View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 16 of 198 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666116 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #151
    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 iliveonramen View Post
    Private property doesn't exist outside of the state providing laws and enforcing contracts.
    Enforcing contracts is not an INITIATION of aggression. Nor is a state (people allowed to initiate aggression) necessary for the enforcement of contracts.

  2. #152
    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 Dapper Andy View Post
    I'm not sure why you're grouping laws forcing someone to do business against their will with laws forcing parties to honor a contract.
    Because the argument is that the majority of time people won't discriminate so why do we need the laws? The argument was the "principle" of the government telling you to do something is supposedly the reason it should be abolished. The works with contract enforcement as well....

    Why exactly is state interference okay in protecting business owners but not protecting consumers from discriminatory practices?

    I think if you're going to group these laws with others, shouldn't it be with pro-slavery laws?
    No...not at all. One dealt with forced labor with no compensation. The other deals with compensating someone for the service they provide but not allowing arbitrary reasons to serve one person and not another.

    You expect society to protect your business, ensure your contracts are honored, provide basic amenities are available and a plethora of other inputs necessary to run a business but you balk over the state and society not allowing you to arbitrarily to decide who you won't and will serve?
    “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

  3. #153
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Because the argument is that the majority of time people won't discriminate so why do we need the laws?
    This is the gist of the argument... and I believe it to be a naive point-of-view.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  4. #154
    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
    Enforcing contracts is not an INITIATION of aggression. Nor is a state (people allowed to initiate aggression) necessary for the enforcement of contracts.
    No...it's the threat of an initiation of aggression. Monetary penalties or jail time.

    So you're saying that we don't need contract enforcement? That you would support the repeal of laws pertaining to the enforcement of a contract?

    Maybe 400 years ago when any business owners primarily dealt with suppliers and consumers in a small geographic area. Times have changes...most transactions are arms-length transactions.
    “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

  5. #155
    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
    Do you a more satisfactory definition of aggression that you'd like to offer?
    Aggression isn't the issue. The right to have civil law is. We have kinds of laws that require us to comply. It's been well accepted that we do live by some rules. Nondiscrimination is one of those rules we have for the common good. they are not unusual and not aggression.

    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. #156
    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
    Not really. It would not cover, say, laws against theft, murder, or rape. So, no, not all laws.
    Enough to not really dispute me.

    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.

  7. #157
    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 radcen View Post
    This is the gist of the argument... and I believe it to be a naive point-of-view.
    No. The gist of the argument is that owners of private property have the right to exclude others from their property, however stupid and hateful that exclusion is.
    "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."

  8. #158
    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 iliveonramen View Post
    Because the argument is that the majority of time people won't discriminate so why do we need the laws? The argument was the "principle" of the government telling you to do something is supposedly the reason it should be abolished. The works with contract enforcement as well....

    Why exactly is state interference okay in protecting business owners but not protecting consumers from discriminatory practices?
    I don't know that any of it is really necessary but I think a law requiring people to fulfill their contractual obligations is very different than a law advocating slave labor.

    I don't know where this "big business" stuff is coming from though.


    No...not at all. One dealt with forced labor with no compensation. The other deals with compensating someone for the service they provide but not allowing arbitrary reasons to serve one person and not another.

    You expect society to protect your business, ensure your contracts are honored, provide basic amenities are available and a plethora of other inputs necessary to run a business but you balk over the state and society not allowing you to arbitrarily to decide who you won't and will serve?
    Slaves were compensated.

    Where do you think their food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. came from?

    I'm not sure what compensation has to do with it anyway. Slavery involves being forced to work for someone against your will. It wouldn't have ceased being slavery if plantation owners dropped a few coins in their pockets here and there. Heck, it would still be slavery if they were highly paid people doing work against their will.

  9. #159
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dapper Andy View Post
    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.
    Wake up on the "histrionic drama queen" side of the bed this morning?

    Must be, because this nonsense bears absolutely no relation to what I actually said.

    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.
    No, it's because a law was passed and enforced and the enforcement of that law sculpted behavior.

    See how that puts the horse before the cart?

    First the law came, then behavior began to change as a result of the law, then the idea that it's not cool to discriminate against people followed suit.

    You might be more familiar with it as the concept of acculturation.

    Kind of how schools were forcing kids to say prayers that they may or may not have believed in until a law was passed saying that forcing kids to pray in school was illegal.

    First the law came, then the behavior changed, and though we're still working on it opinion began to change.

    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.
    Boo hoo hoo.

    People have to sell stuff to people they may not have a strong personal afffinity for.

    Poor little shop keeps.



    Your fictitious Louisiana Muslim family would certainly have other options than the Desert Storm vet owned grocery store...
    If you reread my post you'll note that I've already conceded that they would.

    My concern is that those other choices might be impossibly oppressive in terms of expense or time and distance involved.

    If you can prove to me that this would absolutely not be a concern for anyone, anywhere in America then I'll happily let it go.

    And please note that proving it to me will actually require objective proof, not just your opinion.

    ...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?
    So your contention would be that he wouldn't sell his business, or that another enterprising entrepreneur wouldn't recognize the need in the market for a grocery store and fill the void?

    Maybe you'll buy that but I've got much to much faith in capitalisim to accept it.

    It's perfectly plausible that a given micromarket might only support one grocery score due to economies of scale preventing two from competing.

    But it's simply preposterous to presume that the market forces wouldn't answer an opportunity for needs to be met.

    That vet would have sold the business prior to retirement and he'd have invested the proceeds in an immediate annuity that's now funding his retirement.

    If not, why?
    Irrelevant.
    Last edited by soot; 06-21-13 at 03:40 PM.

  10. #160
    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
    Aggression isn't the issue. The right to have civil law is. We have kinds of laws that require us to comply. It's been well accepted that we do live by some rules. Nondiscrimination is one of those rules we have for the common good. they are not unusual and not aggression.
    Again, I disagree that such an edict doesn't constitute aggression. If a person says, "You must trade with whom I say and if you don't I will come and seize you and put you in a cage", to me that constitutes aggression. Again, perhaps it would help to look at how aggression is described in 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.

Posting Permissions

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