View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

Voters
123. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    64 52.03%
  • No

    56 45.53%
  • I don't know

    3 2.44%
Page 104 of 198 FirstFirst ... 45494102103104105106114154 ... LastLast
Results 1,031 to 1,040 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1031
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I assume you meant 'no' above?

    You really need to read game theory - especially how it applies to behavior and populations. That's usually covered under genetics / Darwinism but has been in use by several social scientists over the past decade or so as well. I think you'll find populations like you imagine are unstable. There's a reason there are few dens of anarchism in the world and that most of them are extremely poor and dangerous to live in.
    In this exercise we are living in a world that doesn't exist where no one ever steals, kills, or otherwise harms anyone else. I am in no way suggesting this world has any bearing to the real world, but simply if it existed I can't imagine there would be a use for government.

  2. #1032
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    In this exercise we are living in a world that doesn't exist where no one ever steals, kills, or otherwise harms anyone else. I am in no way suggesting this world has any bearing to the real world, but simply if it existed I can't imagine there would be a use for government.
    Sounds like communism - and, no, I don't mean the USSR type that never was communism.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  3. #1033
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    We've been there, done that, you were shown wrong or, at the very least, not shown right ...

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1061879914
    oh? all your doing is saying i am wrong.that's all, i have the pictures of the actual documents which the states ratified, and they all have the preamble on them.

  4. #1034
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    We're a Republic but that doesn't change what I said.
    the u.s. has a republican form of government not a democratic form of government.

    YOU will find this info if you read Madison in federalist 10...where he states democratic government is very factious, and the founders have chosen republican.

    also if you choose to read federalist 39 -- TITLED...."Plan to conformity of Republican Principles".....not democratic.

    lastly, if you read john adams works#6 you will see that he does not like representative OR direct democracy at all, and says america has mixed government, as does James Madison in federalist 40

  5. #1035
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I never said it didn't have some kinds of rights but they sure aren't the same as an individual's rights.
    in what way?

    now a company cannot pray, or bare a firearm, but it most certainly has a right to be secure, due process, and the right to petition government and the right to voice its opinion becuase the comapny is owned by either one, a few ,or the many.

  6. #1036
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Technically it would be legal, yes - and you should know that, which is why I went straight to the consequences such an action would likely invoke.
    I would say it is an illegitimate use of power. Clearly unconstitutional, with the courts abusing their power and acting against the Constitution. I am asking if it is constitutional, not legal. I agree it would be "legal". There is a slight distinction there. Legality refers to the law, but the law can be constitutional or unconstitutional.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  7. #1037
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by mosurveyor View Post
    take it here and be sure to read the stuff we've already posted ...

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/...post1061879914
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post <-------------------------------
    oh its not, then can you ... blah--blah--blah-blah-blah-blah


    excuse me?..........but where did you get this quote from me...of what you have posted?

    Will you please direct me to this quote!

  8. #1038
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    In order to license a business there are certain rights the business must give up. For it to be an OTTP business they give up even more rights.
    Well yes, that is the point of this discussion. Why should that be the case?


    Customers are people, they are not businesses. If the business owner puts his personal car up for sale he can certainly tell the potential black buyer to kiss his ass.
    Businesses are people too, unless you think businesses are made up of aliens. And why it ok for a businessman to refuse to sell to black people in that case? How is that discrimination ok? Say he is a car salesman, with a business "open to the public." He could refuse to sell the exact same car, and that is no longer allowed. Why? Its a distinction that has no actual bearing on any principle I can think of.

    Furthermore, I will ask you the same question I asked Boo Radley. How do you define "public"? A club is not a public accommodation, but it sure seems public to me. There are lots of people at clubs, and the doors are opened to them.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  9. #1039
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by mosurveyor View Post
    no it's not. I mentioned earlier that different businesses had different requirements, few of which i have to meet as a person. I used a restaurant as an example. You want more examples - there are plenty available - or would you just prefer to cede that that's already been mentioned and move on?

    For example - a warehouse is required to have a certain amount of airflow to use propane forklifts but i can run almost any kind of propane device i want under almost any conditions. I'm not required to have an 8" or equivalent concrete drive approach (that's the part on the public r/w) for vehicle entrance and exit.


    Nite ...
    first of all, all business do not have restrooms....pawn shops, auto zone, card shops, food trucks, investment institutions.

    Second your example of a warehouse, deals with propane, which is an explosive gas, and it falls under a health and safety code, any thing that could be harmful to property or people falls under city codes.

    GIVING give my own example , in my city, a man was fined because he stored propane tanks outside behind his business, that is illegal, because all propane must be stored according to city code,...turn in a tank of propane at your grocery store, and the empty one still goes into proper storage.

    That is to prevent any dangerous situation from happening.

    When harm to the public from bad food, or improperly storing or using equipment , government does have authority.

    But there is no authority of a city or state or federal government to tell people how to behave to other people...meaning being civil....and owner of a business can be nasty to a customer, its not unlawful...the business owner will not get any business, but he free to act according to his likes.

  10. #1040
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    James Madison on the alien and sedition act, speaking about the freedom of the press, and the other enumerated rights we the american people have...the report on the Virgina resolutions 1800

    In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments, which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that ((they should make no law)) abridging the freedom of the press.

    Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it would seem scarcely possible to doubt that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution, as it originally stood, and that the amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.

    But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:

    ****The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions." <-------------------------THE PREAMBLE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

    Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government.

    Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the press, than that it declared the press to be wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend the ground of public confidence in the Government.

    Nay, more; the construction employed to justify the Sedition Act would exhibit a phenomenon without a parallel in the political world. It would exhibit a number of respectable States, as denying, first, that any power over the press was delegated by the Constitution; as proposing, next, that an amendment to it should explicitly declare that no such power was delegated; and, finally, as concurring in an amendment actually recognising or delegating such a power.

    Is, then, the Federal Government, it will be asked, destitute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous attacks which may be made on those who administer it?

    The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority.

    And might it not be asked, in turn, whether it is not more probable, under all the circumstances which have been reviewed, that the authority should be withheld by the Constitution, than that it should be left to a vague and violent construction, whilst so much pains were bestowed in enumerating other powers, and so many less important powers are included in the enumeration?

    SKIP

    That this State having, by its Convention, which ratified the Federal Constitution, expressly declared that, among other essential rights, 'the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States;' and, from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry and ambition, having, with other States, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other."

    "We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."

    Here is an express and solemn declaration by the Convention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution in the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Government of the United States, or any part of it, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution; and in the sense, particularly, "that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."



    Amendment I (Speech and Press): James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-27-13 at 03:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •