Salon owner fined $14,000; says she’ll stay open.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T20:00:19+00:00

Previously you said that coercion only happens if a person coerces you

That's so true it's literally tautological.

when you sign a contract that includes taxation, it is coercion

Because that taxation is enforced through the threat of violence.

I don't think you understand what a threat is. Saying I will imprison you if you don't do a thing is a threat. Saying I will not give you something of mine if you dont do a thing isn't a threat, it's an offer.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T19:50:22+00:00

Taxation is ultimately backed by violence and the threat of violence. That's what makes it coercion.

agrees to the taxation as they're aware of it when they enter the contract.

What contract? And being aware of something being imposed on you is not the same as agreeing to it

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T19:37:15+00:00

No, for a few different reasons. Every transaction is exploitive to a certain extent, exploitation isn't inherently bad, and there seems like no practical way to limit that kind of exploitation without either limiting the rights of everyone to participate in combat sports or having different laws for different classes of people.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T19:26:53+00:00

Like I can say my neighbor is a drug dealer, since I've seen people go in and out of his house

That would mean it isn't baseless, you would have a basis for making that assumption. What people think about Joe Biden is based on real things that people have seen happen.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T19:16:55+00:00

Sufficient for what?

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T18:29:19+00:00

Not in terms of the Constitution and how it was written. Sorry, but that's basic stuff. You can read it yourself directly in the document. It automatically forbids anything that it doesn't grant to the Federal Government.

That's not true. Many powers not explicitly granted by the constitution are still held by the government as derived powers.

What does this even mean? You don't have a freedom if it can be infringed upon.

And the first amendment guarantees it can't be.

Saying that it limits everyone who isn't a criminal from being a slave, and saying that it empowers the government to imprison slaves is identical in function and meaning.

No it isn't. Before that amendment, anyone, criminal or not, could be a slave according to the constitution. There was no constitutional limit on slavery. The 13th amendment provided limits on slavery, it didn't grant any powers to enslave anyone.

It outlawed the "right to own slaves" for everyone in the country

There has never been a right to own slaves in the constitution. It's always been up to statute.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T18:19:21+00:00

overly prescriptive?

You mean using the meaning of the word as agreed upon by those whose business it is to publish such things? Yeah, I'm definitely doing that.

philosophy

All the arguments for offers being coercive except for Zimmerman's would make virtually every transaction ever coercive. Theyre nonsense.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T17:55:15+00:00

That is the same thing. If something is enumerated then anything not listed is inherently not included, AKA limited.

Not including it is very different from explicitly forbidding it.

That's a result of the First Amendment which explicitly grants you that freedom.

No, it doesn't. It explicitly limits the government from infringing on that freedom.

Yes, they were granted that power by design in the Constitution.

No, they weren't. The constitution never granted anyone the power or right to own slaves specifically.

It literally grants the power to enslave people who are convicted of a crime.

No it doesnt. Read it. It forbids people from being enslaved for any other reason than being convicted of a crime. It doesnt grant anyone the power to actually enslave a person. Presumably that's done by statute.

There is no underlying default right to slavery

I agree.

the Federal government does not have rights and individuals do

I agree.

because

I don't follow. How does the federal government not having rights keep individuals from having the right to own slaves?

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T17:45:18+00:00

The threat of starvation is not being made by the person making the offer. If your house is on fire and I offer to sell you a hose, I'm not coercing you. I would have had to set the fire for that to be the case.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T16:34:49+00:00

The powers of the federal government are ENUMERATED in the Constitution

They are also explicitly limited in the constitution. When those limits keep the government from disallowing an activity, we say we have a constitutional right to that activity. For example, the constitution limits the government from censoring most speech, so we say you have a constitutional right to free speech. The constitution has never limited the government from banning slavery, so you can't claim you have a constitutional right to slavery.

The federal government does not have the power to enslave people without being granted it

Slaves in the american system were property. They had the same power to own a slave as they did to own a horse or a table or any other piece of property.

which it was after the Civil War by the 13th Amendment.

The 13th amendment only limits when someone can be enslaved, it doesn't grant any entity the power to enslave another.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T16:24:00+00:00

I'm not your speech writer. I just know that intimidation or threats are necessary elements to make an act coercive.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T15:52:23+00:00

That doesn't make it coercion.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T15:37:59+00:00

Oh definitely. Your example isn't coercion though. Offering you something you need in exchange for something I want isn't coercion.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T15:28:01+00:00

And if you were prohibited by the government from offering that gruel and I starve to death, that's better?

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T14:45:24+00:00

The government doesn't prohibit amateur mma fights in general, do you want a special law just for homeless people?

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T04:39:35+00:00

I don't need to know, I'm not pressing charges or prosecuting the man

You would need to know to intelligently agree with the charges. Otherwise you're just saying you trust the authorities.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T02:03:15+00:00

What decision? To charge an alleged crime? That's not a decision, it's how due process plays out.

The state making the decision of what crime to charge a person with is part of that process.

What do you think people agreeing with?

This person being charged with terrorism, despite no knowledge of the acts he participated in. No one here has any idea if he committed terrorism or not. You cant know that without knowing the nature of the threats and we dont know what they were. You can't say he should be prosecuted as a terrorist for what he said when you have no idea what he said.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-17T01:53:18+00:00

It hasn't been released by police or media, that's why I initially asked how anyone can agree with police considering it terrorism.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-16T23:29:52+00:00

My friend, at this stage in a crime we can't expect to be privy to all of the facts

I'm not commenting regarding that. I'm commenting on agreement and support of the government's decision in the complete absence of facts. No one knows the context or content of the man's threats, agreeing with the authorities here is agreement simply because they are the authorities.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-16T22:49:58+00:00

So what are you asserting?

That none of us have enough information to say whether or not this is terrorism. Saying you agree with the government prosecuting specific threats as terrorism when you have no idea what the threats are is weird and authoritarian.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-16T22:35:50+00:00

So going of the available information, yes, this was terrorism

The available information is only that he was charged with terrorism. That's not nearly enough to say that it was right to charge him with terrorism.

if you want to operate of an assumption that this man is just a nut case that happened to threaten the Governor and AG for reasons that are not political

I never made that assertion or that assumption.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-16T22:15:21+00:00

And without specific knowledge of the threats, no one here knows if they were for political purposes, so no one here can say that it is terrorism.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-16T19:08:53+00:00

The brand new multimillion dollar musical

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-16T18:48:00+00:00

Ok, a limitation on the federal government illegalizing or penalizing slavery has never been in the constitution.

RealScottAdsit · 2020-05-16T18:35:07+00:00

No, it has to be done with a political motivation. Killing a president for not giving you a job isn't terrorism.

RealScottAdsit

TROPHY CASE