View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 161 of 198 FirstFirst ... 61111151159160161162163171 ... LastLast
Results 1,601 to 1,610 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1601
    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
    Link please?
    It's just a few posts up ...


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Nope. The government initiates violence against people. That's the difference.
    In what way, specifically, do you see a difference between what the government does and what a corporation similar to the government might do?
    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. #1602
    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 Lakryte View Post
    Corporations do not get to control people because they live in a certain area. The only way that is possible is if people explicitly sign up for the services of that corporation. Not so with local government. The function is not the same. One relies on voluntary agreement, the other relies on coercive force. You can try to justify that coercive force as necessary, but you cannot deny it exists.
    They did. Again, you need to backtrack to the previous discussion Federalist and I had on this subject. You're jumping into the middle of this discussion without the foundation of it and making claims that are contrary to the situation. Go back to the posts in the 1200's and start reading if you want to take part in this.


    The basic assumption is that a group of people, instead of incorporating as a "government" 100 years ago, gained control (buying, homesteading, whatever) to a 50 mile radius of land and formed a corporation to run it for them. Essentially, all property inside the corporate boundary is subject to the corporate rules and regulations, which function no different than laws, and the corporation is run pretty much the same as a county or city might be with the same goals and intents as a county or city. Your statements so far show ignorance of this. If you want to correct that ignorance and be a rational part of the discussion then go back and read the posts.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-15-13 at 10:31 AM.
    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. #1603
    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's just a few posts up ...
    I don't see it and you don't appear to wish to answer, so I guess I'll drop it.

    In what way, specifically, do you see a difference between what the government does and what a corporation similar to the government might do?
    A government 1) may legally take the property of others without their consent and 2) may issue orders requiring certain behavior and then initiate violence against those who disobey. Non-government's may not legally do these things.

  4. #1604
    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 don't see it and you don't appear to wish to answer, so I guess I'll drop it.
    It's in the city charter.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    A government 1) may legally take the property of others without their consent and
    2) may issue orders requiring certain behavior and then initiate violence against those who disobey. Non-government's may not legally do these things.
    1. The corporation "owns" all the land, remember? It can do what it wants with it as long as there is "due process" according to the corporate rules.
    2. "You may not murder" is also an order requiring certain behavior, whether it's a city or a corporation. In the case of the corporation, it may initiate limited violence to insure compliance, such as detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. Corporations cannot jail people as punishment but since the whole county is, essentially, the corporation the county sheriff and courts will no doubt take care of the criminal issues. Obviously, the corporation can have it's own civil court, as agreed in the corporate rules just like having a binding third-party arbitrator.
    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. #1605
    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's in the city charter.
    Such a charter should be binding on all its signatories and nobody else.

    1. The corporation "owns" all the land, remember? It can do what it wants with it as long as there is "due process" according to the corporate rules.
    I said without their consent. Any relationship between the corporation and an individual is explicit and consensual. Again, the distinguishing feature of government is that it can legally take property without the consent of the owner.

    2. "You may not murder" is also an order requiring certain behavior, whether it's a city or a corporation. In the case of the corporation, it may initiate limited violence to insure compliance, such as detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. Corporations cannot jail people as punishment but since the whole county is, essentially, the corporation the county sheriff and courts will no doubt take care of the criminal issues. Obviously, the corporation can have it's own civil court, as agreed in the corporate rules just like having a binding third-party arbitrator.
    That's a good point, and makes me realize that I was inaccurate in my previous post when I said "may issue orders requiring certain behavior and then initiate violence against those who disobey. " I should have simply said "may legally initiate violence against person and property". Why they do so (such as to enforce certain behavior) is not the defining characteristic. The key point is that they have the right to initiate violence against person and property. A government may legally kill you if it decides to do so. A corporation, not so much.

  6. #1606
    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
    Such a charter should be binding on all its signatories and nobody else.
    Encumbrances on land don't just "go away" by magic. Once the charter is agreed then all land inside those boundaries are subject to the laws of that institution and that encumbrance continues regardless of who owns the land. No land is truly fee simple and never has been.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I said without their consent. Any relationship between the corporation and an individual is explicit and consensual. Again, the distinguishing feature of government is that it can legally take property without the consent of the owner.
    The owner knew the laws when he bought the land. Nothing was hidden from him and there was no deception. Anytime we enter into a different jurisdiction we are bound by the laws of that jurisdiction, just as people "buying" property that's part of the corporation are subject to the rules and regulations of that corporation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    That's a good point, and makes me realize that I was inaccurate in my previous post when I said "may issue orders requiring certain behavior and then initiate violence against those who disobey. " I should have simply said "may legally initiate violence against person and property". Why they do so (such as to enforce certain behavior) is not the defining characteristic. The key point is that they have the right to initiate violence against person and property. A government may legally kill you if it decides to do so. A corporation, not so much.
    And I specifically stated such, that the actual county, instead of the corporation, would have to handle criminal cases except for temporarily detaining people for criminal behavior until law enforcement could take action.

    As far as violence against property, it's all corporate land so there is no "violence" against the land. The corporations civil court can take property from a person but that's part of the corporations laws (binding arbitration by a third party) that everyone accepts when they buy their land inside the corporate limits.
    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

  7. #1607
    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
    A government may legally kill you if it decides to do so.
    Example???
    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. #1608
    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
    Example???
    The government defines what is legal and isn't legal. Therefore If the government were to say it may legally kill you, then it may legally kill you.

  9. #1609
    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
    Encumbrances on land don't just "go away" by magic. Once the charter is agreed then all land inside those boundaries are subject to the laws of that institution and that encumbrance continues regardless of who owns the land. No land is truly fee simple and never has been.
    Yes, subsequent buyers might need to also sign onto the rules of the charter. In which case they would be signatories.

    The owner knew the laws when he bought the land. Nothing was hidden from him and there was no deception. Anytime we enter into a different jurisdiction we are bound by the laws of that jurisdiction, just as people "buying" property that's part of the corporation are subject to the rules and regulations of that corporation.
    Yes, you are correct. We all live under governments that have the legal right to take our property without our consent and initiate violence against us. This is the legal situation to which I object in the first place, sort of the whole point of this discussion. I argue that we ought to change the law so that governments must operate by the same laws that apply to all other people.

    And I specifically stated such, that the actual county, instead of the corporation, would have to handle criminal cases except for temporarily detaining people for criminal behavior until law enforcement could take action.
    Yes, I know. I was answering your question as to what distinguishes a government. It has may legally initiate violence against person and property. Other people can't legally do this.

    As far as violence against property, it's all corporate land so there is no "violence" against the land. The corporations civil court can take property from a person but that's part of the corporations laws (binding arbitration by a third party) that everyone accepts when they buy their land inside the corporate limits.
    Yes, that could all be part specified by contract.

  10. #1610
    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
    The government defines what is legal and isn't legal. Therefore If the government were to say it may legally kill you, then it may legally kill you.
    That's not an example. Try again.
    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

Posting Permissions

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