View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 166 of 198 FirstFirst ... 66116156164165166167168176 ... LastLast
Results 1,651 to 1,660 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1651
    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
    If a corporation decides it wants to buy up all the land in an area, and held a vote to see if the people in that area would allow them to do so, it could not buy up the land of the people who voted no, even if the majority said yes.

    The voters who say yes have no claim to the property of the voters who say no, therefore they can not transfer that property to the government through a vote.
    Now you're proposing things contrary to the hypothetical situation.


    I believe you'll find very specific rules in each State for the incorporation of counties and cities. Unless you're going to use the Way Back Machine to address the way States are made States then you have no case.

    If you'd like to argue that everyone inside a proposed State's boundaries must agree to become a State then I'd say there would be no States at all. Even the original 13 colonies/states had people that fought for the British. It wasn't a 100% agreement - and I'd be willing to bet even the Constitution was not a 100% agreement of all citizens. Your argument fails terribly unless you're proposing absolute anarchy where there are no laws at all.
    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. #1652
    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 are there to stop Joe from harming others by opening his business. We've already been through this.
    The laws are an initiation of violence against Joe. Joe has harmed no one, so there is no justification for initiating violence against him.

  3. #1653
    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
    Untrue and I've shown why.
    You've offered an explanation, but I disagree with your characterization.

    It's simple, really. If Joe owns a business and that business gets fined, then Joe is being fined. You can claim otherwise, but you would be engaging in sophistry.

  4. #1654
    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 MoSurveyor View Post
    Now you're proposing things contrary to the hypothetical situation.


    I believe you'll find very specific rules in each State for the incorporation of counties and cities. Unless you're going to use the Way Back Machine to address the way States are made States then you have no case.

    If you'd like to argue that everyone inside a proposed State's boundaries must agree to become a State then I'd say there would be no States at all. Even the original 13 colonies/states had people that fought for the British. It wasn't a 100% agreement - and I'd be willing to bet even the Constitution was not a 100% agreement of all citizens. Your argument fails terribly unless you're proposing absolute anarchy where there are no laws at all.
    How am I proposing things contrary to the hypothetical situation? If the corporation takes over an area of land by having people vote on it, then said corporation isn't a corporation. Corporations can't do that. It would be like saying a pig is a winged animal because in a hypothetical scenario we give the pig wings.

    Still the voters who say no have a rightful claim to their property. The point being discussed is that the function is not the same. For a corporation to gain control over a territory, it cannot hold a majority vote to get the property of those who refuse it. A government can, and does so through coercion. Most people justify that coercion, those that do not are anarchists. But that is irrelevant to the point that the coercion exists.
    Last edited by Lakryte; 07-16-13 at 12:02 AM.
    "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."

  5. #1655
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    It's the truth and also works in Joe's favor. If someone dies from food poisoning from Joe's Diner then the business assets may be sold off to pay the damages awarded by the court but Joe's personal assets should be unaffected assuming Joe didn't personally commit a criminal act. Employees can sometimes be charged with criminal activity even if they're on the clock, depending on the circumstances.


    The money wasn't Joe's to start with, it was the business's "money" just like the money the business uses to pay the business's electric bill and buy raw foods to be cooked for it's customers. Joe's Diner has it's own set of company accounting books that are separate from Joe's personal finances. Joe will get whatever profit is left after all the bills of Joe's Diner are paid - including court decisions that go either way.

    Typically, a business will have it's own bank account. It makes documentation of the accounting easier.

    That comment just put you down a notch in my book.
    You realize you are just arguing the nuances of tax law? From here on out let's assume it's Joe Doe DBA Joe's Diner. All income is reported on his personal tax return and all expenses deducted from the same. This is common practice and debunks the well its a business not Joe line of debate.
    From the ashes.

  6. #1656
    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?

    To Clarify: Tax Topics - Topic 407 Business Income

    A sole proprietorship is an unincorporated business owned by an individual. A sole proprietorship has no existence apart from its owner. Business debts are personal debts of the owner.
    From the ashes.

  7. #1657
    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 Phoenix View Post
    You realize you are just arguing the nuances of tax law? From here on out let's assume it's Joe Doe DBA Joe's Diner. All income is reported on his personal tax return and all expenses deducted from the same. This is common practice and debunks the well its a business not Joe line of debate.

    Doesn't change a thing. Not debunk anything. There are more than a few hoops Joe has to jump through as a business owner that Joe the individual doesn't. And he agreed to all of it when he chose to go into business.

    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.

  8. #1658
    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
    Doesn't change a thing. Not debunk anything. There are more than a few hoops Joe has to jump through as a business owner that Joe the individual doesn't. And he agreed to all of it when he chose to go into business.
    As I've said, forcing Joe to jump through hoops prior to begin serving people food in his own diner on his own property is a violation of his liberty and is ethically unjustified. Such laws ought to be repealed. There is no justification for initiating violence against someone who has harmed no one.

  9. #1659
    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 laws are an initiation of violence against Joe. Joe has harmed no one, so there is no justification for initiating violence against him.
    We've already been through this. In many cases Joe will harm people just by opening his business. That's why there is a licensing process.
    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. #1660
    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've offered an explanation, but I disagree with your characterization.

    It's simple, really. If Joe owns a business and that business gets fined, then Joe is being fined. You can claim otherwise, but you would be engaging in sophistry.
    Disagree with the truth all you want.

    It's very simple. When Joe's Diner is held liable in court it's only Joe's Diner that gets fined. It may not even have been Joe that committed the illicit act, it could have been one of the Diner's other employees. It doesn't matter who it is, it's the Diner that gets fined.
    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
  •