Remember the United States Supreme Court’s momentous 2018 decision on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission?
Probably not, huh? But what if I say “the gay wedding cake case”? Starting to ring a bell?
It probably will ring a bell for American libertarians in the crowd, as the issue of whether bakers should be forced to bake imaginatively decorated wedding cakes became an important wedge issue in the Libertarian Party’s 2016 presidential forum. (Yes, seriously.)
And if you caught my 2018 interview with Patrick MacFarlane about the case, you might also remember that the US Supreme Court’s ruling was far from decisive. In fact, it punted on the core issue: whether or not a Christian baker can be compelled to bake a cake against his deeply held religious belief. As we predicted in that conversation, the Masterpiece case may be over but this issue would rear its head in the courts again.
Well, guess what? It’s 2022, and gay wedding cakes are so last decade, grandpa. Now it’s all about gay website design and woke restaurants refusing service to Christian customers.
Are you ready to get to the heart of the matter? I thought so. Let’s go!
To access this week’s edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber (and to see this month’s Subscriber Exclusive Video), please sign in and continue reading below.
Not a Corbett Report member yet? Sign up to BECOME A MEMBER of the website and read the full newsletter or CLICK HERE to access the editorial for free.
| SUBSCRIBER EXCLUSIVE VIDEO
happy50! – Subscriber Exclusive #112 Merry Christmas, everybody! It’s December once again so, as my Christmas gift to all of you who make this website possible, I’m giving an insane 50% discount on all Corbett Report media products at the New World Next Week store! The discount code is happy50. Just enter that at checkout when you finish your shopping at NewWorldNextWeek.com! Watch the video in the player above or download the file directly. |
|
The Corbett Report Subscriber
|
vol 12 issue 34 (December 11, 2022)
|
|
by James Corbett THE BACKGROUND
For those who don’t know the saga of the gay wedding cake, it began when Charlie Craig and David Mullins decided to get married in 2012. Given that gay marriage was still not recognized in their home state of Colorado at the time, they planned to get married in Massachusetts and then return to Colorado for their wedding reception. Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to purchase a cake for their reception. That’s when the owner, Jack Phillips, informed them that he would not bake a cake for a gay wedding due to his Christian beliefs about marriage, but assured them he would sell them anything else in the store. Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled against Masterpiece, holding that the bakery would not only have to start baking gay wedding cakes, but that it would have to change its policies, provide “comprehensive staff training” regarding public accommodations discrimination and provide quarterly reports documenting their compliance with the order. The commission’s decision was upheld by the state appeals court, and the case was eventually appealed all the way to the US Supreme Court. As you’ll remember from Interview 1379 – Patrick MacFarlane on Liberty and the Law, the Supreme Court heard the case in 2018 and ruled for Masterpiece. Although Phillips “won” the case, the ruling was no great win for freedom of religion or free speech or against government encroachment on business or private property. Instead, the Supreme Court issued an extremely narrow decision on the basis that the Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of the case “was neither tolerant nor respectful of [Phillips’] religious beliefs” and thus invalid. In other words, the Supreme Court punted. What if the commission had been tolerant and respectful of Phillips’ beliefs but still ordered him to bake the cake? Did they have that right? The Supreme Court decision does raise the specter of the “significant” First Amendment issues involved in forcing someone to use their skills “to make an expressive statement” that “implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs,” but it did not adjudicate those issues. As MacFarlane and I discussed in our conversation about the ruling, the Supremes’ avoidance of the core issue underlying the Masterpiece case left the door wide open for future court battles on the subject. And now, in 2022, that’s exactly what is happening. THE LATEST
In recent weeks two more stories have appeared on the news radar, bringing the issue of when businesses can refuse service back into the public spotlight. In the first story, The Family Foundation—a “non-profit, non-partisan, faith-based organization” in Virginia that “advocate[s] for policies based on Biblical principles that enable families to flourish at the state and local level”—had a private room booked at Metzger Bar and Butchery on November 30 for a gathering of friends and supporters of the foundation. The meeting was booked weeks in advance, but the restaurant canceled the booking just hours before the event was to take place because—according to a post on the foundation’s blog—”an employee looked up our organization, and their wait staff refused to serve us.” The restaurant confirmed the story in an Instagram post, explaining: “Recently we refused service to a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia. We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision. Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community.” Rather than taking the issue to court, The Family Foundation has instead offered dialogue with the restaurant over the issue. “We would welcome an opportunity to have a discussion with them,” Todd Gathje, Director of Government Relations for the Family Foundation, told KTLA. “Meet with them in a private setting where [we] can have a heart-to-heart about some of the issues.” In the second story, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in the case of Lorie Smith, a website designer from Colorado who, in 2016, decided to start offering wedding announcement websites to her clientele. She wanted to limit her wedding announcement design services to opposite-sex marriages so, in an effort to avoid becoming the next Jack Phillips, she preemptively sued Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission to prevent them from applying the state’s anti-discrimination laws to her proposed business. The oral arguments quickly devolved into an exercise in speculation and even unhinged flights of fancy. Just as the Masterpiece cake case quickly became a case about convoluted hypotheticals—Must a Jew Bake a Nazi Cake? (inquiring minds want to know!)—the gay wedding website design case has become a case about everything except gay wedding website design. Can a website designer refuse to make interracial wedding websites? Can a shopping mall photography business that produces photos of children in “classic” Santa Claus scenes insist that it only photograph white children? Can a Jewish person demand a Jewish photographer take a photograph for his ashleymadison.com profile? Seriously. Check the links. I’m not making up this psychedelic smorgasbord of deranged imaginary situations. The Supreme Court “justices” presiding over the case are. But perhaps these zany hypotheticals are actually gesturing towards the bigger question here. After all, this isn’t really about cakes or websites or dinner parties at a restaurant, is it? This is about the fundamental question of when and how the government can step in and tell businesses who they must serve and under what conditions they must serve them. THE BIGGER PICTURE
There is, of course, an easily comprehensible, principled, internally consistent solution to the supposedly thorny legal questions raised by these various cases: business owners can serve anyone they want and refuse service to anyone they want. There, problem solved. As we all know, however, no one except the fringiest of the fringe wingnuts who actually believe in voluntaryism would even contemplate this solution. “People deciding for themselves what to do with their own property?” statists of all stripes exclaim in abject horror. “How absurd! You must be a racist sexist misogynistic homophobic bigot!” (Or, in the case of The Family Foundation supporters: “You must be an anti-Christian bigot!”) Sigh. Anyway, I know that 99% of the population (and even the vast majority of my own audience) believes that governments and courts should step in to mandate who can and cannot be refused service by any given business, but here’s why they’re wrong. A normie might argue that if we were to take this dangerous “freedom” idea to its logical conclusion, then we would have to repeal all the wonderful anti-discrimination laws on the books going back all the way to (GASP!) the civil rights act. And you wouldn’t be against the civil rights act, would you, you bigot? (*Rachel Maddow’s fake astonishment intensifies*) Well, firstly, if you live in a community where the only thing keeping shopkeepers from posting “No Blacks” signs on their front door is the civil rights act, then I think the problem lies at a level deeper than the legislative realm, doesn’t it? And if you wanted to solve that problem in a meaningful way, it would probably involve more than creating a new piece of legislation, wouldn’t it? Secondly, what does that magical piece of legislative paper actually do? Are we supposed to believe that politicians issuing another law will magically transform bigots into loving people? Or that politicians issuing another law will make discrimination actually disappear? Of course it won’t, which is exactly why the legislation’s defenders fear that society will instantly re-segregate as soon as these laws are rescinded. Thirdly, do defenders of this legislation realize its actual effect: supporting the business of the very people they claim to be opposing? If people like Craig and Mullins are opposed to people like Jack Phillips and their Christian beliefs, then why don’t they find a baker who wants to create gay wedding cakes and actively support that business? Why are they so desperate to give their money to Phillips in the first place? Fourthly, why do normies believe that the government will only ever legislate in line with their beliefs? The same power that they are willing to grant the governments to force Christians to bake gay wedding cakes is the same power that the government could use to ban bakers from baking gay wedding cakes. After all, aren’t these “bake the cake” authoritarians the very same people who have been warning us for the last five years that Orange Man Bad and his MAGA cult are going to institute concentration camps for transgenders and implement a Christian theocracy? So shouldn’t they be arguing against giving government the power to institute these types of laws? Rhetorical questions aside, I think we know what the real answer is here: power. A large swath of the public salivates at the idea of using the mighty stick of government to beat their opponents into submission. And not just to vanquish those opponents, but to humiliate them by forcing them to act in ways that violate their own beliefs. Imagine being like that. Imagine getting off on the idea of forcing someone you hate to serve you against their will. But it’s not just the normies who exhibit this lust for power or believe the lie that power of this sort is great as long as it’s used in the “right” way by the “right” people. Even conspiracy realists fall prey to this line of thinking. After all, it might be argued that if business owners were allowed the horrible freedom to decide what to do with their own property then they might use that power to discriminate against “conspiracy theorists” or “antivaxxers” or anyone else they choose and—*poof*—those people will be starved out of existence. But this, too, is a fallacy. The threat to our liberty comes not from individual business owners being able to decide who they do or don’t serve. The threat comes from government having the ability to set those criteria in the first place. As long as people are allowed the freedom to decide who they transact with and in what way, then those of us who value our freedom will be able to support each other as we work toward building our intentional communities. No, the algorithmic ghetto will not come about because individual business owners are choosing who to serve, but because we have ceded the power to make that choice to judges and politicians. And, as every conspiracy realist knows, those judges and politicians will inevitably be Young Global Leaders acting in service of the Great Reset agenda. The same power that you grant the government to ban QR codes and vaccine passports is the very same power that corrupt legislators will use to implement those QR codes and vaccine passports somewhere down the line. As I said, the principle is as simple as it is powerful: let people serve who they want. This is not rocket science. If we adhere to this simple principle, then we take away the ring of power from our erstwhile opponents. Never again will a Christian baker have to bake a gay wedding cake or a Jewish baker have to bake a Nazi cake or a flying purple monkey from the planet Zepton have to eat radishes on Tuesday in contravention of the devout religious beliefs of the Zeptonians. But most people can’t bear the thought of casting the ring of power into the fires of Mount Doom. After all, I could use that power to defeat my political opponents! . . . And so we go round and round in this carnival ride of laws and court rulings, constantly at each other’s throats over the “proper” way to force other people to do what they don’t want to do. And once again we arrive at the conclusion that freedom is the answer, whatever the question. The problem is convincing the general public of that (let alone the Supreme Court justices). |
Recommended Listening and Viewing
Recommended ReadingVanguard Quits Net-Zero Climate Group WHO Member States agree to develop zero draft of legally binding pandemic accord in early 2023 Recommended ListeningThe Worst of All Worlds podcast Recommended ViewingJames Corbett & Archie Melkonyan. Brainwash, Flat Earth Psyop, Climate Hoax, Much More James Corbett Talks 9/11 Truth, Satanic Death Cult, Anarchism, and Eugenics | Freedom from Rulers #4 Just For Fun#PumpUpThaVolume: December 8, 2022 ♬ Throwback Thursday featuring Oscar Peterson – “On a Clear Day” live in Zurich in 1971! |
| SUBSCRIBER DISCOUNTS
Merry Christmas, everybody! Until December 25th, use the coupon code happy50 at checkout when you purchase any Corbett Report media from the New World Next Week shop to receive a 50% discount! |
Exactly. Very well-said. I have been saying this type of thing for a long time.
If a business refused to serve blacks because of the shade of their skin, I would avoid their shop.
I am very allergic to cigarette smoke, but when New Hampshire was considering a law banning smoking in restaurants, I was opposed to it. The owners should be able to make that decision themselves, and customers would decide whether or not to go there.
People should be able to make their own decisions about who they will associate with and that goes both ways – owners and customers.
Note: I refuse to use the good word and name “Gay” to refer to homosexual people. Our family had a friend named Gay, and even today, there is a local business owned by a family with the last name Gay. Their name is on their business vans. I refuse to perpetuate the misuse of the word.
I agree with the basic principle stated in this article, but to most of us who have read this, do we not loathe the store owners who turn us away for not wearing a mask in their store? I have heard many people on the side of medical freedom stating that masks should not be required for shopping in stores, and while I certainly don’t want to have to wear one to shop anywhere, I think the store owner again has the right to decide for their store who shops there – mask or not. It’s a tough one for me, and I’ve thought about this issue a lot since the COVID scam era began. I guess I take this article as informing us on how best to pick our battles. Instead of trying to tell others how to run their shops (“You can’t discriminate against me just because you’re afraid of a made-up virus!”) perhaps we could better focus our energy and attention on creating better alternatives where we run our own markets.
andre1
‘…. perhaps we could better focus our energy and attention on creating better alternatives where we run our own markets….’
Yes, but you will need to be able to exclude people that YOU do not want.
That is why they want laws to FORCE you trade with them, so they can come in and mess up your thing.
The problem with TOO MUCH liberation thinking is that you can not run any parallel society or economy or whatever UNLESS you can exclude people you don’t like.
Is that the problem with an open system like Bitcoin? Anyone can buy as much of it as they want?
nosoapradio
“…Is that the problem with an open system like Bitcoin? …”
The problem with any “open” society where people are free to do as they wish is that they are thus free to get together and conspire against everyone else. I do not know the specifics of Bitcoin, but its open to misuse- just like any Fiat currency that is printed by people other the you and your own little gang.
I think Mr Corbett said one time, discussing Bilderberg, that in an Anarchist world people would still be free to go to Bildeberg. I THINK (not sure) that I heard Adam Smith the economist wrote that the first thing Tradesmen and merchants do when they get together so they can jack up prices on the public. Soros and Gates and their ilk would still have massive power thru their wealth even if there was no government to subvert.
I agree, if you want follow through the voluntarist position based on natural law – as I do – then you may have to accept a store owner declining you access because you’re not wearing a mask with good grace. If, on the other hand, you are being refused service to a public service by a hapless functionary, who is simply ‘following orders’, and their action is causing direct harm to you – masks make you ill and there’s no other hospital for miles – then you can justifiably serve them notice for a demonstrable harm – but not for discrimination.
Yeah, I was thinking back to how difficult if not impossible it was to just get basic supplies without wearing a mask. Never mind a wedding cake….oh that’s right….weddings were verboten.
Utter the magic words and go anywhere unchallenged.
“MEDICAL EXEMPTION”
There’s a difference between individual store owners rejecting maskless people and the government requiring that all store owners reject maskless people. Without blanket gov mandates, a selection process will enable people to choose which stores to patronize and which to avoid.
lekt
“…I never understood what the big deal was….”
Its about destroying the ability of people to act in accord with ANY VALUE SYSTEM OTHER THEN ELITE DICTATES. Its also about humiliation of political enemies (though TBH the Religious Right was, I think, always controlled opposition)
If you were the judge deciding the case then you would have had years being groomed into the system and would derive your INCOME from the practice of law. 😉 You see why they dont throw it out now?
ALL civil rights legislation was created as a political weapon, that woman in the Scotsbro Boys case, whos name escapes me, showed up in court with an expensive jacket given her by Rockerfellars church pastor. Those kinda folks dont waste money or time.
The people who funded Civil Rights in the South did not care about blacks, or how they were treated…. the Jewish folks who set up the NAACP viciously destroyed black activists and leaders who would not go along the the desegregation program. For a long time pure blooded blacks were ABSENT from the NAACP offices.
(see Vol 2 Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, by Dr EM Jones)
Civil Rights was about destroying the political and cultural bloc of the ‘South’, just as integration in the NORTH was about destroying Catholic political power by driving them into the the Suburbs where they have become “white people” (see Dr EM Jones again, and Pete Quinones show had a reading with commentary of “Race War in Highschool’ that ended about epp 810)
The jews and Elites funding the LGBTQP agenda (See Transgender Industrial Complex, Scott howard) will be quite happy to throw all those groups into the furnace when it suits them to do so.
>….But most people can’t bear the thought of casting the ring of power into the fires of Mount Doom. After all, I could use that power to defeat my political opponents!
. . . And so we go round and round in this carnival ride of laws and court rulings, constantly at each other’s throats over the “proper” way to force other people to do what they don’t want to do………..”
The issue is that Power is not going away.
You can not kill off all the Normies, and the Normies want ‘someone’ to protect them and (if possible) give them free stuff.
Normies will ALWAYS want someone to protect and lead them. They will always gang up and give power to the person that gives them what they want.
You can not expect anything better when you consider that a huge chunk of people are “functionally illiterate” and masses of Millennials and Zoomers are lazy, ill educated AND mentally ill.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/57772532-the-dumbest-generation-grows-up
Freedom is ONLY the answer for people who are not mentally enslaved by the system.
I agree that all anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary at best and pernicious at worst. Only if a business owner declining to provide a service to someone RESULTS IN HARM to that individual might the latter legitimately make a claim against the former. For example, if a gay couple ended up being caught in weather in the middle of nowhere and needing a bed for then night, and the owner of the only bed & breakfast for miles around declined to provide them with a bed, and there was no plausible way of them finding alternative accommodation, the gay couple could sue not because they were discriminated against but because they physically suffered as a result. Presumably there would be some established binding precedent along the lines of GBH by omission, or some such.
Tobias
“…Only if a business owner declining to provide a service to someone RESULTS IN HARM to that individual might the latter legitimately make a claim against the former.,,,”
THAT is the claim…that it harms the homosexual in the case of cakes, that it harms the black person in case of school segregation, and that it harms the Tranny when you CALL him disgusting.
The use of “harm avoidance” (see “The Rightious mind” by Johnanthan Hadit) is a TRICK. Its just word play to hurt you, and you have no obligation to play along.
“….(COULD SUE)…. because they physically suffered as a result…….”
In your example the sodomites have a CLAIM on the property of a stranger because they will ‘get wet’ otherwise….. thats like saying that a drug addict has a claim on my 20 dollar bill because he will get withdrawal if he cant buy drugs.
Some Millennials and Zoomers THINK THIS IS THE CASE. They are that far gone.
However, why do I personally have an obligation to help the druggie or the wet sodomites?
Why should I send my kids to an inferior and more dangerous school to help inner city black kids get a better education?
Why should I get a vax shot ‘so grandma wont die’?
🙂 I had that discussion IRL with someone and said I hoped all the old people dropped dead and saved me tax money on their pensions….hahahaha, I dont really want anyone to die but reaction was hilarious.
Seriously, even if we do have responsibilities to other people the “You must do X for the sake of ‘harm avoidance'” should be rejected with a disgusted sneer.
I don’t see a correlation between my example and the one of the drug addict because it is not the couple’s sexual relationship that has led them to be at risk of exposure (say, because their car has broken down). A person’s choice of sexual partner has no bearing on their right not to be deprived of shelter.
For me it’s important that we agree on foundational truths to the voluntarist approach. We could start with the following principles:
All men are created equal
(So no individual has the right to coerce another)
An individual can only make a claim against another if there is evidence of demonstrable harm.
The world is abundant and all people should have access to its ‘fruits’. So an individual has the right to the enjoyment of his own property until such a time as that enjoyment deprives another of his ability to survive.
Having to go to another cake shop is not a harm.
Not letting someone into your house if they will otherwise die of exposure is a harm by omission, possibly manslaughter.
Tobias
It is good that you are examining the details, you will see that you can NOT be both a Voluntarist and also lay claim to the work and property of others.
“.. has no bearing on their right not to be deprived of shelter…”
You can only DEPRIVE a person of shelter IF THEY HAVE IT.
In the example you give a person WANTS shelter that someone ELSE possesses. By what right do they take what others build or own?
Do you not believe in Private property?? 🙂
Seriously… yo are saying that Person A has a RIGHT to enjoy the property of Person B. That means that person A may TAKE what person B has even if person B does not wish to give it. That would put you in the camp of those who want some form of coercive government.
“…Not letting someone into your house if they will otherwise die of exposure is a harm by omission, possibly manslaughter….”
NOT if you are a Voluntarist!!!!
If I do not want you in my house (or my life boat out on the ocean) then if the Voluntarist philosophy is true then by what right do you demand I let you in?
If a person in Africa is dying am I guilty of murder if I say “FK them” ??? Do I need to let some Refugees into my spare bed room? LOLOLOL…. 🙂 Must I pay Tax at gunpoint so others may get free stuff they need????
You must choose Voluntarism OR you must choose duty (and coercion to enforce that duty)
Getting a vax doesn’t help grandma actually. This as I’m sure you’re well aware is based on lies. Vaccines don’t stop spread of disease.
I also think that most businesses wouldn’t deny a service that was life saving. Not here in the US anyway, though those are legally enforced, like EMTALA that requires every person who comes into an emergency room get treatment even if they can’t pay.
Would hospitals do this if there were no laws? I’m not sure. I would certainly hope no medical provider would refuse service to a dying person.
What I’ve noticed though is that there are a lot of kind and generous people in the general population who actually do have consciences so some of these examples are I think not based in reality.
Some of these types of things are just commons sense that depend on nuance of the situation and communication between parties. I’ve given a homeless person a sandwich and a blanket before but I’m not going to invite them home.
There are lots of private organizations, even affiliated with churches who help homeless people and others. I doubt you’ll be asked to do so.
My main point was that some of these examples really depend a lot on individual situation and circumstance and I do think that voluntarism would not mean that people would start depriving people of necessary things. Most people have empathy at least in day to day interactions based on my experience. I’m referring to the US.
Agree. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
It all sounds very ‘Atlas Shrugged’
I wish JC had done a dive into that tome – if only there were some .gov diktat that could force him to
Oh yes, I get daily Atlas Shrugged flashbacks.
James, you make some good points that in an ideal world could actually work- for a time. The problem is weakness of human nature which is demonstrated in the very first example you present through the gay wedding cake story. Interestingly, the solution is there too.
The break down was not when Craig and Mullins decided to file a complaint after their service was denied. No, it happened when Jack Phillips did not follow his own law. If instead, as a self-described Christian or “Christ Follower” he actually followed Christ, he would have gladly and lovingly served his customers without judgement. Maybe the positive experience that Craig and Mullins received would have been an inspiration to pass along to others that they encountered.
If we can’t rely on individuals to respect their own voluntarily adopted standards, as was the case with Phillips, doesn’t it make sense that if one wants to be a member of a community, reasonable guidelines are established and observed? Instead of a cake, what if a business denied lifesaving treatment based on bias? Businesses have not become more accessible to handicapped individuals because they found it to be more profitable or they actually care.
Jesus Christ, by word and action, constantly promoted the idea of the “law” being written on our hearts and minds” 2 Corinthians 3.But he also recognized the weakness of the individual and respect collective law, as outlined in Romans 12 and 13. Yes, law can be corrupted and hypocritical as when Jesus condemned the leadership as a “brood of vipers”. And. By the way, contrary to what some interpret, Romans 13 does not say that because an individual is in power, his authority is not from God.
And one more thing. Yes, Orangeman is bad. He is a prime example of power gone wild and why some laws have to be.
Jim
At the very least, your example about “if a business denied lifesaving treatment based on bias” shines a light onto how bad of an idea it is to depend on profit-oriented and/or centralized medical care options.
If I have been struck by a car and am going to die without the attention of an allopathic MD in a hospital’s (or clinic’s) trauma center, and they refuse me care because I will not put synthetic mRNA genetic goo into my body or will not wear a mask (or for any other reason) than I say that in that situation God has decided it is my time to leave this body. We all have a time in which we have agreed to leave the Earth, who am I to try and stand in the way of God’s will by clinging to petty, flimsy, flavor of the week manipulated human laws (which I would hope could be used to coerce some other human to heal my body under threat of theft of their money or kidnapping them and putting them in a cold dark place by armed goons)?
Our dependence on hyper-centralized systems (whether they be medical, food, energy, telecommunications or systems of involuntary governance that claim to have a monopoly on violent force/coercion) has got us to where we are now. We do not need re-forms, ‘swamp-drainings’ or doubling down on our dependence on such systems, in fact attempting to give our energy to any of those paths right now is not only an exercise in futility, it is a sure path to increased levels of systemic fragility for our civilization and perpetual mental, physical and psychological slavery.
Jesus wanted us to look within, nurture a connection with the divine through prayer, treating others how we want to be treated and choosing to govern our own hearts, minds and actions. Call these “laws”, or call them “principals” or call them an ethical compass, but they are internal mechanisms for self-governance. Thus, I propose that he was embodying and suggesting one viable pathway towards providing people a framework to build a foundation (internally) so that our human family would be capable of living by the same principals and concepts that are now described as voluntaryism.
Where in scripture does it say all this? Which version of the Bible are you reading?
When it comes to how Jesus embodied and walked one viable pathway to make a voluntaryist society possible, that can be easily observed in how he lived (regardless of what version of the bible or version of historical accounts you are talking about). As far as I have seen, they all describe him going out of his way to show compassion to those that are suffering, to share what little he had (materially) with anyone in need, feed the starving, heal the sick and share words of honesty, encouragement and hope with all he crossed paths with. He chose to be of service to God and his fellow man by living by example, by practicing self-governance (following the ‘laws’ or ethical principals he looked inward to receive from God) and encouraged others to do the same.
Jesus was once asked when the kingdom of God would come. The kingdom of God, Jesus replied, is not something people will be able to see and point to. Then came these striking words: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21) With these words, Jesus gave voice to a teaching that is universal and timeless.
Look into every great religious, spiritual, and wisdom tradition, and we find the same precept — that life’s ultimate truth, its ultimate path to know the divine, is found within us.
This inner pathway to know and connect with the divine and one’s soul has had many names.
While I personally prefer to chart my own path inward (without the baggage of adhering to religious dogma and the often duplicitous intentions of those running religious institutions) I do still respect and learn much from the teachings of various religions. Thus, I look to the life of Jesus, Buddha (and other spiritual teachers) that lived by example in showing us how we can create a civilization and future comprised of self-governed individuals that have cultivated an awareness of their eternal Self (soul) and cultivated a direct relationship with God (which inevitably results in an activation of what one might call an ‘internal moral compass’).
Once enough people do that, involuntary government structures would be seen clearly for what they are, an unnecessary and abhorrent violation of human dignity.
There is no elected official, institution, politician, guru, priest, revolutionary, savior or any other external force or individual who can do this work for us. Engaging in life on Earth is a voluntary journey that each of us chose willingly. The Creator of all things respects our choice to be here and our free will. We did not come here to see a dramatic dualistic showdown happen and applaud the ‘good guy’ for vanquishing the bad guy (from a distance as a spectator). No, each and every one of us (whether we are currently consciously aware of this fact or not) came here to co-author the story. That means no-one else is going to do the hard work for us (not a savior, rebel leader nor a politician) we came here to do that work of transforming this world ourselves.
Hi Gavinm, Thanks for the extensive response.
Firstly, I hope you agree that context is important. I myself followed a similar doctrine to you and I still agree with a good deal of what you say here. But alas, much I disagree with wholeheartedly.
The problem I found that I was guilty of is that I was taking scripture to fit my worldview rather than reading scripture to help inform my worldview. Here is a really good short podcast about this very issue which explains it better than I can here. https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/simply-put/exegesis-and-eisegesis
I used to rail against Christianity pointing at all its ills as proof the Word of God must be wrong because of all the bad done its name. I agree the institutions made in Christ’s name are shrouded in their own dogma that they could not recognise Messiah were he to come back in the same form he did 2000 years ago. They would be too affronted at losing their power and status. In this respect little has changed over 2 millennia.
Versions of the Bible do matter. Many versions of the Bible suffer from eisegesis. The best versions of the Bible are as close to the earliest available Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts. Accurate renderings of what was said, when and to whom.
Your quote from Luke is not in context. Yeshua was responding to the Pharisees, the leaders of the Temple in Jerusalem at the time, who had already rejected him as the Messiah in favour of their interpretation of the Law. Not the Law given to Moses by God, but their oral tradition originally designed to protect Mosaic Law but in fact raising their extraneous interpretations above God’s Law. You have also misquoted what Yeshua said. He said in response to the Pharisees question:
“The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
He was talking about Himself. He was telling the blind authorities of man that they seek something that they are unable to see because they are blinded by their own vanities. He was not trying to persuade them to change their minds. They had already rejected Him claiming He was the servant of Beelzebub. He was teaching His disciples who were under His tuition.
I thought I knew the Bible and could air my opinion about it. Fact was, I had never read it. When I had tried to read it I did so with cynicism to prove those who I despised wrong and soon grew bored. When I finally came to read it with an open mind and an open heart I had to eat a whole lot of humble pie. I also had to learn about what I was reading because (as I hope we do agree) context is everything.
[SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]
Context is important yes, so lets keep in mind that you are attempting to convince me that your contextual perspective on the words found in the bible (or rather one version of it) is ‘more accurate’ or ‘more true’ because what, a pod cast? or a consensus of “experts”? Whether you want to say that the verse in question (which has been translated through at the very least several people speaking at least 2 different languages) is supposed to say “within you” or “in the midst of you” we are still left with how one decides to interpret those words. You can tell me that your way of interpreting those words is ‘more true’ because this person or that person says so, but in the end, neither of us were there when Jesus said what he said, so each of us is extrapolating and speculating as to what he meant exactly.
I suppose at the end of the day, I would say the value of and potential of a belief system (or perhaps its ‘practical relevance’ to be a force for good) can be measured by how it influences individuals to see their fellow beings and what it motivates people to do. In other words, the proof is in the pudding.
I outlined the message that I got out of reading his words above. The impetus that perspective provides in my life is one that compels me to see that God provides us myriad solutions, meaningful guidance and supports those engaging in work that is life affirming, work that involves protecting, revering, honoring and learning from his very first temple upon the Earth, the forest (and the other intact ecosystems that were created to be part of this world long before any manmade structures were created). That perspective drives me to push my self out of my comfort zone to learn new skills that can serve the communities I am a part of (both human and non-human communities), it compels me to stand up and fully utilize the sacred gifts I was given to engage in the process of making this world a more beautiful and free world for those that will call this place home after I am gone.
What does the way you see the words written in the bible motivate you to do? What, if you could boil it all down to a paragraph, is the message you feel the bible is telling you?
thanks for the comment and for sharing your thoughts.
I did actually write a couple of other paragraphs that further contextualised what I was saying. But Corbett in his infinite wisdom snipped the comment, much as he did yours.
No not from a podcast. From a lot of study. Rather than trying to apply my worldview to an old and culturally diverse document. I spent a good deal of time and effort trying to understand it in its proper context.
I can’t be bothered to try to explain again, Corbett will no doubt edit it, which will remove the context again. I have no cause to play along with your solipsistic worldview.
Your doctrine is just as strong as mine. You’re trying to make your worldview take precedence over something people have spent entire lifetimes studying. The fact you think the Bible can or should be boiled down into a nifty little sound bite speaks volumes.
“solipsistic”? Really? I have been called a great many things (from “new-age”, to “woo-woo” to “anti-science” etc) but that’s a new one, thanks for that 🙂
It is fascinating you would accuse me of “extreme egocentrism” when my worldview, approach to life, learning and self-betterment is one that involves seeing our fellow non-human beings (in nature on Earth) as wise teachers, each offering their own unique gifts, each distinct and worthy of reverence, and an acknowledgment that humans (including me of course) are one of the least advanced species on Earth. I have also made it adamantly clear that I acknowledge the existence of a Creator being (that is a distinct entity existing outside of time and space, yet which imbues each conscious entity in this universe with a conscious spirit through an act of love) a Creator that enables all that I am, that I do my best to live in service of and actively seek to find ways to connect with. Yet, you accuse me of Solipsism, very fascinating indeed.
People spending lifetimes studying something is not a measure of how practically applicable that thing is for motivating people to take action to create a better future themselves and generations yet unborn.
If summarizing the general message you feel the bible is giving you is upsetting, i`ll provide a summary of the general attitude and sentiments I have gotten from others that seem to have similar views of the bible to you.
To them, the bible is a story about good guys and bad guys (and they are of course one of the ‘good guys’). In the story they perceive they have (and will have) a similar role to a spectator watching a sporting event. The story tells them all they have to do is sit around and pledge loyalty to the “good guys” and one day their champion will appear and make the bad guys go away and give them a ticket to a fancy four season resort in the clouds. They feel no need to take action to make the world better in the here and now, after all, why bother when ‘judgement day’ is coming and the bad guys will be held accountable then? Why bother doing the hard work when someone else is going to do it for us? After all, all they have to do is tell a priest they are sorry for their ‘sins’ and that means they are one of the good guys and will get a nice vacation. So in essence, they have been told a story that they are on the winning side, and they can just sit back and enjoy the show, sound familiar?
If the stories we have been told (and/or the stories we tell ourselves) promote stagnation, I would suggest that if we want to have a world worth living in and gifting to future generations, we should begin telling new stories about what it means to be human and what the meaning of all this is.
You assume a good deal! Little point in correcting you on any of it, because as you have demonstrated, you will only read into it what you want to and dismiss the rest on the basis “It’s all down to personal interpretation”. The very definition of solipsistic.
I never really knew the definition of that word. Thanks for spurring me to look it up.
solipsistic
adjective SOCIAL SCIENCE, PSYCHOLOGY formal or specialized
UK /ˌsɒl.ɪpˈsɪs.tɪk/ US /ˌsɑː.lɪpˈsɪs.tɪk/
relating to or characteristic of solipsism (= the belief that only your own experiences and existence can be known or are important):
I described a prevailing attitude I have encountered when dealing with people that use bible verses as a means to justify inaction, ‘spectator sport lifestyles’ and outsourcing their own sovereignty and ability to be a force for positive change on Earth to institutions and mystical savior figures.. if you do not have that attitude, ok, again can you please explain to me what message (make it several paragraphs if you prefer that to one) do you feel the bible is telling you? What does your interpretation of it motivate you do to with your life?
Steve likes to say I am part of “the church of photosynthesis for the soul”, you like to say I am “solipsistic”… whether or not those (intentionally derogatory) labels have any basis in the reality is really irrelevant, because as I said above, the proof is in the pudding.
I will let my actions speak louder than my words and strive to be of service to God and my fellow beings in the communities I am a part of. I will not squander the gift that is this life on waiting for others to do the work for me. Call that what ever you want, it is the path I have chosen in this life, and I feel grateful to God that I have been given this body and this life so that I am in a position to walk it.
“I acknowledge the existence of a Creator being (that is a distinct entity existing outside of time and space, yet which imbues each conscious entity in this universe with a conscious spirit through an act of love) a Creator that enables all that I am, that I do my best to live in service of and actively seek to find ways to connect with.”
Hi Gavin, I agree with what you wrote here. But God is so much more than that.
Agreed, Jesus is the man who helped everyone who came to Him believing that He could and even would help them. Even the poor Samaritan woman who had to liken herself to a dog begging for scraps.
But the Bible clearly and emphatically teaches that He is the same God that utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their immorality.
Same God different context. He didn’t change. Hard to wrap one’s head around sometimes.
“People spending lifetimes studying something is not a measure of how practically applicable that thing is for motivating people to take action to create a better future themselves and generations yet unborn.”
I’m not sure about that but I’m pretty sure that studying something for a lifetime can certainly make someone well acquainted with their subject. And the Word of God is certainly a subject worthy of devotion a lifetime of study to.
“the church of photosynthesis for the soul” Hey, ? You came up with that. I just said it had a nice ring to it.
@Steve
Retribution, ‘Punishing’ people or other beings we do not like or disagree with, using fear and/or violence as a weapon to dominate others… these are not attributes of Creator, these are attributes of humans being driven by their earthly ego (rather than their eternal spirit). Ambitious duplicitous, and sometimes just delusional individuals looking to control others or anthropomorphize the Creator of all things have warped the words of great spiritual teachers and used religious institutions to push these distorted ideas about the Creator, but they have no basis in reality. Such fallacious ideas amount to nothing more than a projection of humanity’s ugly side onto a being that is so far beyond anything human. There is a part of us that finds satisfaction when those that we do not like or perceive as “bad” are punished and made to suffer, so the idea of a powerful Creator being engaging in that kind of behavior appeals to that subconscious part of our mind. In the end though, there is no lasting solution found in punishing, violence, destruction or inflicting suffering on others, and these are not behaviors that the Creator of all things engages in either, thus I would suggest we re-direct our energy and attention to actual viable solutions and take action to apply them in our lives, rather than hoping for someone with a bigger stick than we hold to beat down the people we don’t like.
Photosynthesis of the Soul is the name of a poem I wrote ( https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/photosynthesis-of-the-soul ) but applying the word “church” is something you did (and as you know, it is the part I find to be derogatory, as I have found that dogmatic religious institutions have done, and continue to do much damage on the Earth).
Thank you for saying the name of my poem has a nice ring to it, but I have no interest in churches or any other aspect of dogmatic religious belief systems. The teachings of the individuals said institutions claim to be based upon often offer valuable insights that I do value, but the dogma that has built up around those teachings (invented by other humans) is not something I am interested in being involved with.
As I said, if you decide to label me with various terms you feel like throwing at me, that is your prerogative, but those terms will likely say more about what is going on inside of you, than who I am or what I am about.
If I were to describe (not label) you based on what I know of you, I would say that you are a very good, intelligent and empathetic person. I am interested and find a lot of wisdom in much of what you say.
I enjoy thinking about the things that interest me and conversing with others about them. Especially those who express different opinions than mine in good natured discussion.
You seem to have characterized me based on people in your life that identified themselves as “Christians” because of what I’ve said about my personal faith and the regard in which I hold the Bible.
In fairness, you shouldn’t judge me based on what you think “Christians” are any more than you should judge me based on what you think Floridians are. Or people from the U.S.. or People from earth even! ?
I suppose that I do call myself a Christian because I can’t think of a better word. But that certainly doesn’t make me a clone of everyone else who also uses it. Just like I have next to nothing in common with most other humans except for physiology.
It is obvious to me that you are a man of strong moral convictions. Someone who walks the walk and goes against the downward plunging flow. I admire that greatly.
But don’t think that you’re alone. I think that we share a strong sense of responsibility for taking care of our environment. And probably much more besides.
You might be surprised to learn that virtually everything that has grown on property that I’ve lived on for well over a decade has been returned to the soil that it came from. Many of the practices that I employ would certainly be considered fanatical by most folks. It would take paragraphs to describe all the things I’m doing on my little chunk of dirt.
You might also be surprised that there is little chance that I will ever darken the doorway of a church building again in my life.
Should you be interested, here’s an old thread that will will give you an idea of how I feel about my fellow man. https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f129/pitch-in-and-help-86177-7.html
I’m far from perfect, downright socially inept truth be told. But I don’t judge people based on anything but their actions. I’m honest about the things I believe and that is usually sufficient to drive most folks away.
But in truth, I don’t make much distinction between talking to people about my philosophical beliefs about liberty and self ownership and talking about my faith in God. I guess thats my downfall.
I won’t bring up anything theological with you in reaction to your posts if that is something that will help assure you that I’m not who you think I am. But just know that because we certainly differ on our relationships with God. That doesn’t mean that we can’t be friends.
(After all, Jesus hung out with tax collectors and sinners.) ? Kidding! I’m just kidding! ?
@Steve
Thank you for the candid, cordial and thoughtful comments.
While I do not judge all people that describe themselves as “Christain” in a negative way in my conscious thoughts, I acknowledge that there are moments when I succumb to the fleeting reactive and generalizing thoughts that arise from my ego and past trauma (and I allow that to color my perception and way of interacting with specific people). I apologize if my words came off as judging you in a negative way based upon your characterizing yourself as Christain (and/or your strong feelings about the bible) that was not my intent.
I am always looking to improve my ability to stay centered in my recognition of the eternal spark (spirit) that dwells in each and every being (that was gifted to us by Creator) when I speak to and interact with others (rather than allow my human brain and past experiences to blur the lens of my perception) but I often find myself thinking “all you damn earthlings are the same!” jk 😉 🙂 but seriously, living from moment to moment (and communicating from the knowing of) consciously recognizing the divine that dwells in each and every person is a work in progress for me. So thanks for serving as a mirror for me in this way and helping me hone that perpetual process of self-improvement.
I am not surprised to hear that you give back to the living Earth but it makes my heart glad to read that you do (and for you to share that with any others reading this) 🙂
I see the act of composting like contributing towards the fabric of an ancient living decentralized economic model. We invest our time and materials, and the ‘asset managers’ and ‘investment strategy team’ (comprised of myriad bacteria, fungi and decomposing insects) invest molecules of biological currency for us, storing those units of currency in the form of fertile soil. We can then withdraw from our account through using the ‘key code’ that is embodied in a living heirloom seed we plant in that soil (which unlocks it’s potential and deposits our savings to us in the form of life giving food, medicine, oxygen and poetry for the senses). I am so glad to hear you have a long term account with that living economy Steve 🙂
Please do not censor yourself (regarding theology or your views of God, the Bible or Jesus etc) on my account. If being exposed to some other perspective than my own is something that upsets me or provokes a strong reaction, that is my issue, not yours, and it is telling that I must need to do some work internally (and/or that my confidence on my current position on that subject matter is weak). In any, case, you do you Steve, God made us all unique in the lenses we see through to perceive this world and each other for a reason.
[SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]
@Steve
When I reach out with my modes of perception that go beyond the 5 senses, I get the sense that Jesus was a mostly peaceful, always courageous, extremely insightful, deeply loving, absolutely selfless man that did have a bit of a temper. One of the few instances where I think he expressed that temper (outside the circle of those closest to him) was when he started flipping the tables of the money changers over in that temple. I think that he clearly saw (and God provided him with a comprehensive understanding of) how those that control the source of money would become a terrible oppressive force on Earth (spreading depravity, suffering, “sin” and godlessness where ever their influence spreads) and so he reacted quite strongly to seeing them parasitically feeding on the people in those times and was not able to hold back the emotion it invoked in him in that instance.
Thanks again for the comments, wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas.
“Jesus was a mostly peaceful, always courageous, extremely insightful, deeply loving, absolutely selfless man that did have a bit of a temper.“
I think that He got kinda frustrated and irritable sometimes too. Poor fig tree.
@Steve
(ps – I replied to your longer comments with a long comment of my own but it is labeled as “awaiting moderation” right now)
I agree that Christian legalism and/or judgmentalism is not good, but being forced by laws to sell to anyone is a different subject. I don’t think James was writing about doctrine or Christianity. Christians should be bound by their allegiance to Christ and by conscience. We should serve God first and man second. This guy evidently thought it was wrong to bake the cake. That’s his conscience.
jeb
To be honest Theology has little to do with the principles of Mr Corbetts argunent against compulsion… but
“…If instead, as a self-described Christian or “Christ Follower” he actually followed Christ, he would have gladly and lovingly served his customers without judgement….”
makes me wonder- would you argue that a Christian Doctor ought to perform Abortions if they consider that to be murder?
Would you argue that a Christian ought to make no judgment on a Pedophile who came to buy kidde porn and KY jelly?
Would you argue that a Christian doing military service in lower ranks ought to kill civilians if he is told to?
Sorry, but that line of argument that Christians ought to be rather politically passive (while it DOES have some merit) has been much abused by people who want to bring in their own, to my mind evil, Morality.
As to “orange man” , if your talking about Trump, you should consider that his political outlook and his actions in office were LESS RIGHT WING then Bill Clinton.
He was ineffectual and powerless, an example of stupidity and weakness rather then “power gone mad”
lanloa
“….I’ve always thought that something as evil as slavery would have been nonexistent in Christian lands 600 years after the death of Christ if people had truly embraced Christianity (to say nothing of rape, theft, murder, incest and every other form of evil)….”
You have a very incorrect view of human nature, Christianity and History if you think that.
1) The Bible is NOT ANTI SLAVERY, despite later Protestant groups agitating the USA into a Civil war on the issue and using scripture (wrongly) as their main argument.
2) Slavery existed BEFORE Christianity, and it still exists today. The only religion (that I know of) that agitated politically against slavery (to the point of war) was the Christian Abolitionist sects. The end of all the evils you list will only happen AFTER the return of Jesus, the lie that humans can totally eliminate such evils is just a jewish take that has bled into some churches and into Socialism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam
“…… People would have lived communally, helping and caring for one another…..”
THAT is a pernicious propaganda myth, since if you look at the New Testament you will see that Communal Living was only in the very earliest stages before the first persecution by the Jews.
The letters of the New Testament are pretty clear that people were expected to work and support themselves, care for their families and help community members IN DISTRESS THRU NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. Young Widows and the idle are SPECIFICALLY excluded from being kept at Christian Community expense.
The Lie of Christian socialism was useful to social engineers, and if i recall right it was a big part of de-railing the mainline churches back at the turn of the last century.
The Rockerfellers put big money into that, which is why you now have so many Rainbow and BLM political groups wearing the skin of dead churches.
Thank you for the excellent article James.
I was likely late to join the party compared to many here (as I only began to start seeing through the deep conditioning of statist propaganda around 2010) but I am grateful to be able to see involuntary governance systems for what they really are now.
Your concise examples and unapologetic embodiment of “radical authenticity” in speaking about statism inspires me to not only speak more openly about alternatives, but to embody the exact opposite of the groveling, sideline cheering, excuse making and scapegoating statists and plant the seeds for voluntaryism to set down roots in minds, hearts and communities.
JC: “I know that 99% of the population (and even the vast majority of my own audience) believes that governments and courts should step in to mandate who can and cannot be refused service by any given business”
I agree that James’ estimate of the general population’s mindset might be in the right ballpark (even though I rather think it’s between 95 and 99% of people) – but why James thinks that the majority of people in his audience believes that is beyond me. Not sure if that’s true. I for one agree with James’ (the voluntaryist side) and from the comments I gather that maybe more people here do than James thinks. Good article!
I don’t know about a vast majority but I have come across a few people that are holding onto the hope that some big brother figure is going to protect them and make the meanies go away in the comment section of threads on here. Perhaps there are many more statists (which subscribe to the Corbett Report) than are represented by the amount of statist comments (as many of them choose to stay silent publically but write James privately arguing for the necessity of armed thugs forcing people to do things they do not want to)?
I dunno, perhaps your right and/or there is a turning tide happening where many former statists are now deciding to remove their mental shackles and embrace their sovereign responsibility to become a force for good and taking action with applying solutions (rather than just cheering for some ‘leader’/’savior’ figure that who is supposed to swoop in and fix everything).
Either way, I am grateful to see so many see through the programming here. Hopefully many will decisively (and peacefully) act upon this knowing of the immorality of government and embody the change they wish to see in the world in each of their communities.
I think that a survey would be a better way to “know” what people think about the issue. ‘
But, in JC’s own audience though. Not sure about that.
Even in the general population, people break the law all the time. So can people think that things should be mandated and also violate the mandate? Maybe people just haven’t really considered all of the implications.
I think a survey like that would be a cool idea (and surveys on other pertinent subject matter posed to this community too).
Ya the hypocrisy is common place. Some of them appear to be intentionally avoiding considering the implications (as they keep having the truth presented to them but turn away) and then there are others that are just kind of coasting along on the surface of things (fully plugged into the matrix and surrounded by other mentally subjugated people that continually reinforce their degenerative delusions which compel them to continually outsource their sovereignty to other individuals/institutions).
Thanks for the comment.
There you go, this should work for your purposes.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3QWXP8P
Thanks for this. I took the survey and it looks like 70% of respondents said no to government mandates on this particular matter.
The poll results are certainly taking a specific shape, aren’t they?
https://i.imgur.com/ohHe4r0.png
wolfgang,
I agree with you.
Regarding the CorbettReport comment section folks, I personally think that the vast majority are of a Voluntaryist mindset who prefer no governing intrusion except by voluntary consensual association.
Here is that quote again.
James Corbett writes:
“Anyway, I know that 99% of the population (and even the vast majority of my own audience) believes that governments and courts should step in to mandate who can and cannot be refused service by any given business, but here’s why they’re wrong.”
Perhaps, I am not seeing what James is observing.
Perhaps, during the lockdowns and business mask edits and corporate business vaccine mandates, all our griping and protesting was inferred to mean that the government should make the businesses not do what the businesses were doing.
Perhaps, our outrage at polluters and food-adulterers is misconstrued that we demand the FDA and EPA must take forcible government action to stop these criminal corporations.
That said, I have no problem…
…with the EPA publishing the fact that fluoridation poses health risks at 0.7mg per liter.
…or with the FDA warning about GMOs and ingredients.
I want to clarify that I do not want any type of government regulatory agency (FDA, EPA, FCC, FTC, et al).
The system itself will never repair the system.
And I never signed off on the consent form to governed by the system.
Businesses “have the right to refuse service to anyone”. Totally agree.
Back when I was a bartender, I exercised this right occasionally. The caveat was, we would never give the “reason” for refusing service. The boss reminded us of this. For example I would never say “I will not serve you because you’re drunk, or pregnant, or rude, or cheap, or gay,” or whatever. The line was simply, “I’m not comfortable serving you, and we reserve that right”. The key was to not vocally discriminate. We never had any lawsuits ensue as a result of refusing service, but sometimes had to ask the door-guy to escort some people out.
The government should not be able to force a business to render its services to certain people, but should also not be able to force a business to refuse services to certain people. This is clear overreach.
There is another issue here that cannot be ignored:
Last winter, in vast parts of the “democratic and civilised” Western world, including Germany where I live, coercive vax mandates banned most businesses from serving the unvaxxed entirely.
That’s right, governments mandated businesses to discriminate against the “unvaxxed deplorables,” along with a smear campaign and witch hunt for the significant minority of adults who declined the MAGA jab/clot shot/experimental gene therapy.
The self-same people who decry and denounce discrimination on the grounds of, well, almost anything, were not just content but *happy* to go along with the vax-apartheid. And saw no glaring contradiction there. It is, after all, fine, to segregate unclean and disease-carrying Untermenschen from the rest of society because it makes you an upstanding, law-abiding good citizen, right?
I cannot put my disgust and scorn for this type of fascist double-think into diplomatic words, so I won’t try to. I despise these “Gutmenschen” with every ounce of my being, if I am perfectly honest, for this egregious double standard.
Governments who mandate anti-discrimination laws like the above, likewise, will be very happy to suspend civil rights on a whim and say, with perfect Orwellian Double-Think, that depriving the unjabbed of basic human amenities is no act of discrimination whatsoever.
Which is the perfect reason that any kind of government intervention into these matters, by virtue of egregious hypocrisy, has rendered itself a moot point.
Hence “gov’t minding its own business, and not everyone else’s” libertarianism will be excellent for people to “vote with their feet” when necessary.
Racist bigots no longer serving Blacks? There will be many more business owners willing to set a positive conter-example and be very friendly to People of Colour indeed.
Vax-fascists instituting “2G” (“Geimpft oder genesen” — essentially, “Unvaxxed not welcome”) rules? I will give such horrible human beings a wide berth in business and private life. No harm done. I stand above such egregious bigotry, as a proudly unjabbed human being.
To despise those people is perfectly fine. I would draw the line on actually killing them, just an inch before.
You won’t get an argument from me on any of those points. Let the market sort it out!
Good article. I appreciate your level of research.
This is fabulous. So, actress Lawrence made some idiotic remarks about being the “first female action movie lead” in 2012. Sure. The Babylon bee people proceed to produce the following “news”.
Sigourney Weaver Thanks Jennifer Lawrence For Paving The Way For Female Action Heroes
https://babylonbee.com/news/sigourney-weaver-thanks-jennifer-lawrence-for-paving-the-way-for-female-action-heroes
The best part, and the reason I’m bringing this fluff up, is that there are people on the internets reading through this “news article” and complimenting Sigourney’s class. That’s pure class!
“The same power that they are willing to grant the governments to force Christians to bake gay wedding cakes is the same power that the government could use to ban bakers from baking gay wedding cakes.”
I see your point, James. But I think they know deep down that the government is on their side, and won’t do that. Clearly, the government isn’t an organization making fair and balanced devisions without bias. They have a clear agenda of destruction and chaos, and that agenda favors the gays.
Regarding this entire article, I couldn’t agree more. Very well stated.
“As I said, the principle is as simple as it is powerful: let people serve who they want.”
James, what you say about the desire to grab the governmental ring of power and wield it against one’s enemies, reminds me of statement made by the character O’Brien in Orwell’s 1984:
“But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless.”
Video of this quote below as well.
George Orwells Final Warning To Mankind
https://odysee.com/@TheWatcher:8/Orwells-final-warning–Picture-of-the-future:6
I don’t know who was bigger asshole in this story: baker or gay.
I’ve exhausted my imagination to find a way how baking a cake for someone could interfere with ones religion (mmmmm…does that mean I’m not religious??). I’m pretty sure Jesus wouldn’t “approve” such a behavior, damn, there is some christian education behind me (yeah, these belligerent christians….). I guess he is baking for all kinds of sinners, no question asked…wtf…and he finds to make a statement… He doesn’t have to serve, no doubt, end of story….yes, he is asshole. He is free to be asshole.
Gay was bigger asshole only because he took the thing to the court. Gay-asshole and fucking gays united then made a show for media. I’m really sick of these politicized-practitioners-of-unorthodox-sex, politicized makes them towards unbearable.
Damn lawyers and their house of cards are the reason baker-gay(assholes) is not just a childish story.
In Croatia some people would like that christian doctors would be forced to perform abortions if they work in state hospitals(majority) or lose job. I wholeheartedly defend these doctors from leftarded insanity, inhumanity.
Abortion and cake…big difference.
“And once again we arrive at the conclusion that freedom is the answer, whatever the question.”
Freedom is not the only ingredient to make a human being.
Personally, I would prefer not to speculate on the size of a gay’s asshole.
martyn.k
You win the internet today 🙂 hahahahahaha
This made me laugh, thank you.
Sure, preservation of good taste is necessary.
James posits a solution: “:business owners can serve anyone they want and refuse service to anyone they want.”
In most, but not all cases, a business owner can serve whomever they want; and conversely, I suppose, a business owner can refuse to serve whomever they want, provided such refusal is not based upon an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age, per the dictates of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Masterpiece case is a rather thorny issue which seems to fall between the cracks of civil and “bill of” rights protections, and has been lovingly cherry-picked here for the purpose of championing voluntaryism, and frothing it’s ardent wing-nut adherents. (Gasp!)
Splashing such voluntaryist aspersions at the Civil Rights Act – legislation that’s rightly named – designed to aspire toward a more civil society, one has to wonder if the same could necessarily be said for a voluntaryist “intentional” community, which shoulders no burden of diversity, per se, with the “glue” holding such a community together, for the most part, is like-mindedness; with its mantra – “If you don’t like it, you’re free to leave”. Great.
Though, what that actually implies, logically, is that any given voluntaryist community can be, for all intents and purposes, bigoted as hell…. Right? Everybody could get along and be quite happy voluntarily and quite intentionally, being a bigot, no?
Anyway, going over James’ points: Firstly, if people are prevented by law from posting “No Blacks” signs, then maybe, eventually, the impetus for that bigoted mind-set that that sign represented might, and hopefully will, fade away on a societal level. At least there’s the chance it will one day simply be a footnote. I do believe there are those who for some reason or other, are hateful and deceased; but, bigotry is definitely a learned trait. Which, indeed answers James second point arguing against legislation inducing a magical, sudden societal transformation…. No. There is transformation, but it’s slow.
Third point, yes, agreed, the two, Craig and Mullins, could have sought a LGBTQ friendly baker, and should have. And I agree with the Supreme Court decision respecting the baker’s religious sensibilities. But, besides that, any business owner should have the right to decide just what it is they want to offer. Like someone walking into a restaurant and demanding they want a plate of sauerbraten. Well, we don’t serve sauerbraten. It’s not on our menu. You can sit down and choose something else, and I don’t care if you’re white, red, Black, yellow, 95 years old, crippled, a Jew, Nazi, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist, from Capetown, Timbuktu, or Western Japan, even Canada (depending on your mood, today). And the Jew can tell the Nazi, we don’t do swastika cakes, we only do what you see on our counters…. Nonetheless, the Nazi should be able to buy whatever he sees that suits his fancy.
“Fourthly, why do normies believe that the government will only ever legislate in line with their beliefs?
Well, that’s what people hope, that politicians will not only promise, but will actually legislate in line with their beliefs. That’s why people go to the polls, with that hope in mind. And, if enough people, say, don’t want the Orange man bad back, in case he might hire even more judges aiming to turn the United States into a new (backward) religious caliphate – they’ll vote him out of political existence, and he can take his obnoxious superhero cards and fold his hand.
But, win or lose, that’s what democracy is all about. Or, should be….
Or, you can search around and find a voluntaryist community that’s right for you!
Business Serving Notice of Trespass to Customers – ANECDOTE
[If ya want to cut to the chase, see the bold “Served Notice of Trespass” below.]
TimeStamp – More than 2 decades ago. – For a brief period of time, I had a partner in the book business which we had started together. In the beginning, we were doing temporary sales at events or office complexes or the American Airlines Hdqtr cafeteria. (To the awe of employees, at the register I chatted a good while about mowing the lawn with the AA CEO Robert Crandall.)
It was grueling work. We would load and unload my truck, hauling tons of books to the space and tables, and then back. Daily.
I approached a Mall manager and negotiated a month-to-month lease on about 9-10,000 sqft of empty space in the middle of the old, stressed Mall, with the sales pitch that “New Books all under $5” was a public draw card with lots of bodies in the shop. I got the space for $900 a month (the cost of the electric bill), but the Mall paid the electric bill. The ‘value’ of that retail space was probably about 8k to 10k monthly. But it was a win-win deal for both parties.
My partner did not want to do it. The arguing got very heated between us.
I said, “Well, I ‘m doing it.” And by myself, I spent day and night setting up the space with tables and displays.
He rolls in late on opening day, and the crowd was already overwhelming while I am coping to take money fast enough. The place was a gold mine. Soon, our net profit was well over 20k monthly.
As you can see, in any relationship there will be disagreements on how things should be done.
We quickly started to expand our business operations.
…continued…
…continuing…
My partner hired his wife to help run the store, which I quietly dreaded.
For example: At Christmas time, I would place a stack of foot long, colorful, Christmas paper-back books on the counter near my register. They were a fantastic best seller at $2.50 each, but cost us a quarter (or dime). While people checked out with me they would impulsively buy some, or the full set of 5. My partner’s wife would see the stacks on the counter, and take them away in a huff. I’m not one for verbal shouting fire-fights, and would bite my lip. When she left at 5pm because she was ‘privileged’ to not close at 9pm, I would put the stacks back so we could make that extra profit. I wasn’t ‘privileged’ and thus worked closing.
~~~ –>My strong point here is that I wanted to sell volumes of product and make volumes of profit. I know some things about marketing and positioning.
New computer books (thick manuals C+, Oracle, Java, etc.) for $5 were a hot seller and the guys would always crowd the tables/shelves. Sometimes, I would roll out a gaylord cardboard-crate pallet of them, and tell the customers that they can dig through and put them on the table. These guys were like women on a clothing sale. Sundays were when these guys often would come in.
One Sunday early afternoon, my partner and I were working the store together.
My partner had a ‘somewhat’ legal background.
This particular Sunday, some of the guys filled up their grocery cart with around 50 pounds of books or more. Nothing unusual, really. [Some guys had their entire garage wall lined with stacked books.]
My partner went up to a few individuals and served them a preprinted typed paper with a header much like this: Served Notice of Trespass.
He put the customer’s name on it and my partner signed it. Basically, it said that the person was not allowed on the premises of the store anymore, and that the police would be called if they entered again. They were not allowed to purchase the books in their carts and had to leave the store.
Evidently, my partner had done this “Trespass Notice” before on several occasions.
…continued…
…continuing…
I bit my lip when I saw this “Notice of Trespass” take place. I was embarrassed. It was terrible PR and poor graces, and actually the fault was ours (our positioning and marketing). I had had verbal fire-fights before with my partner, and its ugly, and this was not the time to venture into darkness.
I knew what the deal was. Some of the guys were probably reselling the computer books to either other people at work or on Amazon. My partner suspected this was the case and he didn’t like it.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with that ‘reselling entrepreneurial spirit’. Heck…we were resellers. In my view, if I display a product for sale at a certain price, I do not care what the customer does with it.
The flaw lied in our marketing and positioning. I had previously and repeatedly discussed these aspects with my partner, but he wouldn’t have it.
Some $5 dollar books have a greater perceived value than other $5 dollar books. There are ways that one can use this positioning concept to help sell product. However, in our case, we often had a limited supply of computer books with a very high perceived value.
My partner insisted that nothing in our store cost more than $5.
I often would cope with this handicapping locked-in policy by “hiding the primo stuff” in the backroom. At “time intervals throughout the day”, I would blend it in, book by book, on the table. This would keep the customer excitement alive and prevent someone from buying up all the good stuff at once.
It wasn’t long before my partner and I split up. We both were relieved.
Shortly after, I opened a wholesale warehouse operation in conjunction with my retail stores. I had tons of customers both in person and online who bought books to resell.
That’s exactly the point, let the market figure it out. I may not know much, but I pretty damn sure I won’t be going back to those stores that kicked me out for not wearing a mask. They were within their rights to chose with whom they want to do business with and so am I. It is what it is, anything more than this gives the petty tyrants even more power.
Argonaut Capital presents an economic history of hydrocarbons.
“WHAT HAVE FOSSIL FUELS EVER DONE FOR US?”
Just as the Romans were much maligned in Judea, we have forgotten the positive contributions of fossil fuels to our modern civilisation.
An entertaining and short doco – an appendix to How Big Oil Conquered The World series?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR5cNyehO88&ab_channel=ArgonautCapital
Many of the points are factually made, but some of the things listed are not objectively “good” and what’s with that closing remark “… and they kept the peace”?
The above Argonaut Capital video and another video,
Argonaut 1970s Redux Stockumentary
is linked here…
https://www.corbettreport.com/december-open-thread-2022/#comment-144311
There are some good comparisons between the 70’s and 2022. There are some lessons to take home.
Ah bugger! Just missed the discount code on my Big Oil and Al Qaida DVD purchase: I will get it next time (and be on time!) James, love the work, big fan: Marry Christmas to you and yours, Cody