He uses language that I don't like. Yet his message is compelling.
Men long to be useful and honored. To pull their load.
Wise, Good and Honest
Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; (D&C 98:10)
Friday, January 19, 2018
Saturday, December 23, 2017
"When you add regulations, things get worse." (Brad Green). He is a computer tech, a computer scientist and the Chief Information Officer for PlumbersStock.com
Click here for the summary of the podcast "55: Brad Green on Net Neutrality" (Society and the State) starting at 19:04. This is where I got the quote from Brad Green.
Monday, December 11, 2017
I friend of mine, Jeffrey Thayne referred to himself as a "recovering libertarian". It is the closest I have found to concisely and accurately describe my political views.
By recovering libertarian, I mean that I still have a strong, nearly overriding preference for libertarian solutions as a matter of values -- freedom is still one of my core values. But I am less persuaded as I used to by the underlying logic used by many libertarians, so I find myself willing to compromise in some ways when politically necessary.
From a FB post of a friend, Bruce Nielson.
Sincere question for both left and right.
Suppose the Supreme court refuses to pass judgement on the Jack Phillip baker case and instead throws it back to the state, but with the, following instructions.
1. Retry this case with the understanding that refusal to make a specific artistic expression supporting gay marriage is protected under the constitution as freedom of expression.
2. But a generically decorated wedding cake is not a specific artistic expression, it’s just a cake. So, it’s not protected.
In other words, what if they refused to rule on this specific case, but merely clarified that if a gay couple asks for a generic wedding cake (indistinguishable from any other wedding cake), and is refused, this is not protected. But if the wedding cake is obviously specifically a ‘gay wedding cake’ that this can be refused under freedom of expression. (For example, the cake shown below would be protected under freedom of expression because it's clearly a case of forcing a Christian to express support for gay marriage.)
And then suppose that it goes back to the state with these instructions and the court notes that actually the gay couple left before finding out if the baker (Phillips) was willing to do a generic cake, and he thought he was only refusing to do a ‘gay specific’ wedding cake. Therefore he is found innocent and there are no damage for that specific case.
So suppose the final ruling doesn’t harm the baker, and it does setup a freedom of expression protection for Christians, but it also means that Christian bakers will have to bake and even decorate at least generic wedding cakes for gay marriages.
So in other words, what if the judgment protects both sides in the very ways they have most expressed a desire to be protected: Christians don’t have to make a specific gay wedding cake but gay couples can’t be refused service for creation of a cake for their wedding.
Would you find this a viable solution and hail it as a victory (or at least an acceptable compromise)? Or would you reject it as a tragic loss for your side?
Note: I have no idea if the Supreme court is even allowed to do something like this. This is a pure hypothetical to find out the degree to which people are willing to accept a compromise that tries to protect both sides.-
I like this comment thread to the post above by Jeffrey Thayne.