View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 169 of 198 FirstFirst ... 69119159167168169170171179 ... LastLast
Results 1,681 to 1,690 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1681
    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
    If you have enough land that it doesn't disturb your neighbor or you can contain it to your property sure. Otherwise you are infringing on another's rights and no it's not okay.
    That's just a small part of the reason a business license is required. There are many ways a business can have a negative impact on those around it and most if not all of those are considered during the 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

  2. #1682
    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
    But the laws apply universally so they apply to the individual as well as the defined LLCs or Corps.
    An LLC's liability usually don't fall back on the owners. That's one of the main reasons for having one.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix View Post
    Not according to the IRS as I have posted previously. If his business borrows 1 million dollars guess who has to pay it back? joe.
    That's got nothing to do with the deductions I listed. Are you saying the IRS doesn't allow business deductions as opposed to personal deductions??? I'm pretty sure my business can deduct all those things from it's income whereas I can't even though I obviously need sleep and about half my food & clothing, not counting personal hygiene, to hold down a job - which makes them all "business expenses".


    That would depend on the loan.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-17-13 at 08:02 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. #1683
    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
    Nothing is wrong with any of those things. But you are presupposing the corporation owns all the land in the first place. If it does, everything you say is true. If it doesn't, then what you say is false. And in the case of government, it did not homestead or legally purchase the land it claims dominion over. That's the difference you keep ignoring.
    I don't ignore it. Cities and counties are founded on rules set by the State - in my State, rules that were enacted before much of the land was owned. Like I said, if you want to say something about a region becoming a State then we'll talk because that's where it all starts. If you move into the State after Statehood is granted, which I'd bet is a good 95% of the population (and probably more), then you're the n00b and knew the rules when you entered and/or settled there. If you were born there, then your parents, grandparents or whoever made those decisions for you when they moved there and no one is stopping you from moving back out of the state.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Then there is no point to your scenario, because not everyone agreed to form the various governments that actually exist in the real world. Your hypothetical corporation scenario has no counterpart in reality. This discussion has nothing to do with anarchy, so stop bringing it up.
    Not everyone will agree to any form of government. Your argument - again - fails terribly.


    I won't stop bringing it up because anarchy is the only option if you expect 100% agreement.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-17-13 at 07:59 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

  4. #1684
    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
    Depends on the kind of business. I believe there are some business endeavors that don't require a business license, though I could be wrong about that. It's been a long time since I looked into the specifics. However, if you have a place of business, as opposed to part-time use of a room in your home (and maybe a small amount of storage space), that's a different subject. That kind of license is there for many reasons, mostly to protect the people around the proposed business.
    Whether someone harms others is independent of whether that person is operating a business.

    The crime should be the act that harms others, not going into business.

    Again, give me an example of the sort of harm you are talking about, and I'd wager that I agree that such an activity should be considered a crime or tort. But I won't agree that simply establishing a business without permission is a crime.

    And, getting back to the topic, refusing to do business with someone harms neither their person or their property, so it should never be considered a crime. Again, no victim, no crime.

  5. #1685
    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
    Whether someone harms others is independent of whether that person is operating a business.

    The crime should be the act that harms others, not going into business.

    Again, give me an example of the sort of harm you are talking about, and I'd wager that I agree that such an activity should be considered a crime or tort. But I won't agree that simply establishing a business without permission is a crime.
    After my last post I checked and all businesses have to be registered in Missouri if nothing else then for tax purposes. Businesses inside our city limits require a license but most businesses in the county don't, so what level of licensing (if any) would be up to the individual cities.

    The primary reason for all laws is deterrence, to stop crimes from happening in the first place.

    Pollution, noise, increased traffic (which carries it's own public safety issues), availability of utilities (I don't want outages because your deep fryers are tripping the block's circuit breakers), general public safety (do I really need to mention the Texas explosion again?), zoning --- the list goes on and on and varies depending on the type of business and what area we're talking about. The business license process resolves all those things before they become issues.



    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    And, getting back to the topic, refusing to do business with someone harms neither their person or their property, so it should never be considered a crime. Again, no victim, no crime.
    The courts seem to think there is harm and I'll let those court cases speak for themselves on that count, since they connect the dots (for those who need it) much better than I can.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-17-13 at 01:42 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

  6. #1686
    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
    After my last post I checked and all businesses have to be registered in Missouri if nothing else then for tax purposes. Businesses inside our city limits require a license but most businesses in the county don't, so what level of licensing (if any) would be up to the individual cities.

    The primary reason for all laws is deterrence, to stop crimes from happening in the first place.

    Pollution, noise, increased traffic (which carries it's own public safety issues), availability of utilities (I don't want outages because your deep fryers are tripping the block's circuit breakers), general public safety (do I really need to mention the Texas explosion again?), zoning --- the list goes on and on and varies depending on the type of business and what area we're talking about. The business license process resolves all those things before they become issues.
    I agree that polluting and noise disturbances could not be crimes or torts. Of course, one does not have to be a business in order to commit these acts. Obviously, anyone could be guilty of such acts, whether they are engaging in trade or not.

    The increase in traffic is the road owner's problem (or blessing, depending on his revenue model). If the road owner wants to place limits on traffic, that is his prerogative and people using the road will have to abide by such limits. But again. the road owner has no right to tell someone whether he may or may not engage in trade on his own property.

    Same with the electric, water, etc. These providers may limit what a customer may purchase (God knows why they would do this, since they would be forgoing income), but they have no right to tell anyone whether they may engage in trade on their own property.

    I could see a case being made in which someone is doing something on their own property that is so obviously dangerous so as to pose a threat to other people. In this case, I think that it would reasonable for a judge to issue injunctions against such activities. But once again, anyone can act in a dangerous manner, and acting in a dangerous manner is not inextricably linked to engaging in trade with one's fellow man. We can make hazardous activities crimes or torts regardless of whether one is engaged in trade on one's own property.

    Again, if a person acts so as to harm the person or property of another, his actions can be regarded as crimes or torts and they should be punishable. However, simply engaging in trade with others on one's own property is orthogonal to whether one's acts harm others. Trading with others does not necessarily result in victims, therefore it should not be a crime. Only harming others or their property should be a crime.

  7. #1687
    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 courts seem to think there is harm and I'll let those court cases speak for themselves on that count, since they connect the dots (for those who need it) much better than I can.
    Does refusing to business with someone effect that person's body in any way? Does it effect their property in any way?

  8. #1688
    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
    I don't ignore it. Cities and counties are founded on rules set by the State - in my State, rules that were enacted before much of the land was owned. Like I said, if you want to say something about a region becoming a State then we'll talk because that's where it all starts. If you move into the State after Statehood is granted, which I'd bet is a good 95% of the population (and probably more), then you're the n00b and knew the rules when you entered and/or settled there. If you were born there, then your parents, grandparents or whoever made those decisions for you when they moved there and no one is stopping you from moving back out of the state.
    Exactly, that's the entire point. A corporation cannot enact rules over land before that land is owned. Government can--through coercion.

    Not everyone will agree to any form of government. Your argument - again - fails terribly.
    No, that is my argument. A government can come in and claim dominion over land without agreement of everyone currently there. A corporation cannot.

    I won't stop bringing it up because anarchy is the only option if you expect 100% agreement.
    No. Another option is accepting that an institution of coercion may be a "necessary evil." You've never heard the saying that government is "a necessary evil"? What you are trying to do is make this into an argument about anarchy. Its not. Its an argument about the nature of government, regardless of whether you think it should exist or not.
    "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."

  9. #1689
    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 agree that polluting and noise disturbances could not be crimes or torts. Of course, one does not have to be a business in order to commit these acts. Obviously, anyone could be guilty of such acts, whether they are engaging in trade or not.
    I assume you meant they COULD BE?


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    The increase in traffic is the road owner's problem (or blessing, depending on his revenue model). If the road owner wants to place limits on traffic, that is his prerogative and people using the road will have to abide by such limits. But again. the road owner has no right to tell someone whether he may or may not engage in trade on his own property.
    I'm not here for your anarchist fantasies.

    In the real world there are obvious safety hazards with increased traffic flow and probable maintenance issues as well. It would not be reasonable to limit each individual house in a subdivision to X number of cars per year (how would one keep track?) and certainly a daily limit would be ridiculous. It may not be an issue for a large family's (great) grandparents to have a twice a year get together where there are maybe 40 people (incl children/grandchildren/etc) but having that much extra traffic every single day would be cause for concern, let alone how much traffic an average business generates.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Same with the electric, water, etc. These providers may limit what a customer may purchase (God knows why they would do this, since they would be forgoing income), but they have no right to tell anyone whether they may engage in trade on their own property.
    It's easy to see why in your anarchist world - they loose other customers because of poor service.

    Utilities usually have a different rate schedule for businesses as well, though I'm honestly not sure if it's higher or lower than a residence.
    (PS: Business rates here are more expensive for the first ~250 kWh and cheaper after that.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I could see a case being made in which someone is doing something on their own property that is so obviously dangerous so as to pose a threat to other people. In this case, I think that it would reasonable for a judge to issue injunctions against such activities. But once again, anyone can act in a dangerous manner, and acting in a dangerous manner is not inextricably linked to engaging in trade with one's fellow man. We can make hazardous activities crimes or torts regardless of whether one is engaged in trade on one's own property.
    Tell that to the survivors in Texas. Tell me, how much money does it take to replace a child, a mother, or a father? Should we execute all the owners? That might be enough deterrence to keep future business owners from creating or allowing a lethal threat like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Again, if a person acts so as to harm the person or property of another, his actions can be regarded as crimes or torts and they should be punishable. However, simply engaging in trade with others on one's own property is orthogonal to whether one's acts harm others. Trading with others does not necessarily result in victims, therefore it should not be a crime. Only harming others or their property should be a crime.
    Like I said earlier, business permits are required in Missouri for tax reasons, which works both ways. Businesses can buy goods without paying taxes on those goods but they also have to collect taxes on what they sell.

    Other than that, licensing is a city by city thing (some cities have none at all) except for some very specific county level permits for certain businesses, which is a county by county thing.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-18-13 at 01:23 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

  10. #1690
    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
    Does refusing to business with someone effect that person's body in any way? Does it effect their property in any way?
    See the court cases ...
    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
  •