"Bake the Cake" issue reversed

[H_H]

Aristotle?

The Meaning of Life

http://web.archive.org/web/201105181...s/meaning1.htm

Minor correction: "Aristotle" was his Angelfire, his avatar was "Diogenes." Anyway, this WWW Diogenes kind of lost me when he put Freud and Jung together as sharing a metaphor:

"Depth psychology (Freud, Jung, etc.)"

But, I like old things, and I guess personal websites from 2004 only available through the Wayback Machine qualify as old. In Current Year (though perhaps not in Next Year). So, props.

[Anti Federalist]

I posted in another thread how when the tables are turned, you can't count on the people you think you can. The reaction to this video is a prime example. Obviously, the left handles the issue much, much differently from the right (lol), but the issue is the same. But now we have the right overwhelmingly defending the customer.

I'm just getting up to speed on this latest outrage generator...but based on what I've read so far, this is an apples to bowling balls comparison.

The counter help was never authorized by the owner or boss to treat anybody poorly, in fact was instructed to do just the opposite, treat every customer with respect and courtesy.

For failing to perform his job, he has now been fired, and the owner's of the property have apologized.

Utterly different scenario than that of an owner politely refusing service based on strongly held religious beliefs.

[CaptUSA]

I'm just getting up to speed on this latest outrage generator...but based on what I've read so far, this is an apples to bowling balls comparison.

The counter help was never authorized by the owner or boss to treat anybody poorly, in fact was instructed to do just the opposite, treat every customer with respect and courtesy.

For failing to perform his job, he has now been fired, and the owner's of the property have apologized.

Utterly different scenario than that of an owner politely refusing service based on strongly held religious beliefs.

Trust me, I get what you're saying. But you're bringing in externalities to make them different. Because you are looking at the different reasons, behaviors and reactions of the left vs, the right.

But the principles are the same. A customer goes into a store and for what ever reason, the person at that business doesn't want to serve them. In both cases, the customer, instead of just leaving and choosing to do their business elsewhere, the customer feels that this business MUST serve me and they OWE it to me to treat me like every other customer. And they escalated matters to serve their political viewpoints.

This is what I'm talking about. If you look at things based on principles, you will see this. If you view things based on the reasons for the person's decision, or their behavior, then you will take the side that most suits your team. Because those people agree with your decisions and behaviors.

Obviously, the moron behind the counter was ridiculous, was acting on his own, and has zero sense of conflict resolution (to say the least lol). But that's not the principle at play here. (unless that's all you can see - like many in this thread.) The principle is that a guy went in wearing a shirt displaying his brand of political beliefs and the guy running the place told him to leave because of it. End of story, end of the principle. A less entitled person would have just left - maybe called the company... But this entitled asshat DEMANDED to be served. "Do my bidding", he says. Further enraging the snowflake with ensuring hilarity.

Dannno and Phil seem to think the guy was just sticking around to capture the video evidence and to highlight the hypocrisy of the left. That he didn't really feel entitled, he just wanted to show how ridiculous they act when the same thing happens to them. I'm good with that, too, if that's really the case. But in doing so, he also highlighted the hypocrisy of the right, based on their reactions.

[Swordsmyth]

Trust me, I get what you're saying. But you're bringing in externalities to make them different. Because you are looking at the different reasons, behaviors and reactions of the left vs, the right.

But the principles are the same. A customer goes into a store and for what ever reason, the person at that business doesn't want to serve them. In both cases, the customer, instead of just leaving and choosing to do their business elsewhere, the customer feels that this business MUST serve me and they OWE it to me to treat me like every other customer. And they escalated matters to serve their political viewpoints.

This is what I'm talking about. If you look at things based on principles, you will see this. If you view things based on the reasons for the person's decision, or their behavior, then you will take the side that most suits your team. Because those people agree with your decisions and behaviors.

Obviously, the moron behind the counter was ridiculous, was acting on his own, and has zero sense of conflict resolution (to say the least lol). But that's not the principle at play here. (unless that's all you can see - like many in this thread.) The principle is that a guy went in wearing a shirt displaying his brand of political beliefs and the guy running the place told him to leave because of it. End of story, end of the principle. A less entitled person would have just left - maybe called the company... But this entitled asshat DEMANDED to be served. "Do my bidding", he says. Further enraging the snowflake with ensuring hilarity.

Dannno and Phil seem to think the guy was just sticking around to capture the video evidence and to highlight the hypocrisy of the left. That he didn't really feel entitled, he just wanted to show how ridiculous they act when the same thing happens to them. I'm good with that, too, if that's really the case. But in doing so, he also highlighted the hypocrisy of the right, based on their reactions.

There is a very important fundamental that you keep ignoring, the employee was not authorized to act as he did and he is not the owner.

[CaptUSA]

There is a very important fundamental that you keep ignoring, the employee was not authorized to act as he did and he is not the owner.

I'm sorry - no one was talking to you. I was responding to AF. He might get it - you won't.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm sorry - no one was talking to you. I was responding to AF. He might get it - you won't.

He does get it, you don't:

The counter help was never authorized by the owner or boss to treat anybody poorly, in fact was instructed to do just the opposite, treat every customer with respect and courtesy.

For failing to perform his job, he has now been fired, and the owner's of the property have apologized.

[CaptUSA]

He does get it, you don't:

Externality not germane to the issue. Now, let the adults talk, troll.

[Swordsmyth]

Externality not germane to the issue. Now, let the adults talk, troll.

It isn't an externality, who the owner is is a fundamental, AF can see that.

And I will speak as much as I like in spite of your petulant -Rep.

[Anti Federalist]

Trust me, I get what you're saying. But you're bringing in externalities to make them different. Because you are looking at the different reasons, behaviors and reactions of the left vs, the right.

I honestly don't see it that way.

If this had been the owner, who requested that the fellow leave and that he did not want his business, then by all means, I agree.

This situation is similar to that Starbucks incident a while ago, but in that case, the person that got fired was following company policy, where in this case, it seems pretty clear the counter help was not.

But the principles are the same. A customer goes into a store and for what ever reason, the person at that business doesn't want to serve them. In both cases, the customer, instead of just leaving and choosing to do their business elsewhere, the customer feels that this business MUST serve me and they OWE it to me to treat me like every other customer. And they escalated matters to serve their political viewpoints.

I think this is just indicative of the "everybody's got a stick up their ass about something" syndrome that is afflicting the entire nation.

[Schifference]

Trust me, I get what you're saying. But you're bringing in externalities to make them different. Because you are looking at the different reasons, behaviors and reactions of the left vs, the right.

But the principles are the same. A customer goes into a store and for what ever reason, the person at that business doesn't want to serve them. In both cases, the customer, instead of just leaving and choosing to do their business elsewhere, the customer feels that this business MUST serve me and they OWE it to me to treat me like every other customer. And they escalated matters to serve their political viewpoints.

This is what I'm talking about. If you look at things based on principles, you will see this. If you view things based on the reasons for the person's decision, or their behavior, then you will take the side that most suits your team. Because those people agree with your decisions and behaviors.

Obviously, the moron behind the counter was ridiculous, was acting on his own, and has zero sense of conflict resolution (to say the least lol). But that's not the principle at play here. (unless that's all you can see - like many in this thread.) The principle is that a guy went in wearing a shirt displaying his brand of political beliefs and the guy running the place told him to leave because of it. End of story, end of the principle. A less entitled person would have just left - maybe called the company... But this entitled asshat DEMANDED to be served. "Do my bidding", he says. Further enraging the snowflake with ensuring hilarity.

Dannno and Phil seem to think the guy was just sticking around to capture the video evidence and to highlight the hypocrisy of the left. That he didn't really feel entitled, he just wanted to show how ridiculous they act when the same thing happens to them. I'm good with that, too, if that's really the case. But in doing so, he also highlighted the hypocrisy of the right, based on their reactions.

This is the most clear explanation of your stance. I see exactly what you are saying and agree with it to some degree. The situation is that maybe there is not another vape shop next door or maybe even in 20 miles. The MAGA guy at first might have just wanted to consummate the deal so he could get what he wanted without the hassle of going elsewhere. The MAGA guy did escalate the situation at the end.

Do you think the owner of the vape shop is grateful that MAGA produced this video?

How did that clerk treat other customers on other occasions?

Next step is owner puts in surveillance video and fires his next clerk for behavior issues and gets dragged into court by the fire person for xyz or false accusation of xyz.

Will crazy liberals create huge scene in front of establishment with nasty people yelling with signs not allowing people to enter the store in the lefts version of peaceful boycott.

[Schifference]

Trust me, I get what you're saying. But you're bringing in externalities to make them different. Because you are looking at the different reasons, behaviors and reactions of the left vs, the right.

But the principles are the same. A customer goes into a store and for what ever reason, the person at that business doesn't want to serve them. In both cases, the customer, instead of just leaving and choosing to do their business elsewhere, the customer feels that this business MUST serve me and they OWE it to me to treat me like every other customer. And they escalated matters to serve their political viewpoints.

This is what I'm talking about. If you look at things based on principles, you will see this. If you view things based on the reasons for the person's decision, or their behavior, then you will take the side that most suits your team. Because those people agree with your decisions and behaviors.

Obviously, the moron behind the counter was ridiculous, was acting on his own, and has zero sense of conflict resolution (to say the least lol). But that's not the principle at play here. (unless that's all you can see - like many in this thread.) The principle is that a guy went in wearing a shirt displaying his brand of political beliefs and the guy running the place told him to leave because of it. End of story, end of the principle. A less entitled person would have just left - maybe called the company... But this entitled asshat DEMANDED to be served. "Do my bidding", he says. Further enraging the snowflake with ensuring hilarity.

Dannno and Phil seem to think the guy was just sticking around to capture the video evidence and to highlight the hypocrisy of the left. That he didn't really feel entitled, he just wanted to show how ridiculous they act when the same thing happens to them. I'm good with that, too, if that's really the case. But in doing so, he also highlighted the hypocrisy of the right, based on their reactions.

Upon further reflection, maybe it is fairness people seek. The problem is not about right to refuse a gay or a MAGA by a clerk, owner, or establishment. It is that federal law has mandated and protected particular segments of society thus removing rights from those not protected or making those protected to have more rights. So we sit in judgement of individual entrepreneurs trying to eek out a living vs labeled wanna be protected customer and every person that has no stake in the game along with courts, police, and politicians, and tribal citizens.

What you need to do is end all protected class of citizens. But wait one moment. Why did even the forefathers think it necessary to protect a class of people? Why did they think it important to protect religion or speech? My guess is that maybe at that time in that day and age the problem was the general merchant did not want to sell to Mormons or zay religious people and shut them off from supplies.

The store, the owner, the customer, nor the clerk are the issue. Government regulation is. If we cannot refuse to serve black people, then we need to go one by one and mandate that everyone that is not black must be served also.

[H_H]

But you're bringing in externalities to make them different... you are looking at the different... behaviors

Heaven forfend we should ever look at such banal nonsense as ACTUAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR when thinking about how to best arrange ourselves and get along as... umm... humans.

So beneath men of our intellect. Society as a Sudoku puzzle, that's our motto. And we've got the answer! Just LISTEN EVERYONE!1!!1!

*SCREECHING*

[H_H]

Why did even the forefathers think it necessary to protect a class of people? Why did they think it important to protect religion or speech?

I thought you were being funnily ironic and... then you weren't.

Speech and religion, these weren't "classes" of people. Everybody spoke, and everybody was religious. [And -- here's a parenthetical mind-blow -- everybody still is religious. The religion has changed a bit. We now live under a State-Enforced religion best characterized (at least I would characterize it, and then I'm just parroting Moldbug & Rothbard) as Post-Theistic Hyper-Millenial Calvinism on a Holiness Crusade.]

They were just specifically naming things about which Congress shall MAKE NO LAW. And a bloody good thing they did, eh?, because Hamilton's argument that the Bill of Rights was superfluous and redundant (see what I did there?) because the Constitution as-is already prohibited Congress from making any laws about absolutely anything and everything unless explicitly and specifically permitted and enumerated, well that argument ended up being "L.O.L." and "How's that workin' out for ya?" with 200 years of hindsight, now didn't it?

My guess is that maybe at that time in that day and age the problem was the general merchant did not want to sell to Mormons or zay [non?-]religious people and shut them off from supplies.

Nice to guess, but better to know.

Mormons were kicked out of both Missouri and Illinois, with the explicit and official (Missouri) or more tacit but still-official (Illinois) participation and decree of the government. The State government. Not being sold supplies was not on the radar screen as an issue, because their women were getting mass-raped, their men were getting shot, and their towns were getting burned down by vicious armies or, as the Mormons called and still call them, "Mobs", as part of the Extermination Order signed by the governor of Missouri. And then simply walking away from the smoldering ruins, walking hundreds of miles to escape the state that's officially exterminating you, barefoot through the snow in the dead of winter, to settle in a malaria-infested swampland. I mean, it's kind of a different level of amygdala-activation than not getting your cake.

Yes?

Anyway, the Mormons built their own towns entire, from the ground up; they bought up a vast chunk of land and had it split off into their own separate county, just to try to appease and not bother anyone, not upset anyone's electoral balances. We were a more tough and hardy race back then. Nobody was going to whine about whether a store was going to serve him. Not an issue. Just don't burn my barn and I won't slaughter your cattle and we'll get along just fine. If I need some food and you won't sell it, I'll hunt it my own darn self.

[H_H]

But you're right that I'm anti-racist. And I find it strange that that label would be thought an opprobrium.

So strange. So very strange.

Why, I Just Don't Understand Any of This!

[Ender]

I thought you were being funnily ironic and... then you weren't.

Speech and religion, these weren't "classes" of people. Everybody spoke, and everybody was religious. [And -- here's a parenthetical mind-blow -- everybody still is religious. The religion has changed a bit. We now live under a State-Enforced religion best characterized (at least I would characterize it, and then I'm just parroting Moldbug & Rothbard) as Post-Theistic Hyper-Millenial Calvinism on a Holiness Crusade.]

They were just specifically naming things about which Congress shall MAKE NO LAW. And a bloody good thing they did, eh?, because Hamilton's argument that the Bill of Rights was superfluous and redundant (see what I did there?) because the Constitution as-is already prohibited Congress from making any laws about absolutely anything and everything unless explicitly and specifically permitted and enumerated, well that argument ended up being "L.O.L." and "How's that workin' out for ya?" with 200 years of hindsight, now didn't it?


Nice to guess, but better to know.

Mormons were kicked out of both Missouri and Illinois, with the explicit and official (Missouri) or more tacit but still-official (Illinois) participation and decree of the government. The State government. Not being sold supplies was not on the radar screen as an issue, because their women were getting mass-raped, their men were getting shot, and their towns were getting burned down by vicious armies or, as the Mormons called and still call them, "Mobs", as part of the Extermination Order signed by the governor of Missouri. And then simply walking away from the smoldering ruins, walking hundreds of miles to escape the state that's officially exterminating you, barefoot through the snow in the dead of winter, to settle in a malaria-infested swampland. I mean, it's kind of a different level of amygdala-activation then not getting your cake.

Yes?

Anyway, the Mormons built their own towns entire, from the ground up; they bought up a vast chunk of land and had it split off into their own separate county, just to try to appease and not bother anyone, not upset anyone's electoral balances. We were a more tough and hardy race back then. Nobody was going to whine about whether a store was going to serve him. Not an issue. Just don't burn my barn and I won't slaughter your cattle and we'll get along just fine. If I need some food and you won't sell it, I'll hunt it my own darn self.

Yep- and you could still legally kill a Mormon in Missouri until 1976. So much freedom.

Agree 1000%-

And don't faint, Helmuth.

[Schifference]

I thought you were being funnily ironic and... then you weren't.

Speech and religion, these weren't "classes" of people. Everybody spoke, and everybody was religious. [And -- here's a parenthetical mind-blow -- everybody still is religious. The religion has changed a bit. We now live under a State-Enforced religion best characterized (at least I would characterize it, and then I'm just parroting Moldbug & Rothbard) as Post-Theistic Hyper-Millenial Calvinism on a Holiness Crusade.]

They were just specifically naming things about which Congress shall MAKE NO LAW. And a bloody good thing they did, eh?, because Hamilton's argument that the Bill of Rights was superfluous and redundant (see what I did there?) because the Constitution as-is already prohibited Congress from making any laws about absolutely anything and everything unless explicitly and specifically permitted and enumerated, well that argument ended up being "L.O.L." and "How's that workin' out for ya?" with 200 years of hindsight, now didn't it?


Nice to guess, but better to know.

Mormons were kicked out of both Missouri and Illinois, with the explicit and official (Missouri) or more tacit but still-official (Illinois) participation and decree of the government. The State government. Not being sold supplies was not on the radar screen as an issue, because their women were getting mass-raped, their men were getting shot, and their towns were getting burned down by vicious armies or, as the Mormons called and still call them, "Mobs", as part of the Extermination Order signed by the governor of Missouri. And then simply walking away from the smoldering ruins, walking hundreds of miles to escape the state that's officially exterminating you, barefoot through the snow in the dead of winter, to settle in a malaria-infested swampland. I mean, it's kind of a different level of amygdala-activation than not getting your cake.

Yes?

Anyway, the Mormons built their own towns entire, from the ground up; they bought up a vast chunk of land and had it split off into their own separate county, just to try to appease and not bother anyone, not upset anyone's electoral balances. We were a more tough and hardy race back then. Nobody was going to whine about whether a store was going to serve him. Not an issue. Just don't burn my barn and I won't slaughter your cattle and we'll get along just fine. If I need some food and you won't sell it, I'll hunt it my own darn self.

Okay great!
But what about my assertion that the real problem is that some are protected by law and all others are racist or ..... you choose.

[H_H]

The MAGA guy did escalate the situation at the end.

He had to. He had inadvertently soothed the amygdala hijack he had created in his target by getting emotional himself. If he would have stayed cool, either showing no emotion or, even worse perhaps, laughing at the guy, who knows how far it could have escalated? The target would have completely broken down and gone berserko. But no, instead he had to go and raise his voice himself and start using swear words. Notice, students, how the target calms down almost immediately when the attacker starts showing emotion. See it?

Remember that.

Anyway, so he made this tactical blunder and the target totally calmed down and got some control of himself and was going to actually sell him the stuff like a reasonable person. Dang it! So he had no choice, he had to juice the guy up again. So he started making what comments he could think of to trigger and humiliate him to make it so no way can he sell him this stuff with any dignity intact. And sure enough. Target reverses course. No sale. Mission accomplished.

Aren't you guys lucky to have me to interpret these things for you? You really are, actually.

[H_H]

Okay great!
But what about my assertion that the real problem is that some are protected by law and all others are racist or ..... you choose.

Well, I agree with it.

But it's not really a problem that's in play. So in that sense it can't be "The Real Problem" unless you're into having problems that you can't solve.

There's all kinds of other problems that would need to be solved and things that would need to change before we'd be at the point where "OK, everybody quick call your Congressman, they're considering a bill to totally legalize free association for everyone equally so that we can kick homeless black people off of our lunch counters and coffee shop floors again, and it's a close call whether it will pass."

[AuH20]

[RJB]

Somebody left a comment to expect more cashier's with Gender Studies and other SJW degrees to pull more incidents like this. Think about that. There will be an army of unemployable SJWs with $10,000s or 100,000s of dollars in debt that gave them no skills to succeed, but all the excuses and bitterness for why they failed. Where else will the get a job? It should be an interesting 40 years ahead when we go shopping.

[Schifference]

Since true freedom is not available and is only an illusion, this is a great time for civil disobedience. Since white MAGA males are going to be discriminated against they should show idiotic hypocrisy at each and every opportunity being careful that they remain on the correct side of the injustice. It is time for white men to finally be allowed to sit in the colored section of the bus!

[CaptUSA]

I honestly don't see it that way.

If this had been the owner, who requested that the fellow leave and that he did not want his business, then by all means, I agree.

This situation is similar to that Starbucks incident a while ago, but in that case, the person that got fired was following company policy, where in this case, it seems pretty clear the counter help was not.

Right. But that is an issue between the employer and the employee. It's an externality that is not related to the interaction between the customer and the person in charge of the store. All "employee-in-charge" personnel are empowered to make these types of decisions. It happens millions of times per day in every industry. Hell, that's why employers hire these people - so they don't have to make all of these calls and every little interaction.

But when there's a dispute between the employer and the employee, the employer will often disagree with how the employee handled the situation - especially, in retrospect - and will take remedial action. Like they did in this case. But it didn't have anything to do with the principle involved.

I think this is just indicative of the "everybody's got a stick up their ass about something" syndrome that is afflicting the entire nation.

Right. This is the principle. But do you notice the reaction to this man's stick is quite different than the reaction to the "gay-wedding" stick? Same syndrome - but the reaction is the opposite. These folks miss the liberty point. Just like the SC did. They're looking at whether or not the reason for the decisions seemed justified to them - instead of just accepting that no one is entitled to service.

Reminder around the 10:00 mark:

This finding by the SC, providing a little bit of help for this poor guy that went through the agony, but it hasn't helped unless libertarians and constitutionalists come to the rescue and take this opportunity to try to explain this thing to them... ...Individuals have rights, rather than putting people in groups and having them fight against each other.

[H_H]

But do you notice the reaction to this man's stick is quite different than the reaction to the "gay-wedding" stick? Same syndrome - but the reaction is the opposite. These folks miss the liberty point. Just like the SC did.

All I know is that if this is your big example, your Incontroversable Case Study, proving how eeeeeevviill people on the right are -- equally as evil as the left, guys, dontcha know -- then the right is in pretty good shape. And that makes me happy, because the right is my ally.

Someday you may take some time to reflect rationally instead of emotio-biologically and realize the same truth. Then, Cap'n, you too can be a right wing wingnut! ;^). Just kidding, of course: you don't have to morph into Hannity yourself to realize obvious truths about who your friends are politically.

So yeah, if this is your big equivalency proof, if Postal Vapor is your parallel to Jack Phillips... uh huh, ain't nobody gonna see that. "But, but, they did the exact same thing! They both are exactly the same! Muh PRINCIPLE!! Can't you morons see Muh Principle?"

Yeah. Not thinking that anybody's gonna see that principle. Sorry to break it to you, Cap'n. What's that adage? "Your literal screeching speaks so loudly, I cannot hear whatever-the-heck-it-is that CaptUSA is trying to tell me."

Banshees and saints look different to people. "Anyone who thinks they're at all different is a wrong moron and my enemy"? Hmm. Thou sayest. They can be thine enemies. But they ain't mine. I don't think they're AF's either. There aren't a lot of people religiously opposed to common sense as thou seemeth to be.

[euphemia]

Here’s the bottom line. Act as you wish and take the consequences.

[CaptUSA]

All I know is that if this is your big example, your Incontroversable Case Study, proving how eeeeeevviill people on the right are -- equally as evil as the left, guys, dontcha know -- then the right is in pretty good shape. And that makes me happy, because the right is my ally.

Someday you may take some time to reflect rationally instead of emotio-biologically and realize the same truth. Then, Cap'n, you too can be a right wing wingnut! ;^). Just kidding, of course: you don't have to morph into Hannity yourself to realize obvious truths about who your friends are politically.

So yeah, if this is your big equivalency proof, if Postal Vapor is your parallel to Jack Phillips... uh huh, ain't nobody gonna see that. "But, but, they did the exact same thing! They both are exactly the same! Muh PRINCIPLE!! Can't you morons see Muh Principle?"

Yeah. Not thinking that anybody's gonna see that principle. Sorry to break it to you, Cap'n. What's that adage? "Your literal screeching speaks so loudly, I cannot hear whatever-the-heck-it-is that CaptUSA is trying to tell me."

Banshees and saints look different to people. "Anyone who thinks they're at all different is a wrong moron and my enemy"? Hmm. Thou sayest. They can be thine enemies. But they ain't mine. I don't think they're AF's either. There aren't a lot of people religiously opposed to common sense as thou seemeth to be.

Seriously, I'm not sure where this is coming from. But there seems to be an awful lot of screeching in your posts.

My suggestion - using the reaction to this case as an example - is that you cannot count on the right to stand up for liberty any more than the left. That both sides view liberty as transactional. Meaning, they want liberty for themselves, but are unconcerned about liberty for others. In other words, "liberty" is not popular - "protection" is.

[Ender]

Seriously, I'm not sure where this is coming from. But there seems to be an awful lot of screeching in your posts.

My suggestion - using the reaction to this case as an example - is that you cannot count on the right to stand up for liberty any more than the left. That both sides view liberty as transactional. Meaning, they want liberty for themselves, but are unconcerned about liberty for others. In other words, "liberty" is not popular - "protection" is.

Exactly- Freedom for me but not for thee.

And Helmuth always screeches.

[CCTelander]

Seriously, I'm not sure where this is coming from. But there seems to be an awful lot of screeching in your posts.

My suggestion - using the reaction to this case as an example - is that you cannot count on the right to stand up for liberty any more than the left. That both sides view liberty as transactional. Meaning, they want liberty for themselves, but are unconcerned about liberty for others. In other words, "liberty" is not popular - "protection" is.

It's funny, in a sad, pathetic sort of way, that we're all part of a movement that purports to be based upon fundamental principles, but the people who insist on standing firm upon those principles are then immediately excoriated as impractical unrealistic utopian dreamers who are standing in the way of any real progress. Principles are just quaint throwbacks to be dissarded when expedient.

[Ender]

Yep.

It's like the:

"We must have the Wall, Military, REAL ID, ICE, to protect us from the hordes of invaders and keep us prisoners! NOW!" "Oh, but doing away with entitlements & bringing back Free Enterprise is just too, too hard."

SMDH

[CCTelander]

Yep.

It's like the:

"We must have the Wall, Military, REAL ID, ICE, to protect us from the hordes of invaders and keep us prisoners! NOW!" "Oh, but doing away with entitlements & bringing back Free Enterprise is just too, too hard."

SMDH

Politics, by its very nature, is extremely divisive. Fear is a powerful motivator and tool to create division. The video I posted over here has a pretty good explanation of the phenomenon:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ool-of-Tyrants

[CCTelander]

Yep.

It's like the:

"We must have the Wall, Military, REAL ID, ICE, to protect us from the hordes of invaders and keep us prisoners! NOW!" "Oh, but doing away with entitlements & bringing back Free Enterprise is just too, too hard."

SMDH

Ultimately, that's EXACTLY the excuse that always gets used for not doing things the right, principled way, the way that actually refrains from violating anyone's rights. Oh they don't say it in so many words, of course. They usually come up with $#@! like "that's not politically feasable right now," or simply declare it impossible because ... reasons. Distilled down to their essence those arguments amount to bassically what you said, it's much too difficult and requires too much actual work to do the job right. And, as a result, they'll doom themselves to never actually getting to the place they claim to want to go. Sad.