish about 'legalized rape'.

Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law, tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years.

A system in which there is no regulation save in the case of 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' is not ours. We've had all manner of regulation since the inception of our nation that went well beyond this. Meaning, that by your own logic....you must either condemn the entire history of our nation as an 'authoritarian nightmare', or recognize that your conception of ownership is not part of our laws nor ever has been.

Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership.
Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And exactly as predicted, what you're advocating is the beating heart of individualist anarchy.

Now how did I know that was coming?

I am aware of the Oregon ruling. It doesn't in anyway nullify my point that there exist federal "public accommodation" laws, and that if we could get rid of them, it would be fantastic. I also never suggested there was no state laws regulating commerce, so you really made no point here but to expose your snark.

Given that this issue is irrelevant to federal 'public accommodation', your point is irrelevant. You're offering us a red herring. And such is a fallacy of logic for a reason.

This is a State issue. An issue that per our constitution, the States most definitely have regulatory authority over. In fact, this is exclusively a state regulatory issue. As the Federal government offers no PA protections based on sexual orientation. Oregon law does. And the regulation of intrastate commerce is most definitely a power of the State per the constitution.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't. And thus....the red herrings.

If we could actually establish a system of federalism of competing legal systems where an experiment of democracy could take place, that would be a fantastic step towards maximizing freedom.

We have it. Not all states have PA laws covering sexual orientation. Oregon and a few others do. We have your experiment with democracy. With the PA laws reflecting the values of those of their respective states. Given that Federal PA protections don't cover sexual orientation, the only possible source of such laws would be the very 'experiments of democracy' at the state level that you call for.

Yet you condemn the very system you call for. Equating it with legalizing rape. Demonstrating that your own standards of 'experiment with democracy' are merely more proxy noise for a fundamentally near anarchy world view.

Its the wasting of my time with pointless proxy arguments that is the most annoying part of talking to anarchists. Or near anarchists in your case.

 

[Steinlight]

Your conception of ownership is the one that is inconsistent. Your idea that you stop owning your labor or your property once you sell your good to "the public", which you have yet to define, is convoluted and arbitrary. Because in our convoluted and arbitrary legal system, there are instances under which you can deny service, but others under which you can't. Your system is inconsistent, not absolute, and in philosophy we deal in absolutes.

Again, your argument isn't limited to PA laws. Its limited to ANY form of regulation. As you yourself have already admitted:

That is correct, any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor is a violation of the self-ownership principle. Laws or as you say "regulations", should only exist to protect this self-ownership principle, that is to prevent theft, fraud, rape, murder, etc. Things that infringe on individual liberty.

So its not the sale to the 'public' being the threshold of regulation that you take issue with. Its any threshold, any form of regulation. Again, that has never been our conception of ownership. Property has always been subject to regulation, especially in commerce. As your entire argument is predicated on this mythical form of ownership, and your legal unicorn has nothing to do with our laws.....your entire argument is similarly irrelevant.

Regulation of intrastate commerce is an implicit power of the States under the 10th amendment. And has been an implicit power since before the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Your system of near anarchy isn't ours. Nor ever has been.

There were no "public accommodations" laws during the time of the Founders. Their society may not have been entirely peaceful, free and voluntary. But it was far freer than the one today.

Given that your dismissal of all regulation isn't limited to PA laws, your distinction is irrelevant. As you have defined the scope of your argument to include 'any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor' as a violation of your conception of 'self ownership'.

Your conception of ownership isn't part of our laws nor ever has been. As the complete lack of regulation isn't a requirement or characteristic of ownership. That's part of your personal definition of 'ownership', which I and our laws soundly reject. And always have. As your personal definitions have no relevance to our laws.

Laws exist, however not laws infringing on one's self-ownership. There would be no laws regulating the use of one's own labor and own property. Unless of course one is forced into involuntary servitude(slavery) against their will, violating the self-ownership principle. As far as property law, regulation would only exist in so much as to prevent an individual from damaging another person's property. Any law regulating use of property outside of infringing on the property rights of another individual would be a violation of the self-ownership principle.

More accurately, a violation of your made up concept of self ownership, based on your personal opinion, defined by you and citing only yourself.

Which has nothing to do with our law. Nor ever has.

My system is the only one that is logical, yours is the one that is full of contradictions and is by definition illogical.

Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.

If we could get back to the point where States regulated commerce, that would be fucking fantastic, unfortunately, the Federal Government since the founding of the US has saw fit to continually span its legal scope further and further into voluntary market arrangements, to the detriment of a free society.

All PA laws in question to gay marriage and bakers are State laws. The baker who last week had the $135,000 fine upheld was fined under Oregon State law. With the State regulation of intrastate commerce implicit and constitutional.

Which you either know or should have known. Making your condemnation of federal regulation of commerce in regards to this matter either a hopeless red herring or an act of obtuse ignorance.

Pick which.

All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word.

The regulation reflects the values of the people making it. Which, bound by individual rights, is the beating heart of a democratic republic. And there's no conception of ownership rights ever recognized by our system of laws that places property beyond any form of regulation. Especially in terms of commerce. With intrastate commerce an implicit power under the 10th amendment.

And that is where your argument breaks, at exactly that point where the Ivory Tower ends and the real world application of law begins. To say nothing of your pseudo-legal gibberish about 'legalized rape'.

Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law, tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years.

A system in which there is no regulation save in the case of 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' is not ours. We've had all manner of regulation since the inception of our nation that went well beyond this. Meaning, that by your own logic....you must either condemn the entire history of our nation as an 'authoritarian nightmare', or recognize that your conception of ownership is not part of our laws nor ever has been.

Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership.
Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And exactly as predicted, what you're advocating is the beating heart of individualist anarchy.

Now how did I know that was coming?

I am aware of the Oregon ruling. It doesn't in anyway nullify my point that there exist federal "public accommodation" laws, and that if we could get rid of them, it would be fantastic. I also never suggested there was no state laws regulating commerce, so you really made no point here but to expose your snark.

Given that this issue is irrelevant to federal 'public accommodation', your point is irrelevant. You're offering us a red herring. And such is a fallacy of logic for a reason.

This is a State issue. An issue that per our constitution, the States most definitely have regulatory authority over. In fact, this is exclusively a state regulatory issue. As the Federal government offers no PA protections based on sexual orientation. Oregon law does. And the regulation of intrastate commerce is most definitely a power of the State per the constitution.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't. And thus....the red herrings.

If we could actually establish a system of federalism of competing legal systems where an experiment of democracy could take place, that would be a fantastic step towards maximizing freedom.

We have it. Not all states have PA laws covering sexual orientation. Oregon and a few others do. We have your experiment with democracy. With the PA laws reflecting the values of those of their respective states. Given that Federal PA protections don't cover sexual orientation, the only possible source of such laws would be the very 'experiments of democracy' at the state level that you call for.

Yet you condemn the very system you call for. Equating it with legalizing rape. Demonstrating that your own standards of 'experiment with democracy' are merely more proxy noise for a fundamentally near anarchy world view.

Its the wasting of my time with pointless proxy arguments that is the most annoying part of talking to anarchists. Or near anarchists in your case.

I am not offering a red herring. Federal "public accommodation" laws exist, I said we should get rid of them. You cite a case of state "public accommodation" laws. Ok great, doesn't change the point I was making. I don't think you understand what a red herring is. You engaged in the red herring by responding to my call to repeal federal public accommodation laws by citing a case involving a state matter. That's the distraction here. And it also distracts from the overlying point that these laws, whether at the state or federal level, violate the principle of self-ownership.

We don't have full competition, because there still exist federal public accommodation laws, and I imagine, like with race, the federal scope will expand on this issue.

But I am talking about all "public accommodation" laws all together, not just based on sexual orientation, I am only highlighting that because it is a recent example in current events. And this speaks to my point, of how these "public accommodation" laws are arbitrary and no grounded in any consistent principles philosophically speaking. You can "discriminate" based on sexual orientation, but not race? These are silly delineations. People discriminate every day in their lives. Some may be "bad" reasons, but as free and sovereign individuals, we have the right to chose who we associate with. If people don't like it, they can not associate with them, boycott their business, ostracize them etc. All great ways if that is something you are into instead of locking someone up in a cage or forcing them to pay a fine to the state.

Competing systems(competing is very limited here) is the first step towards maximizing liberty. But it doesn't mean I will cease to condemn authoritarian laws, as I have my right to free speech.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm not playing your dumbass game.

Its a reasonable question. Why do you think rape is wrong, philosophically speaking? This ties into the issue of self ownership and consent.

omfg... this scum bag is equating sexual rape with civil rights.. as if the right to access the public market is a rape of the public market... yeah no different than beating the shit out of someone and raping them... wow. Liberty is not the liberty to take liberty away from someone. Everyone has a right to buy products from our public markets. If you don't want to sell products to our public markets... don't.

The same principle applies. If we accept the premise that an individual owns themselves, than we recognize rape is wrong because it violates the self ownership principle by nullifying the individual's ability to consent to a sexual relationship. "Public accommodation" laws violate the self ownership principle by nullifying the individual's ability to consent to a commercial/business relationship, as the owner's store(his property) is an extension of himself.

In two sentences you contradict yourself. You say liberty is not the liberty to take. Than in the very next sentence you say people are entitled to the property(the products and labor) of others.

You need to work out these internal contradictions in your worldview.

No. Selling cake is not like selling yourself.

It is selling your labor. Cakes don't bake themselves.

Over in another thread right now there is an idiot arguing that churches should be forced to have to hire gays if they want to work at them.

When does this bullshit stop? Every time we turn around now there is some new group wanting to be able to force businesses to serve them.

How do you EVER have a right to do business with me, rather than the other way around and me having the right to choose my customers?

If your business is open to the public then you don't choose who you do business with at all.

 

[WorldWatcher]

If your business is open to the public then you don't choose who you do business with at all.

Actually you can. PA laws do not mandate that a business provide everything, not do that require who you do business with.

The only mandate limitations on the reason business is refused.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

Not if they pay you. It's a fucking cake not an extension of your body. Again, if you don't want to SELL TO THE PUBLIC FUCKING DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC. No one is forcing you to bake cakes for public consumption.

Actually, you are forcing him to sell a cake, that is the whole point. The initiation of force without the consent of the individual is always wrong if we accept the principle that we own ourselves.

The cake is the baker's property, thus it is an extension of him because it is a product of his labor. Forcing him to produce a cake against his will violates the principle of self-ownership and nullifies his consent. It is wrong just as rape is wrong under the principle of self-ownership.

You don't magically stop owning your labor once you set up a business, this is an absurd and arbitrary notion without any consistency.

How is he BEING FORCED TO BAKE A CAKE? Gun point?

He is being forced by the State. If he refuses to bake the cake, he faces legal prosecution and a fine. That is the whole point of "public accommodation" or "anti-discrimination" laws. To force businesses to serve individuals by the force of the state through legal prosecution.

Incorrect. They had a choice sell to the public or don't sell to the public. The fine was for not obeying the law when selling to the public. The same as if you sell booze to an underage drinker. It's against the law. You break the law you pay the fine. You want to give booze to a kid do it in your own house.

You don't stop owning your labor or yourself once you start selling to "the public", whatever "the public" means, which you have yet to define.

The law you mention forces you to sell to all customers. The law is by definition the force of the state. The law is not a mere suggestion, it is a mandate. If you break the law you pay a fine or go to jail.

I don't think giving a child alcohol is legal in your own house, and I would strongly oppose one abusing their child in this manner. A child does not have the agency to consent to drinking such substances and the adult should be prosecuted accordingly.

While I agree you should own your labor, the 16th amendment took that from you. While I agree you should be able to do as you please.... that does not extend to you defining what the public market is.

Consumers have rights too.. not just sellers.

You don't know what the public means? Really? Cough medicine has alcohol in it... a drink of wine for a 20year old is not abuse.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If your business is open to the public then you don't choose who you do business with at all.

Actually you can. PA laws do not mandate that a business provide everything, not do that require who you do business with.

The only mandate limitations on the reason business is refused.


>>>>

Probably too broad of a statement on my part. You can certainly have policies like, no shirt no shoes, but those must stop short of discrimination.

 

[Skylar]

Again, your argument isn't limited to PA laws. Its limited to ANY form of regulation. As you yourself have already admitted:

So its not the sale to the 'public' being the threshold of regulation that you take issue with. Its any threshold, any form of regulation. Again, that has never been our conception of ownership. Property has always been subject to regulation, especially in commerce. As your entire argument is predicated on this mythical form of ownership, and your legal unicorn has nothing to do with our laws.....your entire argument is similarly irrelevant.

Regulation of intrastate commerce is an implicit power of the States under the 10th amendment. And has been an implicit power since before the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

Your system of near anarchy isn't ours. Nor ever has been.

Given that your dismissal of all regulation isn't limited to PA laws, your distinction is irrelevant. As you have defined the scope of your argument to include 'any regulation on how an individual uses their property or allocates their labor' as a violation of your conception of 'self ownership'.

Your conception of ownership isn't part of our laws nor ever has been. As the complete lack of regulation isn't a requirement or characteristic of ownership. That's part of your personal definition of 'ownership', which I and our laws soundly reject. And always have. As your personal definitions have no relevance to our laws.

More accurately, a violation of your made up concept of self ownership, based on your personal opinion, defined by you and citing only yourself.

Which has nothing to do with our law. Nor ever has.

Nope. You've already equated any form of regulation to legalized rape. Which is void of logic or reason. A law preventing a woman from selling her body is not the same thing as legalizing rape against her. Your 'logic' insists that it is. And demonstrates elegantly that your 'logic' is void of any semblance of it. Or reason. Or even internal consistency.

Your system is your personal opinion. And has nothing to do with our laws, our concepts of ownership, logic, history....or anything but your imagination.

And as always, ceasing to conduct business with a public is an option you will not acknowledge, yet still exists. Eliminating your false dichotomy fallacy of 'bake or die'.

If we could get back to the point where States regulated commerce, that would be fucking fantastic, unfortunately, the Federal Government since the founding of the US has saw fit to continually span its legal scope further and further into voluntary market arrangements, to the detriment of a free society.

All PA laws in question to gay marriage and bakers are State laws. The baker who last week had the $135,000 fine upheld was fined under Oregon State law. With the State regulation of intrastate commerce implicit and constitutional.

Which you either know or should have known. Making your condemnation of federal regulation of commerce in regards to this matter either a hopeless red herring or an act of obtuse ignorance.

Pick which.

All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word.

The regulation reflects the values of the people making it. Which, bound by individual rights, is the beating heart of a democratic republic. And there's no conception of ownership rights ever recognized by our system of laws that places property beyond any form of regulation. Especially in terms of commerce. With intrastate commerce an implicit power under the 10th amendment.

And that is where your argument breaks, at exactly that point where the Ivory Tower ends and the real world application of law begins. To say nothing of your pseudo-legal gibberish about 'legalized rape'.

Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law, tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years.

A system in which there is no regulation save in the case of 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' is not ours. We've had all manner of regulation since the inception of our nation that went well beyond this. Meaning, that by your own logic....you must either condemn the entire history of our nation as an 'authoritarian nightmare', or recognize that your conception of ownership is not part of our laws nor ever has been.

Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership.
Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And exactly as predicted, what you're advocating is the beating heart of individualist anarchy.

Now how did I know that was coming?

I am aware of the Oregon ruling. It doesn't in anyway nullify my point that there exist federal "public accommodation" laws, and that if we could get rid of them, it would be fantastic. I also never suggested there was no state laws regulating commerce, so you really made no point here but to expose your snark.

Given that this issue is irrelevant to federal 'public accommodation', your point is irrelevant. You're offering us a red herring. And such is a fallacy of logic for a reason.

This is a State issue. An issue that per our constitution, the States most definitely have regulatory authority over. In fact, this is exclusively a state regulatory issue. As the Federal government offers no PA protections based on sexual orientation. Oregon law does. And the regulation of intrastate commerce is most definitely a power of the State per the constitution.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't. And thus....the red herrings.

If we could actually establish a system of federalism of competing legal systems where an experiment of democracy could take place, that would be a fantastic step towards maximizing freedom.

We have it. Not all states have PA laws covering sexual orientation. Oregon and a few others do. We have your experiment with democracy. With the PA laws reflecting the values of those of their respective states. Given that Federal PA protections don't cover sexual orientation, the only possible source of such laws would be the very 'experiments of democracy' at the state level that you call for.

Yet you condemn the very system you call for. Equating it with legalizing rape. Demonstrating that your own standards of 'experiment with democracy' are merely more proxy noise for a fundamentally near anarchy world view.

Its the wasting of my time with pointless proxy arguments that is the most annoying part of talking to anarchists. Or near anarchists in your case.

I am not offering a red herring. Federal "public accommodation" laws exist, I said we should get rid of them.

The Eiffel Tower exists as well. But neither it nor federal public accommodation laws have a thing to do with this discussion. As there is no federal PA laws protecting sexual orientation. All such laws are chosen by the States. You know, those 'experiments in democracy' you gave such empty lip service to only a couple of posts ago. Not a single law that has fined bakers, photographers, or anyone who has denied wedding services to gays has been a federal public accommodation law.

Every single one was a state law.

Yet inexplicably, you're desperately trying to change the topic to federal public accommodation laws, which are completely irrelevant to this discussion and away from State public accommodation laws, which are the only laws that apply in these matters. As you know that the constitution implicitly grants the State authority over intrastate commerce.

As I said, PA laws are irrelevant to your argument. Constitutional authority is irrelevant to your argument. Even the State government is irrelevant to your argument. You're little proto-anarchy drivel is against any regulation by anyone on any basis save murder, theft, fraud or rape.

That's not our system of laws, nor even has been. Rendering your conception of ownership irrelevant to our laws.

You cite a case of state "public accommodation" laws. Ok great, doesn't change the point I was making. I don't think you understand what a red herring is. You engaged in the red herring by responding to my call to repeal federal public accommodation laws by citing a case involving a state matter. That's the distraction here. And it also distracts from the overlying point that these laws, whether at the state or federal level, violate the principle of self-ownership.

It absolutely changes the point you're making. As the regulation of intra state commerce is implicitly delegated to the State by the 10th amendment. Nor is the authority of such regulation limited to 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' by our constitution. Your individualist anarchy conception of 'ownership' you insist we must adhere to do not exist in the Constitution or our laws.

Nor ever have. Rendering them irrelevant to our laws and our conception of ownership.

What you dismiss as 'arbitrary' is the will of the people of the States as expressed by their representatives. You're quite literally dismissing the very concept of republican democracy as 'arbitrary' and 'lacking any logical consistency'. And insist that we replace both the will of the people and the constitution with your judgment.

Laughing.....um, no. We're not doing that.

 

[danielpalos]

If your business is open to the public then you don't choose who you do business with at all.

Actually you can. PA laws do not mandate that a business provide everything, not do that require who you do business with.

The only mandate limitations on the reason business is refused.


>>>>

Yes, it is merely the contention of some on the left, that the right could engender more confidence in their sincerity, if moralists preached their morals on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.

 

[thanatos144]

Truth is the left hates freedom. This thread alone shows how much

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Truth is the left hates freedom. This thread alone shows how much

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Steinlight]

If we could get back to the point where States regulated commerce, that would be fucking fantastic, unfortunately, the Federal Government since the founding of the US has saw fit to continually span its legal scope further and further into voluntary market arrangements, to the detriment of a free society.

All PA laws in question to gay marriage and bakers are State laws. The baker who last week had the $135,000 fine upheld was fined under Oregon State law. With the State regulation of intrastate commerce implicit and constitutional.

Which you either know or should have known. Making your condemnation of federal regulation of commerce in regards to this matter either a hopeless red herring or an act of obtuse ignorance.

Pick which.

All you are showing is that throughout the history of the US, the definition of appropriate "regulation" has been arbitrary and has expanded its scope. Thus it has been inconsistent, thus, in philosophical terms, it is invalid. It is certainly "the law". But it is still morally and philosophically inconsistent. Your system is in force because you have the guns, but it doesn't make it right in any objective sense of the word.

The regulation reflects the values of the people making it. Which, bound by individual rights, is the beating heart of a democratic republic. And there's no conception of ownership rights ever recognized by our system of laws that places property beyond any form of regulation. Especially in terms of commerce. With intrastate commerce an implicit power under the 10th amendment.

And that is where your argument breaks, at exactly that point where the Ivory Tower ends and the real world application of law begins. To say nothing of your pseudo-legal gibberish about 'legalized rape'.

Also, you are simply incorrect that my system hasn't existed. Free association has been around for over a millennium in anglo saxon common law, tort law regulating property disputes has been around for centuries, and laws against murder, theft and rape have been around for thousands of years.

A system in which there is no regulation save in the case of 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' is not ours. We've had all manner of regulation since the inception of our nation that went well beyond this. Meaning, that by your own logic....you must either condemn the entire history of our nation as an 'authoritarian nightmare', or recognize that your conception of ownership is not part of our laws nor ever has been.

Self ownership isn't a "made up concept". It is a matter of fact that you own your body, and thus are responsible for your actions. Thus anything that impedes your personal sovereignty and ability to act freely as an individual violates your right of self-ownership.
Self-ownership - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

And exactly as predicted, what you're advocating is the beating heart of individualist anarchy.

Now how did I know that was coming?

I am aware of the Oregon ruling. It doesn't in anyway nullify my point that there exist federal "public accommodation" laws, and that if we could get rid of them, it would be fantastic. I also never suggested there was no state laws regulating commerce, so you really made no point here but to expose your snark.

Given that this issue is irrelevant to federal 'public accommodation', your point is irrelevant. You're offering us a red herring. And such is a fallacy of logic for a reason.

This is a State issue. An issue that per our constitution, the States most definitely have regulatory authority over. In fact, this is exclusively a state regulatory issue. As the Federal government offers no PA protections based on sexual orientation. Oregon law does. And the regulation of intrastate commerce is most definitely a power of the State per the constitution.

All of which you know. But really hope we don't. And thus....the red herrings.

If we could actually establish a system of federalism of competing legal systems where an experiment of democracy could take place, that would be a fantastic step towards maximizing freedom.

We have it. Not all states have PA laws covering sexual orientation. Oregon and a few others do. We have your experiment with democracy. With the PA laws reflecting the values of those of their respective states. Given that Federal PA protections don't cover sexual orientation, the only possible source of such laws would be the very 'experiments of democracy' at the state level that you call for.

Yet you condemn the very system you call for. Equating it with legalizing rape. Demonstrating that your own standards of 'experiment with democracy' are merely more proxy noise for a fundamentally near anarchy world view.

Its the wasting of my time with pointless proxy arguments that is the most annoying part of talking to anarchists. Or near anarchists in your case.

I am not offering a red herring. Federal "public accommodation" laws exist, I said we should get rid of them.

The Eiffel Tower exists as well. But neither it nor federal public accommodation laws have a thing to do with this discussion. As there is no federal PA laws protecting sexual orientation. All such laws are chosen by the States. You know, those 'experiments in democracy' you gave such empty lip service to only a couple of posts ago. Not a single law that has fined bakers, photographers, or anyone who has denied wedding services to gays has been a federal public accommodation law.

Every single one was a state law.

Yet inexplicably, you're desperately trying to change the topic to federal public accommodation laws, which are completely irrelevant to this discussion and away from State public accommodation laws, which are the only laws that apply in these matters. As you know that the constitution implicitly grants the State authority over intrastate commerce.

As I said, PA laws are irrelevant to your argument. Constitutional authority is irrelevant to your argument. Even the State government is irrelevant to your argument. You're little proto-anarchy drivel is against any regulation by anyone on any basis save murder, theft, fraud or rape.

That's not our system of laws, nor even has been. Rendering your conception of ownership irrelevant to our laws.

You cite a case of state "public accommodation" laws. Ok great, doesn't change the point I was making. I don't think you understand what a red herring is. You engaged in the red herring by responding to my call to repeal federal public accommodation laws by citing a case involving a state matter. That's the distraction here. And it also distracts from the overlying point that these laws, whether at the state or federal level, violate the principle of self-ownership.

It absolutely changes the point you're making. As the regulation of intra state commerce is implicitly delegated to the State by the 10th amendment. Nor is the authority of such regulation limited to 'murder, theft, rape or fraud' by our constitution. Your individualist anarchy conception of 'ownership' you insist we must adhere to do not exist in the Constitution or our laws.

Nor ever have. Rendering them irrelevant to our laws and our conception of ownership.

What you dismiss as 'arbitrary' is the will of the people of the States as expressed by their representatives. You're quite literally dismissing the very concept of republican democracy as 'arbitrary' and 'lacking any logical consistency'. And insist that we replace both the will of the people and the constitution with your judgment.

Laughing.....um, no. We're not doing that.

I am not delineating between state and federal "public accommodation" laws. Both are an infringement on self ownership and individual liberty. The fact you are trying to deflect the issue from the arbitrary nature of the application of these laws at both levels, just exposes the weakness of your argument. And this is what has forced you on a rant about one particular case or about the legality under the current system. This is a moral and philosophical diacussion. Not a legal one. Philosophically, you have no leg to stand on.

 

[danielpalos]

Truth is the left hates freedom. This thread alone shows how much

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

it is merely the contention of some on the left, that the right could engender more confidence in their sincerity, if moralists preached their morals on a not-for-the-profit-of-lucre basis.