View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 175 of 198 FirstFirst ... 75125165173174175176177185 ... LastLast
Results 1,741 to 1,750 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1741
    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 they grant permission to some and deny permission to others. To me that sounds a lot like picking winners and losers.
    For types of businesses, not the people "asking for permission".

    People planning conventions and vacations look at things like availability of hotel rooms and restaurants to the area they're visiting. Having 50 restaurants and no hotels doesn't make for a good convention area. Having 50 hotels and no restaurants doesn't make for a good recreational area. Cities balance them to meet the qualifications people are looking at when making their decisions. Conventions and tourism are big money, not only to the city itself but to the businesses in those convention and entertainment areas.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    But in general, I advocate the elimination of laws requiring that a person require government permission to engage in trade. That's the fundamental point over which we disagree.
    The reason(s) for the licensing has been shown many times. If you don't like the rules then don't buy the property, it's as simple as that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    That's why I disagree with laws that punish a person for refusing to trade with someone. He has not violated the physical integrity of another person's body or property, so there is no ethical justification for initiating violence against him.
    If you're lying about your business (being OTTP when you're a bigot) then you are harming other people - you've said so yourself. Why continue with this deception?
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 07-24-13 at 08:15 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

  2. #1742
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    I do not want any portion of the law to be revoked. If you want to run a racist business, so be it, you'll lose customers. But, when that business provides food or shelter, "boycotting" might not be an option. As a libertarian, I agree with protecting your rights, but sometimes two rights are in conflict. We have to weigh them based on which is a more basic human right. It comes down to this; do I uphold your right to be racist or your right to have access to food and shelter? It's obvious to me that we need to preserve human life (Food and Shelter) over the comfortability of being a racist.

    I don't understand the issue for most libertarians against this idea; we already agree that rights are not absolute. One persons rights must not infringe the rights of others, within reason. You have a right to be racist, even to use this racism to discriminate within your business practices. But, we've deemed that your racism has to be limited when it infringes on more basic human rights. This is not an anti-libertarian idea, it just acknowledges the limitations of liberty.

  3. #1743
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    I do not want any portion of the law to be revoked. If you want to run a racist business, so be it, you'll lose customers. But, when that business provides food or shelter, "boycotting" might not be an option. As a libertarian, I agree with protecting your rights, but sometimes two rights are in conflict. We have to weigh them based on which is a more basic human right. It comes down to this; do I uphold your right to be racist or your right to have access to food and shelter? It's obvious to me that we need to preserve human life (Food and Shelter) over the comfortability of being a racist.
    yes if you are a racist ,i dont think your going to be in business long, however some want to treat racism as a crime, and its not.

    whatever i have ...is my property, and no one has the authority to make to sell or give it to another person.


    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    I don't understand the issue for most libertarians against this idea; we already agree that rights are not absolute. One persons rights must not infringe the rights of others, within reason. You have a right to be racist, even to use this racism to discriminate within your business practices. But, we've deemed that your racism has to be limited when it infringes on more basic human rights. This is not an anti-libertarian idea, it just acknowledges the limitations of liberty.

    rights are absolutes, does the right to bare a firearm go away for everyone, if i infringe{commit a crime] on the rights of another person , no the right is still there its just curtailed for ME.

    if a person infringes on another citizens rights, that is a crime its not a constitutional violation, there is [no within reason], its a crime or its isn't

    yes you can be a racist its not a crime, but WE have deemed nothing, no one has a right to any of my property or anything from me.

    human rights...whats that?...all it means to me is someone wanting something to be a right which is not part of the constitution.

    the only limitations on liberty are when you do something that cause death, pain, damage to ones person or property, of by your actions could cause death pain, or damage to ones property or person.

  4. #1744
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    rights are absolutes, does the right to bare a firearm go away for everyone, if i infringe{commit a crime] on the rights of another person , no the right is still there its just curtailed for ME.

    if a person infringes on another citizens rights, that is a crime its not a constitutional violation, there is [no within reason], its a crime or its isn't

    yes you can be a racist its not a crime, but WE have deemed nothing, no one has a right to any of my property or anything from me.

    human rights...whats that?...all it means to me is someone wanting something to be a right which is not part of the constitution.

    the only limitations on liberty are when you do something that cause death, pain, damage to ones person or property, of by your actions could cause death pain, or damage to ones property or person.
    You ask what human rights are, but then define them in the next line. The issue is that if you choose to pursue an interest that can affect the human rights of others, that right must have limits to prevent you from infringing the human rights of others. Crime is not the only reason to curtail a right; You can't have a gun if you're mentally unfit, you can't drive a car if you're blind, etc. These things could potentially cause pain, death, damage, etc., to others, so they are regulated to provide a reasonable amount of safety.

    The civil rights acts were required because the free market did not provide enough alternatives for all Americans. Hypothetically, if there had been enough stores, restaurants, schools, hotels, ect., that served blacks during segragation, there'd probably never have been a civil rights act. But, segregation was a fail; separate and equal doesn't work. The reason we needed it was because this equality of access to basic goods and services as implied by our constitutional rights should not be dependent on the prejudices of others. All men are created equal, so all men should have equal access to basic goods and services; the free-market failed to protect those rights, so it was regulated.

    Companies that are not involved with basic goods and services are not now, nor were they ever affected by the public accommodation clause of the civil rights act. They can be as racist, sexist, homophobic, and all around bigoted as they like.

  5. #1745
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    You ask what human rights are, but then define them in the next line. The issue is that if you choose to pursue an interest that can affect the human rights of others, that right must have limits to prevent you from infringing the human rights of others. Crime is not the only reason to curtail a right; You can't have a gun if you're mentally unfit, you can't drive a car if you're blind, etc. These things could potentially cause pain, death, damage, etc., to others, so they are regulated to provide a reasonable amount of safety.

    human rights is something that was come from modern day society it does not exist in the constitution. human rights has come to mean, anything anybody wants it to mean.

    if I exercise my rights and they come into conflict with another's rights, then they can be curtailed because of a crime I am committing, however the absolute rights in the bills of rights for the people cannot be abolished.

    your examples are true meaning your rights are curtailed because reasons of possible physical pain and damage to other people or property, but notice the importance...physical pain or injury.....your feelings are not protected by the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    The civil rights acts were required because the free market did not provide enough alternatives for all Americans. Hypothetically, if there had been enough stores, restaurants, schools, hotels, ect., that served blacks during segragation, there'd probably never have been a civil rights act. But, segregation was a fail; separate and equal doesn't work. The reason we needed it was because this equality of access to basic goods and services as implied by our constitutional rights should not be dependent on the prejudices of others. All men are created equal, so all men should have equal access to basic goods and services; the free-market failed to protect those rights, so it was regulated.

    Companies that are not involved with basic goods and services are not now, nor were they ever affected by the public accommodation clause of the civil rights act. They can be as racist, sexist, homophobic, and all around bigoted as they like

    there are no rights to material goods or services, to make such a right would be unconstitutional, no rights under the American system, can lay a burden of debt or duty on another citizen for a citizen to have a right.

    this is why they is no right to food, water and housing.

    all men are equal in the sense of birth and the freedom to pursuit of happiness, but happiness is not guarantee, nor we are not equal economy or socially, that is something the citizen must pursue.

    as a citizen, there is RIGHT to association, and a RIGHT to property, another persons needs or feelings do not trump my rights.

    rights are individual... not collective, we as a group or community, don't get to decide how a person exercises this rights, if he is not committing a crime.

    no person can be forced to serve another person, per the 13th amendment...unless a crime is committed.
    Last edited by Master PO; 07-25-13 at 02:14 AM.

  6. #1746
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    human rights is something that was come from modern day society it does not exist in the constitution. human rights has come to mean, anything anybody wants it to mean.

    if I exercise my rights and they come into conflict with another's rights, then they can be curtailed because of a crime I am committing, however the absolute rights in the bills of rights for the people cannot be abolished.

    your examples are true meaning your rights are curtailed because reasons of possible physical pain and damage to other people or property, but notice the importance...physical pain or injury.....your feelings are not protected by the law.




    there are no rights to material goods of services, to make such a right would be unconstitutional, no rights under the American system, can lay a burden of debt or duty on another citizen for a citizen to have a right.

    this is why they is no right to food, water and housing.

    all men are equal in the sense of birth and the freedom to pursuit of happiness, but happiness is not guarantee, nor we are not equal economy or socially, that is something the citizen must pursue.

    as a citizen, there is RIGHT to association, and a RIGHT to property, another persons needs or feelings do not trump my rights.

    rights are individual... not collective, we as a group or community, don't get to decide how a person exercises this rights, if he is not committing a crime.

    no person can be force to serve another person, per the 13th amendment...unless a crime is committed.
    Although I love my country and use our constitution as a guide to legality/morality; it is not an absolute. The constitution was written for people living 200+ years ago, when anyone who had the desire to own a farm need only apply for a homestead. No one needed to be burdened by your needs, since your needs could be fulfilled by yourself with an amount of effort deemed reasonable at the time. All of the rights that are laid out in the constitution and implied by the declaration were fulfilled by any man (except slaves) at the time.

    This is no longer the case. I can't plop down on some land and start farming it. I can't fulfill my rights to life, due to the land being taken already. The day they stopped homesteading land for free was the day that our constitutional rights became a guide instead of an absolute.

    You are right in saying that happiness, economics, and social status are not guaranteed, but there must be a path guaranteed to these things. You can't give me the right to pursue life and no path with which to pursue it; the obligation is for me to follow the path and do the work to pursue my goals (The path was homesteading and the work was farming). In the issue of public accommodation, these businesses are now that path. No store is obligated to give me free things (they aren't guaranteed) but, the store must still provide a path to purchasing goods (the path is guaranteed). In a post-farming society, that is a reasonable path to our constitutional rights. Without it, show me what path there is, or should we let people die despite their willingness to work, to pay for goods, and to live in peace.

    You're right in saying that no man must be forced to serve another, but this applies to slavery and indentured servitude. You chose to open a store, it wasn't forced upon you. With that choice, you decided to become a form of public accommodation, a path to life, and thus curtailed your own rights. If you don't like it, open up a different business. Rights are not absolute; in the USA, you don't have a right to open a store and then discriminate, because their rights outweigh yours. That's how it works when a man cannot be self-sufficient off the land.

  7. #1747
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    Although I love my country and use our constitution as a guide to legality/morality; it is not an absolute. The constitution was written for people living 200+ years ago, when anyone who had the desire to own a farm need only apply for a homestead. No one needed to be burdened by your needs, since your needs could be fulfilled by yourself with an amount of effort deemed reasonable at the time. All of the rights that are laid out in the constitution and implied by the declaration were fulfilled by any man (except slaves) at the time.

    This is no longer the case. I can't plop down on some land and start farming it. I can't fulfill my rights to life, due to the land being taken already. The day they stopped homesteading land for free was the day that our constitutional rights became a guide instead of an absolute.

    You are right in saying that happiness, economics, and social status are not guaranteed, but there must be a path guaranteed to these things. You can't give me the right to pursue life and no path with which to pursue it; the obligation is for me to follow the path and do the work to pursue my goals (The path was homesteading and the work was farming). In the issue of public accommodation, these businesses are now that path. No store is obligated to give me free things (they aren't guaranteed) but, the store must still provide a path to purchasing goods (the path is guaranteed). In a post-farming society, that is a reasonable path to our constitutional rights. Without it, show me what path there is, or should we let people die despite their willingness to work, to pay for goods, and to live in peace.

    You're right in saying that no man must be forced to serve another, but this applies to slavery and indentured servitude. You chose to open a store, it wasn't forced upon you. With that choice, you decided to become a form of public accommodation, a path to life, and thus curtailed your own rights. If you don't like it, open up a different business. Rights are not absolute; in the USA, you don't have a right to open a store and then discriminate, because their rights outweigh yours. That's how it works when a man cannot be self-sufficient off the land.
    discrimination is not a crime.

    discrimination laws are statutory laws, and subordinate to constitutional law.

    governments have no authority be they state or federal to force people to do things against their will.....unless a crime has been committed.

    people do have rights.......which are association, property, commerce...I find it odd people think government has the power to regulate rights, based on what government thinks is right, when did government get to be the moral decider?

    government is not here to make us moral or immoral, its purpose to secure rights of the peoples, it everyone respected each others rights, governments would not be necessary.

  8. #1748
    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
    For types of businesses, not the people "asking for permission".

    People planning conventions and vacations look at things like availability of hotel rooms and restaurants to the area they're visiting. Having 50 restaurants and no hotels doesn't make for a good convention area. Having 50 hotels and no restaurants doesn't make for a good recreational area. Cities balance them to meet the qualifications people are looking at when making their decisions. Conventions and tourism are big money, not only to the city itself but to the businesses in those convention and entertainment areas.
    I understand that people planning vacations want a particular mix of hotel rooms and restaurants. I just disagree that we need to use the apparatus of compulsion and coercion to centrally plan the proper mix. I tend to oppose laws implementing such central planning because I don't agree that the decisions of one group of people should be binding on others.

    The reason(s) for the licensing has been shown many times. If you don't like the rules then don't buy the property, it's as simple as that.
    Yeah, I don't really buy into your explanation for licensing. If you want to propose laws that forbid acts that effect the physical integrity of people's body or property, then I'm all for that. However, I can't support a law that requires a person to ask permission from the government before he can engage in trade on his own property. That's why I oppose such laws.

    If you're lying about your business (being OTTP when you're a bigot) then you are harming other people - you've said so yourself. Why continue with this deception?
    As I said, refusing to trade with someone does not violate the physical integrity of anyone's body or property. Therefore, I can't support a law that criminalizes such behavior, since that would constitute an initiation of aggression against a person who has not damaged anyone's body or property.

  9. #1749
    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 douglas View Post
    I do not want any portion of the law to be revoked. If you want to run a racist business, so be it, you'll lose customers. But, when that business provides food or shelter, "boycotting" might not be an option. As a libertarian, I agree with protecting your rights, but sometimes two rights are in conflict. We have to weigh them based on which is a more basic human right. It comes down to this; do I uphold your right to be racist or your right to have access to food and shelter? It's obvious to me that we need to preserve human life (Food and Shelter) over the comfortability of being a racist.

    I don't understand the issue for most libertarians against this idea; we already agree that rights are not absolute. One persons rights must not infringe the rights of others, within reason. You have a right to be racist, even to use this racism to discriminate within your business practices. But, we've deemed that your racism has to be limited when it infringes on more basic human rights. This is not an anti-libertarian idea, it just acknowledges the limitations of liberty.
    Actually I don't think that most libertarians would agree that rights are not absolute. On the contrary I think that most libertarians would agree that every person has an absolute right to not have violence initiated against his body or his property.

    Refusing to engage in trade with someone is not an initiation of violence against anyone's body or property. However, using violence to force someone to engage in trade is. Therefore, the latter must be condemned as unethical.

  10. #1750
    Advisor douglas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    06-29-16 @ 03:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    458

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Actually I don't think that most libertarians would agree that rights are not absolute. On the contrary I think that most libertarians would agree that every person has an absolute right to not have violence initiated against his body or his property.

    Refusing to engage in trade with someone is not an initiation of violence against anyone's body or property. However, using violence to force someone to engage in trade is. Therefore, the latter must be condemned as unethical.
    That is where I disagree with the majority of libertarians. I do not believe that our rights are absolute. I believe in collective rights to preserve a common good, which is voted on in a democratic process.

    I fully believe that you should have a right to be racist. Anyone can go join the KKK or kick it with the neo-nazis; the government won't stop them, or even care. The second that you put yourself in a position to affect the greater good, you chose to give up your rights. People have a right to life, which requires food and shelter. If you provide these goods and services, you've chosen to be a public accommodation and can no longer discriminate. That is required to preserve constitutional rights; without this clause, people could be deprived of life. In the end, whether you like that responsibility or not, you have it. You can try to change it all you like (that's democracy), but I doubt you'll like a world where equality is determined by the guy who has what you need.

    The biggest issue I have with the majority of libertarians is, why use the united states constitution? The constitutional framers were just men, flawed and limited by their history; those "rights" made sense to a farming civilization 200 years ago, but they don't make sense anymore. The constitutional rights are a great guide, but they should not be universal. Just as society, technology, and philosophy changes, the notion of a birth-right must also change. I've proposed this question and I inevitably get a response, "Who will frame these "rights", and why are they more correct?". I say that "we the people" should ratify a new bill of rights and it will be correct because of democracy.

Posting Permissions

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