View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 167 of 198 FirstFirst ... 67117157165166167168169177 ... LastLast
Results 1,661 to 1,670 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1661
    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
    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.
    Corporations can do pretty much anything that can be written in a contract as long as it's not illegal. What, specifically, is illegal about a corporation owning any amount of land it can acquire by buying, homesteading, etc? (This happened long ago when the area was first settled.) What, specifically, is illegal about said corporation having corporate rules, regulations, and covenants that "governs" the lands it owns? Is there some specific limit as to complexity of those corporate "laws"? What, specifically, is illegal about the adults living inside the corporate limits each holding one voting share? The only thing a corporation can't cover in a contract are the criminal aspects of it's "citizens". In America, only a government entity can imprison someone, so there would have to be a county sheriff and court to deal with those elements.

    You're quibbling when you have not apparently read the original posts on this hypothetical situation. I suggest you do so, again if needed, instead of jumping into the middle of something you apparently know nothing about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    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.
    In the scenario everyone agreed to form the corporation. Your ignorance of the situation is showing again and, quite frankly, it's getting old.


    I don't indulge anarchist fantasies, so it's not irrelevant to me.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-16-13 at 08:06 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

  2. #1662
    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
    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.
    You are wrong. This applies only if it's set up a specific way. IE if the diner is a LLC or corporation.
    From the ashes.

  3. #1663
    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 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.
    You are missing that it's Joe, the individual business owner. Every hoop that gets jumped through is done by Joe. Everything that happens to the business is happening to Joe. Whether he agreed to it when he went into business isn't the issue. He had to agree to it or not be in business. The question is whether it's tyranny or an assault to liberty to make him do these things.
    From the ashes.

  4. #1664
    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 Phoenix View Post
    You are wrong. This applies only if it's set up a specific way. IE if the diner is a LLC or corporation.
    I was treating it as an LLC, which is what I've seen most in my profession.

    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.
    But since you introduced the tax code:

    Does Joe get to deduct "business expenses" like the rental/mortgage on the business property?
    What about the utilities of the business?
    How about the equipment (and it's depreciation) the business needs to function?

    Now, does Joe get to deduct his personal rent/mortgage from his income?
    How about his personal utility bills?
    What about Joe's new personal washing machine and it's depreciation?

    Still seems like there's a difference between Joe and his business.
    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. #1665
    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 Phoenix View Post
    You are missing that it's Joe, the individual business owner. Every hoop that gets jumped through is done by Joe. Everything that happens to the business is happening to Joe. Whether he agreed to it when he went into business isn't the issue. He had to agree to it or not be in business. The question is whether it's tyranny or an assault to liberty to make him do these things.
    So it's perfectly OK for me to blast my stereo at 3 AM? Well, that's one less worry when I'm up at night!
    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

  6. #1666
    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
    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.
    It is unjustified to initiate violence against someone just because he MIGHT harm others.

    Make the law specify what harms are crimes, torts, etc, and then punish people for committing those harms.

  7. #1667
    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
    When Joe's Diner is held liable in court it's only Joe's Diner that gets fined.
    And who owns Joe's diner?

  8. #1668
    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
    And who owns Joe's diner?
    Round and round ...
    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

  9. #1669
    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
    It is unjustified to initiate violence against someone just because he MIGHT harm others.

    Make the law specify what harms are crimes, torts, etc, and then punish people for committing those harms.
    Joe has broken no business laws until he opens his business.
    No one will cite him for thinking about opening a business.


    That's pretty much been done but you reject that idea.
    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. #1670
    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 has broken no business laws until he opens his business. No one can cite him for thinking about opening a business.

    That's pretty much been done but you reject that idea.
    Simply engaging in trade harms no one, therefore it should not be a crime or forcibly prevented in any way.

    On the other hand, acts that harm other people should be legally recognized as crimes or torts.

    No victim; no crime.

Posting Permissions

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