View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 14 of 198 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464114 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #131
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Correct. No one is completely free.

    Each person is the rightful owner of his own body and he may use it in any way as long as he don't use it to initiate aggression against others. Our freedom is limited in that we are NOT free to initiate aggression against others.

    The consequence of this is that I may not initiate aggression in order to force someone to interact with those with whom he does not wish to interact.
    Yes requiring that you make money is terrible. But frankly, you don't have to own a business. You don't have to even open your doors. No one is making you. So you being more than a little exaggerated here.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #132
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    Yes requiring that you make money is terrible. But frankly, you don't have to own a business. You don't have to even open your doors. No one is making you. So you being more than a little exaggerated here.
    Whether one wishes to engage in trade has nothing to do with the ethics of initiating aggression against others. Each person is the owner of his physical body as well as his property, and it is wrong to initiate aggression against that body or property. Thus I can't support the initiation of aggression against someone just to force him to interact with whom I think he ought to.

  3. #133
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Whether one wishes to engage in trade has nothing to do with the ethics of initiating aggression against others. Each person is the owner of his physical body as well as his property, and it is wrong to initiate aggression against that body or property. Thus I can't support the initiation of aggression against someone just to force him to interact with whom I think he ought to.
    There's no aggression. That's just your hyperbole.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #134
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    There's no aggression. That's just your hyperbole.
    We clearly have different ideas regarding the definition of aggression. Here's is the definition of aggression, as taken out of the Wiki article on the non-aggression principle:

    Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
    If you disagree with this definition, feel free to provide me with your alternative.

  5. #135
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    We clearly have different ideas regarding the definition of aggression. Here's is the definition of aggression, as taken out of the Wiki article on the non-aggression principle:



    If you disagree with this definition, feel free to provide me with your alternative.

    I'm sorry your definition would cover all laws and as such silly. You have to put things in context and not expect no fairness in the law. You are being quite hyperbolic.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #136
    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 Boo Radley View Post
    I'm sorry your definition would cover all laws and as such silly. You have to put things in context and not expect no fairness in the law. You are being quite hyperbolic.
    Do you a more satisfactory definition of aggression that you'd like to offer?

  7. #137
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-24-13 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    913

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    I disagree with Stossel and Paul.

    In the "modern age" it's easy to say that the market would correct for discrimination against large minority groups like blacks or hispanics, or against outspoken minority groups like LGBT.

    But what would have happened to small minority groups that nobody had any real sympathy or affinty for?

    Like Muslims after 9/11?

    "Don't shop in this deli. Go down the street."

    "YOU, yeah, you Muslim. Don't bring that bag in my store. You cool with your bag, black guy."

    These laws weren't passed to protect empowered or nominal "minorities", they were passed to defend largely defenseless minorities from very real presecution.

    Look, I'll even accept that the market would have ensured the appropriate correction in the case of Muslims in time.

    But WTF is a Muslim family in a remote part of Louisiana supposed to do if there's only one grocery store within reasonable driving distance and the Desert Shield/Desert Storm era veteran manager decided that Mooooooooslims is dangerous?

    The gov can't force him to sell food to this low-income family cuz there'd be no law that says they have to.

    They can't afford to eat at restaurants every night. I make GOOD money and I can't even afford to do that.

    Maybe a sympathetic neighbor would pitch in and help out with the shopping, maybe not.

    What would any Muslim do if America erupted in an Intafada-style spree of minor terror attacks, like say the Boston Marathon bombing was just the first attack in a spree that was still ongoing with no end in sight?

    No. I support public accomodations.

    Americans, by and large, are cowardly assholes.

    They do "the right thing" because they're afraid of the consequences, and they'll largely do the "wrong thing" as long as they think they can get away with it.

    How many of y'all speed from time to time?

    Yeah, then you'd discriminate against a minority if you perceived a chance of a threat, so long as you could get away with doing so.

    So would I.
    It's good politics to insist all white Christians are intolerant terrorists who would lynch or crucify anyone with a different skin tone or religious background than them but I just don't see any real evidence of it. There are very, very few businesses who refuse service to people because of ethnicity, religious practices, etc. and I just don't believe that is because a law was passed. The only thing these laws do is force an extremely small minority of the people to do business with people they would rather not do business with and I'm just not sure where you draw the line.

    Your fictitious Louisiana Muslim family would certainly have other options than the Desert Storm vet owned grocery store but it's your fictitious story so let's assume they don't. Would the result on this Muslim family be any different if instead of not serving Muslims he moved his only game in town to a more lucrative spot or retired? Is it safe to say you believe the vet should be forced to work against his will until someone else comes along to provide for this Muslim family?

    If not, why?

  8. #138
    Professor
    iacardsfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Last Seen
    11-24-17 @ 09:51 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,981

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    I believe it would send the wrong message and divide the races unnecessarily to repeal it now. It would only create hatred and mistrust, not something we want in this day and age. I agree though with the Libertarian theory though. If there was a restaurant that was discriminatory, they would lose my business for sure. While there is no way for sure to prove that this will be so for everybody, business is business and I think we are far enough clear from those darker times in American history to worry to much about deep racism.
    "Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals."
    - Mark Twain
    Run your own nation, play Cybernations.

  9. #139
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    10-24-13 @ 02:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    913

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    For those who agree with Paul and Stossel, if YOU could get away with it legally, which groups would YOU discriminate against, and why?

    Be honest.

    (My spidey-sense tells me no one will have the backbone to answer this.)
    I think few would discriminate against anyone.

    This is more a matter of principle over policy.

    I wouldn't want to lose any of my customers but that doesn't mean I like the idea of someone telling me who I need to do business with.

  10. #140
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,166

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Whether one wishes to engage in trade has nothing to do with the ethics of initiating aggression against others. Each person is the owner of his physical body as well as his property, and it is wrong to initiate aggression against that body or property. Thus I can't support the initiation of aggression against someone just to force him to interact with whom I think he ought to.
    Everything you mention is protected by the state's willingness to "initiate aggression against other". Private property doesn't exist outside of the state providing laws and enforcing contracts.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

Posting Permissions

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