View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 162 of 198 FirstFirst ... 62112152160161162163164172 ... LastLast
Results 1,611 to 1,620 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1611
    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
    That's not an example. Try again.
    Did I say I was going to provide an example?

  2. #1612
    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
    Yes, subsequent buyers might need to also sign onto the rules of the charter. In which case they would be signatories.
    Land encumbrances are part of the land and, by law, are required to be shown to any buyer. Subdivision developers often put restrictions on the land inside a subdivision, which restrictions they file with the county recorder and are open access records. Anyone buying land in the subdivision is subject to those restrictions whether they "sign" or not as it's an encumbrance on the land itself. Another example is easements. When a utility company buys an easement across a piece of land they don't have to go back each time the land is sold and pay for the same easement again and again. The easement is an encumbrance on the land itself - no need for future signatures once the original deal has been made. Works the same for our corporation or the government.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    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.
    Eminent domain pays for what it takes so your anarchist ideology is showing again. The corporation could do the same thing as you've agreed below.

    Otherwise, I have no clue to what you are referring here.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    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.

    Yes, that could all be part specified by contract.
    I have no idea what you're going on about when you say "property" in that context (nor initiating violence for that matter). The "civil court" of the corporate contract - the binding third party arbitration clause - can indeed take property from a person by the judgement of the arbitrator just as you've agreed here. If you mean something else then you need to clarify your position.
    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. #1613
    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
    Did I say I was going to provide an example?
    It's what I asked for as clarification and you couldn't provide it, so as far as I'm concerned you've avoided the issue completely. Obviously your claim is hyperbole at best.
    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

  4. #1614
    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
    Land encumbrances are part of the land and, by law, are required to be shown to any buyer. Subdivision developers often put restrictions on the land inside a subdivision, which restrictions they file with the county recorder and are open access records. Anyone buying land in the subdivision is subject to those restrictions whether they "sign" or not as it's an encumbrance on the land itself. Another example is easements. When a utility company buys an easement across a piece of land they don't have to go back each time the land is sold and pay for the same easement again and again. The easement is an encumbrance on the land itself - no need for future signatures once the original deal has been made. Works the same for our corporation or the government.
    These encumbrances and easements are agreed to as part of the sale when the buyer signs.

    However, I know of no encumbrances or easements that dictate with whom the owner of the property may or may not trade.

    Eminent domain pays for what it takes so your anarchist ideology is showing again. The corporation could do the same thing as you've agreed below.
    Eminent domain is not consensual. The land is taken by force, whether or not the landowner agrees. Private parties do not have the ability to take other people's land by force.

    I have no idea what you're going on about when you say "property" in that context (nor initiating violence for that matter). The "civil court" of the corporate contract - the binding third party arbitration clause - can indeed take property from a person by the judgement of the arbitrator just as you've agreed here. If you mean something else then you need to clarify your position.
    Private parties can contract all sorts of things. However, these are mutually agreed to contracts. A government may forcibly take from someone without any agreement at all.

    Again, the distinguishing feature of a government is that it may legally initiate violence against others or take their property against their will. Non-government people are not legally allowed to do so.

  5. #1615
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    The person (or persons) who own the property should be allowed to set the conditions of use. It really should be that simple.
    From the ashes.

  6. #1616
    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 Phoenix View Post
    The person (or persons) who own the property should be allowed to set the conditions of use. It really should be that simple.
    I agree with you. This is the policy that I would support.

  7. #1617
    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
    These encumbrances and easements are agreed to as part of the sale when the buyer signs.

    However, I know of no encumbrances or easements that dictate with whom the owner of the property may or may not trade.
    The laws that govern the land are part of it's underlying encumbrances. Much land, especially that in residential areas, ban the owner from trading on the land at all except for personal business like selling his non-business vehicle.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Eminent domain is not consensual. The land is taken by force, whether or not the landowner agrees. Private parties do not have the ability to take other people's land by force.
    The contractual equal of eminent domain could be easily written into the corporate laws.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    parties can contract all sorts of things. However, these are mutually agreed to contracts. A government may forcibly take from someone without any agreement at all.

    Again, the distinguishing feature of a government is that it may legally initiate violence against others or take their property against their will. Non-government people are not legally allowed to do so.
    The agreement exists before you enter the jurisdiction and you agree to the conditions of that agreement when you enter the jurisdiction, just as you would if the corporation owned all that land. No difference at all.


    That's not true. The corporation could easily take land as long as there's compensation - it's their land, remember? No reason that can't be part of the corporation's laws. Even in the real world many subdivisions require dues and that's true for everyone owning land in the subdivision whether you're the original owner or not. The whole "neighborhood association" thing if there is one, including dues (aka, "extra taxes"), is part of the subdivision's covenants and restrictions by which all owners must abide.

    I've already explained about personal property. That could be the decision of the binding third party arbitrator, just as it is in civil courts now.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-15-13 at 06:46 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. #1618
    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
    The laws that govern the land are part of it's underlying encumbrances.

    Binding third party arbitrators and so that, which is part of the corporate laws. The contractual equal of eminent domain could also be easily written into the corporate laws.

    You agree when you enter the jurisdiction.

    That's not true. The corporation could easily take land as long as there's compensation - it's their land, remember? No reason that can't be part of the corporation's laws. Many subdivisions required dues and that's true for everyone owning land in the subdivision whether you're the original owner or not. The whole "neighborhood association" thing of there is one, including dues (aka, "extra taxes"), is part of the subdivision's covenants and restrictions.

    I've already explained about personal property. That could be the decision of the binding third party arbitrator, just as it is in civil courts, today.
    Yes, I agree that people can enter into whatever contractual arrangements they wish. They could set up a system with all sorts of rules and conditions.

    I still disagree with the idea of the government dictating to Joe with whom he may or may not trade. It is a violation of his personal liberty, and I can find no justification in the initiation of aggression against him.

  9. #1619
    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
    Yes, I agree that people can enter into whatever contractual arrangements they wish. They could set up a system with all sorts of rules and conditions.

    I still disagree with the idea of the government dictating to Joe with whom he may or may not trade. It is a violation of his personal liberty, and I can find no justification in the initiation of aggression against him.
    Joe's personal liberty hasn't been infringed at all. Joe's Diner can't discriminate. Joe can be however much a bigot he wants to be.
    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. #1620
    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
    Joe's personal liberty hasn't been infringed at all. Joe's Diner can't discriminate. Joe can be however much a bigot he wants to be.
    Good, as long as Joe is allowed to do as he pleases and nobody touches him or any of his property and he's free to engage in trade as he wishes, then I can find no objection.

Posting Permissions

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