US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake

Originally posted by Surtur
IMO I think some just truly dislike capitalism. Because it will never give you equality of outcome, and deep down that is what they want.

If you point to countries in a horrible state due to things like socialism the response will most likely be "they're just doing it wrong".

My favorite was in a video some college kid saying it works in Star Trek lol. (As a reason to have it in real life)

In all fairness, it does not give you equality of opportunity either which is a massive myth tbh.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
In all fairness, it does not give you equality of opportunity either which is a massive myth tbh.

True, and this separates the people in this country. You have folk who want equality of opportunity. You have also folk who say they do, but they really want equality of outcome. I like this quote:

"Freedom breeds inequality. Unless you have freedom to be unequal, there is no such thing as freedom." - William F. Buckley, Jr.

@DMB nothing in capitalism says you can't violate other people's rights. Indeed, slavers would argue that slavery was protected by the right to be free. In this case it was race based, but absolute capitalism would have the government totally absent from the market, meaning there would be no protection for the poor from the will of the rich.

Capitalism to its extreme is slavery. America was at it's most capitalist when it engaged in slavery, and coincidentally Slave owners did incredibly well finically while having to pay no money for labor.

Slavery is simply genocide commuted over a lengthy period of time.

The main point here is that any ideology taken to an extreme is bad, and we need to balance our principles for the best outcome.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Lets not conflate capitalism with slavery, even a strong totalitarian extremely socialist state can hypothetically result in slavery.

The point is everything in moderation. Free marketeering is beneficial in some respects and socialistic policis from a strong government are helpful in others

I've specifically been discussing capitalism, taken to the extreme. "Slavery" does not apply to our free market system which is miles away from being a full blown one.

@darthskywalker/surtur

If you were paying attention to what I said, you'd realize Innever took aim at capitalism as it's currently present in our society.

I specifically took aim at the idea of a full blown free market system totally lacking any form of regulation. Not being able to violate other people's rights is a government imposed regulation on businesses. Your post was full of mordern examples which simply aren't relevant because they have nothing to do with the capitalist society we're discussing here.

When you want to call me out for my ignorance, please don't be ignorant of my argument.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
@DMB nothing in capitalism says you can't violate other people's rights.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Indeed, slavers would argue that slavery was protected by the right to be free.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
In this case it was race based, but absolute capitalism would have the government totally absent from the market, meaning there would be no protection for the poor from the will of the rich.

Capitalism to its extreme is slavery. America was at it's most capitalist when it engaged in slavery, and coincidentally Slave owners did incredibly well finically while having to pay no money for labor.

Slavery is simply genocide commuted over a lengthy period of time.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The main point here is that any ideology taken to an extreme is bad, and we need to balance our principles for the best outcome.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
@darthskywalker/surtur

If you were paying attention to what I said, you'd realize Innever took aim at capitalism as it's currently present in our society.

I specifically took aim at the idea of a full blown free market system totally lacking any form of regulation. Not being able to violate other people's rights is a government imposed regulation on businesses. Your post was full of mordern examples which simply aren't relevant because they have nothing to do with the capitalist society we're discussing here.

When you want to call me out for my ignorance, please don't be ignorant of my argument.

Kbro... The time period which I discussed specifically the 1800s and early 1900s were in many ways more capitalistic then times with slavery. It certainly gives a more accurate depiction of modern capitalism and there was no income tax from 1875-1913. So the examples which I provided shed a better light on capitalism than the ones which you expounded upon. I also debunked your theory that capitalism causes slavery cause that is untrue and is the reason that I attacked your ignorance in the first place.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
@DMB nothing in capitalism says you can't violate other people's rights. Indeed, slavers would argue that slavery was protected by the right to be free. In this case it was race based, but absolute capitalism would have the government totally absent from the market, meaning there would be no protection for the poor from the will of the rich.

Capitalism to its extreme is slavery. America was at it's most capitalist when it engaged in slavery, and coincidentally Slave owners did incredibly well finically while having to pay no money for labor.

Slavery is simply genocide commuted over a lengthy period of time.

The main point here is that any ideology taken to an extreme is bad, and we need to balance our principles for the best outcome.

I am not gonna waste my time until you read the anarcho-capitalist material. The Machinery of Freedom, Anarchy, and Legal Order, Chaos Theory, Ethics of Liberty. But I do want to attack the notion that America "did the best" under slavery. This is a blatantly untrue statement. America did the best under Industrial Revolution type capitalism. That was when we started innovating and we also realized the economic productivity inefficient when fear is the only motivator. Slavery is not very economically efficient for anyone sans the slave owners. To quote the economist,

John Elliott Cairnes, an economist, reckoned that slavery stifled economic growth in the South. Cairnes argued that reluctant workers depleted soils more quickly. In addition, scientific agriculture was impossible. Reluctant slaves, with little interest in learning, had no interest in using new farming techniques. And this meant that Southern farms lost competitiveness to their Northern counterparts.

Others reckon that slavery made it difficult for the South to establish trading networks. According to Ralph Anderson and Robert Gallman, slavery forced planters to diversify their economic activities. The costs of owning a slave—such as food and shelter—were pretty constant. And so if plantations specialised in a certain crop, they left themselves open to sudden drops in income and consequently big losses. But by pursuing a range of economic activities, they had a steadier revenue flow to match their fixed costs.

Diversification posed problems. Messrs Anderson and Gallman argue that it inhibited trade within the South—and, consequently, the development of towns and villages. Slaveowners found it easier to produce something themselves, rather than buy it. And the South found it difficult to develop a manufacturing industry—instead, it depended on imports from the North. As a result, economic growth was stifled.

The economic growth in the South than in the North. In fact, Eugene Genovese, a leftist historian, thought that slavery was not even meant to be profitable. Slaveowners were keener on flaunting their vast plantations and huge reserves of slaves than they were about profits and investment. Rational economic decisions were sacrificed for pomp and circumstance. Slavery is not something a valuable and economically efficient idea. So I would be curious to know where your sources for any of your claims.

@DMB

I'm on mobile, mind the formatting.

1. Capitalism taken to its full extreme advocates for people achieving as much financial success as possible which will also inevitably end in the violation of other people's.

2. Please direct your outrage at slaveowners, not me. Taking away slaves was seen as the taking away of people's property. In other words a restriction of their freedom. You can be as incredulous at this as you like, this defense held up for decades and it took a fcking civil war to get past it. This is what happens when someone decides equality can be completely sacrificed for freedom.(not directed at you)

3. LMAO, you act as if that "one regulation" would be so easy. Take a look at your own country's history. When the country was being formed, even considering abolishment literally threatened to stop the states from unifying. Hence why we barely discussed it. After decades we were getting absolutely nowhere with slavery still being expanded. It took a civil war for it to end, and even then, it took changing the constitution. Even still, it took centuries for us to get rid of forced discrimination. Even now, centuries later, our society is still systematically plagued by slavery's legacy.

4. Please explain why forcing people to perpetually suffer for the entirety of their existence(ergo hell) is better than killing someone?

And by the way, even that capitalist slave bsed society had certain regulations preventing white people from enslaving poor white people. Imagine how much worse it would have been if plantation owners could subjugate whoever the fck they wanted.

5. Yeah, not seeing why completely disregarding equality is better than completely disregarding freedom. To call me deluded when you can't even point me to a single example of what you consider full blown capitalism is rich though.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
@darthskywalker/surtur

If you were paying attention to what I said, you'd realize Innever took aim at capitalism as it's currently present in our society.

I specifically took aim at the idea of a full blown free market system totally lacking any form of regulation. Not being able to violate other people's rights is a government imposed regulation on businesses. Your post was full of mordern examples which simply aren't relevant because they have nothing to do with the capitalist society we're discussing here.

When you want to call me out for my ignorance, please don't be ignorant of my argument.

I know you never said that. It's why I said I think "deep down" that is what some people true want. If you'd been flat out arguing that stuff it wouldn't be deep down.

Originally posted by snowdragon
Yes it is, just like he didn't deny other baked goods to the couple. They could have bought food when they were there, he just said no to making a wedding cake, not we don't service gay couples here.

It's all right here

I'm quoting this again because it's important. Especially this part:

"a Christian who closes his business on Sundays and refuses to design custom cakes that conflict with his religious beliefs – for example, cakes that contain alcohol, have Halloween themes or celebrate a divorce or same-sex marriage."

Refuses to design CUSTOM cakes that conflict with his beliefs. What more is there to say here? The fact this had to go to court at all astounds me. Who pays for the court bills of Jack Phillips?

I find it disgusting how they tried to make an example out of this man. He's been branded a bigot, he's decided to just not do anymore wedding cakes at all because of this(which was 40% of his business) and now he has to pay to defend himself against this utter nonsense. F*ck these people. I hope they lose and are forced to pay all the court costs Phillips had to endure over this. But we'd need to live in a sane world for that to happen.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
@DMB

I'm on mobile, mind the formatting.

1. Capitalism taken to its full extreme advocates for people achieving as much financial success as possible which will also inevitably end in the violation of other people's.

2. Please direct your outrage at slaveowners, not me. Taking away slaves was seen as the taking away of people's property. In other words a restriction of their freedom. You can be as incredulous at this as you like, this defense held up for decades and it took a fcking civil war to get past it. This is what happens when someone decides equality can be completely sacrificed for freedom.(not directed at you)

3. LMAO, you act as if that "one regulation" would be so easy. Take a look at your own country's history. When the country was being formed, even considering abolishment literally threatened to stop the states from unifying. Hence why we barely discussed it. After decades we were getting absolutely nowhere with slavery still being expanded. It took a civil war for it to end, and even then, it took changing the constitution. Even still, it took centuries for us to get rid of forced discrimination. Even now, centuries later, our society is still systematically plagued by slavery's legacy.

4. Please explain why forcing people to perpetually suffer for the entirety of their existence(ergo hell) is better than killing someone?

And by the way, even that capitalist slave bsed society had certain regulations preventing white people from enslaving poor white people. Imagine how much worse it would have been if plantation owners could subjugate whoever the fck they wanted.

5. Yeah, not seeing why completely disregarding equality is better than completely disregarding freedom. To call me deluded when you can't even point me to a single example of what you consider full blown capitalism is rich though.

I am not DMB but I am gonna keep responding to your shit cause why not.

1. Achieving success in the marketplace requires the other individuals to voluntarily give you money. This ensures that you do not behave in a manner which can hamper your reputation. The second check in capitalism is competition. This ensures that bad companies fail by people using their competitors.

2. As I have already discussed in my previous posts, capitalism IS NOT TO BLAME FOR SLAVERY. There were some laws that I did not mention. Laws existed that prohibited manumission. This prevents owners from freeing their slaves. And as I already discussed slavery was less economically profitable then non-slavery. Since you continue to espouse this idea let me post some more information.

Northern farmers were out-producing their southern counterparts in several important areas, as Southern agriculture remained labor intensive while northern agriculture became increasingly mechanized. By 1860, the free states had nearly twice the value of farm machinery per acre and per farm worker as did the slave states, leading to increased productivity. As a result, in 1860, the Northern states produced half of the nation's corn, four-fifths of its wheat, and seven-eighths of its oats.

3. I am not sure where you are getting your history from, but I have some corrections. Abolition was certainly discussed. In fact, Benjamin Franklin was the Chairman of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. The Jacksonian era ended due to the feud between him and Van Buren over slavery. Suffice it say, it was a very contentious issue.

4. Considering that is not a result of capitalism, I do not know why you keep touting the claim.

5. No one wants to disregard equality. Both DMB and I want to disregard the notions of equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Both of these concepts are antithetical to liberty. DMB and I both support equality under the law.

Capitalism, when taken to the extreme(anarcho-capitalism comes to mind), becomes the ultimate expression of ‘might makes right’ or perhaps I should say, ‘money makes right’.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm quoting this again because it's important. Especially this part:

[b]"a Christian who closes his business on Sundays and refuses to design custom cakes that conflict with his religious beliefs – for example, cakes that contain alcohol, have Halloween themes or celebrate a divorce or same-sex marriage."

Refuses to design CUSTOM cakes that conflict with his beliefs. What more is there to say here? The fact this had to go to court at all astounds me. Who pays for the court bills of Jack Phillips?

I find it disgusting how they tried to make an example out of this man. He's been branded a bigot, he's decided to just not do anymore wedding cakes at all because of this(which was 40% of his business) and now he has to pay to defend himself against this utter nonsense. F*ck these people. I hope they lose and are forced to pay all the court costs Phillips had to endure over this. But we'd need to live in a sane world for that to happen. [/B]

Repeat: Because we have laws against discriminating people based on their sexual orientation.

There are no laws against discriminating against alcohol or Halloween or divorce.

Actually, the divorce one might be there as well.

I still want to know what a 'gay cake' is?

Originally posted by Robtard
Repeat: Because we have laws against discriminating people based on their sexual orientation.

There are no laws against discriminating against alcohol or Halloween or divorce.

Can a straight couple get a gay themed cake there?

Originally posted by Surtur
Can a straight couple get a gay themed cake there?

That's irrelevant and little more than a red herring, as it's still being bigoted against sexual orientation as you yourself are defining the cake as "gay" and the reason for the refusal, as we're not talking about gay = happy

What is a "gay themed cake" exactly though? This keeps getting claimed, but I hear no responses.

Capitalism, when taken to the extreme(anarcho-capitalism comes to mind), becomes the ultimate expression of ‘might makes right’ or perhaps I should say, ‘money makes right’.

Bullshit

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Bullshit

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
What?

Anarcho-capitalism does not necessarily mean that warlords will control everything.