View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 125 of 198 FirstFirst ... 2575115123124125126127135175 ... LastLast
Results 1,241 to 1,250 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1241
    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 Federalist View Post
    I agree with the intent, but not the means. If people want to ensure that a liquor store doesn't open in their neighborhood, then they can simply to all agree to a covenant that prevents that. Then those who want such rules can buy in that neighborhood. Those that don't care, can buy somewhere else. There's no need to violate people's property rights to make this happen.
    I should never have to be concerned that an airport, railway yard, or any other pollution source will be built anywhere near my property without the input of myself and the other people effected by it.

    You're still living in Fantasy Land and with every post you add to the long lost of reasons things are done the way they are instead of your way.
    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

  2. #1242
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    No one needs a contract, that's what zoning laws are for.
    Yes, zoning laws attempt to accomplish the same thing. However, they differ from a contractual agreement in that they are imposed by force and not entered into explicitly and voluntarily. As such, they are a violation of property rights.

    You can't even manage to show any kind of "property rights" like you've been describing without resorting the court's interpretations and now you're trying to stretch those rights to cover businesses like they're personal property instead of business property. LOL!
    They are private property owned by individuals. And making it a "crime" for an individual to engage in trade without a government-issued permission slip cannot be construed to be anything other than a violation of that individual's property rights.

  3. #1243
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I should never have to be concerned that an airport, railway yard, or any other pollution source will be built anywhere near my property without the input of myself and the other people effected by it.
    You and others who share your concerns could, if you wished, make whatever contractual agreements you want to prevent that from happening in your locality.

  4. #1244
    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 Federalist View Post
    You are correct. My business is not a person. My business is the activity in which I am engaged. Of course activities don't have rights or property, only people do.
    Your business is it's own entity with it's own laws and regulations, some of which also protect you. It is not an individual and there are no "personal" property rights and obligations involved, there are only business rights and obligations.
    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

  5. #1245
    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 Federalist View Post
    You and others who share your concerns could, if you wished, make whatever contractual agreements you want to prevent that from happening in your locality.
    We do, they're called zoning laws.
    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

  6. #1246
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    We do, they're called zoning laws.
    I said contractual arrangements.

  7. #1247
    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 Federalist View Post
    I said contractual arrangements.
    Most people see government as a contract because that's exactly what it is.

    Would you prefer 2 million people get together, buy all the land for a 50 mile radius, then proceed to form a non-profit corporation to run the thing? LOL! What would be the difference than what we have now? Some Fantasy Land hypothetical viewpoint that wouldn't really change a damn thing??


    What do you think a City Charter is? It wasn't invented by some dictator who wanted to name a chunk of land. It was established by the people of the community to serve their needs. You guys really need to shed the Property Mentality. Other people do things differently whether you understand it or not.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-01-13 at 01:22 PM.
    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

  8. #1248
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Most people see government as a contract because that's exactly what it is.
    It's not a contract because it is not entered into voluntarily by all parties.

    Would you prefer 2 million people get together, buy all the land for a 50 mile radius, then proceed to form a non-profit corporation to run the thing?
    That wouldn't be my preference, but it 2 million people wished to do that, then they certainly have the right to do so.

    What do you think a City Charter is? It wasn't invented by some dictator who wanted to name a chunk of land. It was established by the people of the community to serve their needs. You guys really need to shed the Property Mentality. Other people do things differently whether you understand it or not.
    Yes, I understand that others do things differently. They violate the property of others. That is the policy against which I am arguing.

  9. #1249
    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 Federalist View Post
    It's not a contract because it is not entered into voluntarily by all parties.
    It was when the City was founded with it's Charter. Any new property owners are subject to that contract just as they would be with your hypothetical contract.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    That wouldn't be my preference, but it 2 million people wished to do that, then they certainly have the right to do so.
    And, essentially, that's exactly what they did except it wasn't 2 million people at the time. Populations tend to increase and the community grows, annexing land not originally included when a majority of those people outside the contract area would like to be included. As you'll also note in the census and demographics of any region, they change depending on the contracts and how well those companies have been administered by the various CEOs and Boards of Directors over time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Yes, I understand that others do things differently. They violate the property of others. That is the policy against which I am arguing.
    They didn't violate anything, they founded a city and/or county with a contract called a "Charter". It wasn't your property before you were born, it wasn't your property before you bought it, and when you did buy the property the contractual obligations associated with it were plainly spelled out in public records available to everyone. Now you're whining because you don't like the contractual obligations you accepted. I'm so sad for you.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-01-13 at 02:21 PM.
    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

  10. #1250
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    01-27-15 @ 11:37 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,247

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    It was when the City was founded with it's Charter. Any new property owners are subject to that contract just as they would be with your hypothetical contract.

    And, essentially, that's exactly what they did except it wasn't 2 million people at the time. Populations tend to increase and the community grows, annexing land not originally included when a majority of those people outside the contract area would like to be included. As you'll also note in the census and demographics of any region, they change depending on the contracts and how well those companies have been administered by the various CEOs and Boards of Directors over time.

    They didn't violate anything, they founded a city and/or county with a contract called a "Charter". It wasn't your property before you were born, it wasn't your property before you bought it, and when you did buy the property the contractual obligations associated with it were plainly spelled out in public records available to everyone. Now you're whining because you don't like the contractual obligations you accepted. I'm so sad for you.
    I argue in favor of eliminating victimless crimes. I'm sorry if that annoys you.

    Making it a "crime" for someone to engage in trade without first acquiring a government-issued permission slip is a violation of his right to use his property. That's why I argue for the elimination of such laws, as well as all victimless crime laws.

Posting Permissions

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