View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 176 of 198 FirstFirst ... 76126166174175176177178186 ... LastLast
Results 1,751 to 1,760 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1751
    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
    That is where I disagree with the majority of libertarians. I do not believe that our rights are absolute.
    Hmm. So you don't think you have an absolute right to be free from the initiation of aggression against your body or your property? Under what circumstances would you think it would be justified for someone else to violate your body or take or destroy your property?

  2. #1752
    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
    Hmm. So you don't think you have an absolute right to be free from the initiation of aggression against your body or your property? Under what circumstances would you think it would be justified for someone else to violate your body or take or destroy your property?
    When it serves the greater good. It's not a foreign concept; if the state needs to build a freeway through your land, kiss your house good bye. If you threaten national security, you might "have an accident". Your rights have always been only those that the government gives you; if it serves the greater good, then your rights will be curtailed. As long as the greater good is determined by a democratic process, this isn't tyranny.

    The difference between those rights and the personal rights that I'd always support are how much they impact others; I have always rejected the nannystate. You should not be held to a personal code of morality or safety. But, it's decidedly different if you threaten others, or if your rights impact the rights of others. In the freeway example, your right to property is overruled by the right to property by the majority; that freeway will benefit thousands while your house only benefits you.

    Pure libertarianism is naive; it implies that there is enough (land, resources, energy, jobs, money, etc.) to go around, and that violence is the only way to deny someone's rights. It's simply not true, or even typical. The easiest way to steal from a man is give him a loan, debase his currency, or manipulate the prices of the goods he buys. The easiest way to kill a man is to prohibit his ability to use the land and then block his access to people who do. That's what removing the public accommodation clause will do; it's theft, and possibly murder, to remove a man's purchasing power in modern society. That is easily against our notions of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

  3. #1753
    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
    When it serves the greater good. It's not a foreign concept; if the state needs to build a freeway through your land, kiss your house good bye. If you threaten national security, you might "have an accident". Your rights have always been only those that the government gives you; if it serves the greater good, then your rights will be curtailed. As long as the greater good is determined by a democratic process, this isn't tyranny.
    Given your position, I can see why you disagree with the philosophy of libertarianism. The libertarian position is that it is always unjustified for any person to initiate aggression against the body or property of another person.

  4. #1754
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:01 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,965

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Even if they can't outright say it, people are going to refuse others business based on discrimination. But that doesn't mean our laws should give them the nod.

    The historical purpose for the laws was anti-segregation. People's societal participation should not be hindered because of their skin color, orientation, etc.

    Stossel hones in on organizations that are safe spaces for certain minorities as examples, but they're not good ones. A gay-only softball league is meant to be a safe space from bullying. The whole reason why they exist is BECAUSE mainstream leagues discriminate against gays.

    I disagree with Stossel. He over-simplifies the issue, just like most people of the privileged class. It's always the privileged who say discrimination doesn't happen anymore, or protective laws aren't needed. Hell yes, they are. Try living a day in a black person's shoes, or a gay person's who is walking around with his or her partner, and you will understand.

  5. #1755
    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
    When it serves the greater good. It's not a foreign concept; if the state needs to build a freeway through your land, kiss your house good bye. If you threaten national security, you might "have an accident". Your rights have always been only those that the government gives you; if it serves the greater good, then your rights will be curtailed. As long as the greater good is determined by a democratic process, this isn't tyranny.

    The difference between those rights and the personal rights that I'd always support are how much they impact others; I have always rejected the nannystate. You should not be held to a personal code of morality or safety. But, it's decidedly different if you threaten others, or if your rights impact the rights of others. In the freeway example, your right to property is overruled by the right to property by the majority; that freeway will benefit thousands while your house only benefits you.

    Pure libertarianism is naive; it implies that there is enough (land, resources, energy, jobs, money, etc.) to go around, and that violence is the only way to deny someone's rights. It's simply not true, or even typical. The easiest way to steal from a man is give him a loan, debase his currency, or manipulate the prices of the goods he buys. The easiest way to kill a man is to prohibit his ability to use the land and then block his access to people who do. That's what removing the public accommodation clause will do; it's theft, and possibly murder, to remove a man's purchasing power in modern society. That is easily against our notions of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
    i do not understand how you call yourself a libertarian.

    classical liberals ..or libertarians,........ believe in individual rights, not collective rights.

    obama believes in collective rights, as proven by his Kansas speech.

    the idea of the collective determining what rights are are repugnant to libertarians.




    what the u.s. government taught in 1928 below

    No collective morality.
    — In the very nature of our Government, the responsibility for its social, economic, and political standards rests absolutely upon the character of its individual citizens. There can be no collective morality, integrity, honor, that is not the sum of the principles of the individuals of the community, State, or Nation. If the majority are mercenary, the character of the Nation will be ruthless. If the growing tendency to irreligious thought persists, the Nation will become irresponsible


    93. Mankind a mass of individual ego. — Psychology and social science have discovered that mankind is made up of a mass of individual ego, each revealing similar characteristics of instincts, idiosyncrasies, and manifestations of selfish interests — in the control of which his intelligence has developed forms of government.From earliest childhood self-assertion, self-determination, self-preservation manifest themselves.It is human nature for the strong to take advantage of the weak, whether it be strength of body, strength of mind, or strength of a group; that group may be a minority in numbers, yet all-powerful by reason of the forces under its control.The chief purpose of government is that of controlling this instinct and directing it into channels through which society will gain the greatest benefit.

    94. Two forms of government. — One form of government gives the State the supreme control and places all its citizens upon a common level of "equal condition''; the other recognizes the rights of the individual as greater than the government, and emphasizes the superiority of "equality of opportunity" incontrast with "equality of condition."

    95. Collectivist government. —"Equality of condition".
    — In this system of government stress is laid upon the proposition that "all men are created equal,"meaning that no man has a right to that which is denied to another; that any system of government failing to recognize and conform to this "ideal" is wrong,and therefore an enemy of society and a foe of mankind.

    The ignorant, illiterate, physically and mentally deficient, the lazy,improvident, and reckless have equal right with the alert, aggressive, busy,educated, high-minded, orderly citizen who aspires to the best and is willing to pay the price of attainment through self-discipline, hard work, and careful management.It is not in human nature to recognize "equality of condition" except to acquire personal advantage. One may be willing to divide anther's property with the and fourth individual providing the share remaining to him is something more than he formerly possessed.

    Denial of personal rights.
    — "Collectivism" is the denial of personal rights.The State (community) becomes the chief concern of all. It claims that the "lawof equality," once applied, would destroy every human desire for individual dominance, making society safe, content, comfortable, and happy.This "ideal" is to be accomplished by the application of force under the direction of leaders, in the selection of whom the people will have little or no choice. It is necessary, at first, to enforce the will of community interests until the people become educated and submissive to the new order.Denied all personal rights "collectivism" gives its "instructions'' where to live,where to work, what to do, what to think, and what to say. for the State is the law.

    Confiscation of private property.
    — "Collectivism" declares that the possession of property has developed protection of property through governments, courts,police power, and public opinion, making it difficult for one to acquire private property except by work. Private property must be abolished so that all will liveon a plane of "equal condition." As a matter of fact, however, "human nature"will see to it that the "equal condition" will very quickly become an equal condition of misery, want, and discontent.

    Religion outlawed.
    — The collectivist government proceeds against"imperialism" by outlawing the church. The church at the behest of capital "fedthe people the opium of religion," making them willing slaves to do the will of their capitalistic masters. In the interest of the new order there must be left noplace for religion, lest the people gain courage to throw off the yoke of their new-found freedom.

    Abolition of the family.
    — With personal rights, private property, and the church abolished, to make subjection complete "the state" declares that in pure

    "collectivism" there can be no family ties, for children, like all other property,are an asset of the community and must be robbed of family love and obligation as a necessary step to loyalty to the state. Marriage may be practiced if conscience insists, but is not demanded in the interest of the new society, for with the abolishment of personal rights, private property, church, and home,society no longer possesses a moral, ethical, or spiritual code."

    Socialism" kills.
    — The doctrine of "socialism" is "collectivism." It tears down the social structure, weakens individual responsibility by subjection to or reliance upon the state in all material, social, and political matters. It compels the thought that at his best man is no better than the worst; he loses his self-respect and his keener sense of moral and ethical values. Ambition is nullified by restriction of choice in occupation and reward of attainment. Initiative, thievery backbone of all progress, is smothered in the morass of impersonal service, mass servility, and mob inertia."Socialism" aims to save individuals from the difficulties or hardships of the struggle for existence and the competition of life through calling upon the state to carry the burden for them."Equality of condition," the ruling law of "collectivism," is the death knell alike to individual liberty, justice, and progress through the destruction of individual and national character.When the citizens of a nation, seeking comforts and pleasures, find no joy or satisfaction in hard work, the years of that nation are numbered. Free bread and the circus marked the declining days of Rome. A surfeit of food, clothes,comfortable homes, and much time for idleness can easily become the first step to the overthrow of civilization.

    96. Individualistic government. —"Equality of opportunity"
    — "Equality of opportunity" carries with it the absolute right of every man to keep what is hisown. There can be no confiscation of property without due process of law and just recompense to the rightful owner. Upon this foundation have been based most of the great accomplishments of the past as well as assurance for still greater achievements.

    Right to private property.
    — Each citizen enjoys the right to private property.Granted the privilege of working for one's self ambition is fired, initiative is encouraged, labor is not restricted, and the hard thinker and hard worker gets the reward denied the lazy and indifferent, creating thereby classes, caste,poverty, and wealth.
    Economic freedom.

    — The individualistic form of government, promotes and guards the individual amid the difficulties and hardships of his struggle for existence and in the competitions of life.The workman is protected because the nation needs his labor and the employer is protected because the nation needs his industry.The productive power of free initiative has full play and a sure reward. Under its protection he finds joy and satisfaction in the fruits of his labor. There disincentive to invention, improvement, and the establishment of families and homes.

    Political rights.
    — It protects the citizen in his personal freedom. Equal political rights are assured. He has a voice in the Government which is "of the people, for the people, and by the people."When a people are free to undertake things and take advantage of the opportunities open to them wealth, character, and national strength are-developed.

    Protection to home and family.
    — The social unit of civilization is the family.Under this form of government the institution of marriage and the rights of childhood are respected, the home and the family are protected, and womanhood is inviolable.

    Respect for religion.
    — The "individualistic" form of government believes in the exercise of religious freedom and shows tolerance toward and respect for all religious beliefs.The American Government rests upon the deep religious convictions of her people. If it is to continue it will be through unceasing respect for and confidence in the nobler things of life.

    97. An American institution. — In the governments of the Old World,conditions which built up a fixed caste system and created an impassable barrier between certain groups of society gave exceptional advantages to the favored and denied to the masses all but a bare existence.


    http://www.scribd.com/doc/98704940/1...Manual-Reprint
    Constitution of the United States.
    Last edited by Master PO; 07-25-13 at 08:49 PM.

  6. #1756
    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
    Given your position, I can see why you disagree with the philosophy of libertarianism. The libertarian position is that it is always unjustified for any person to initiate aggression against the body or property of another person.
    The problem is with labeling ones ideas in a way that connects you with like minded people. I am further away from Democrat or Republican than I am Libertarian, so I label myself Libertarian. But, I don't agree with every point from every libertarian. I do not agree with personal rights over collective rights, but believe that personal rights should not be curtailed due to nannystatism or a "common" morality. The closest label I've found so far is "Libertarian-Marxism"; it supports the end of a nannystate, but claims all property to be commonly owned by the state. I'd use that label on my profile, but it's not an available option.

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i do not understand how you call yourself a libertarian.

    classical liberals ..or libertarians,........ believe in individual rights, not collective rights.

    obama believes in collective rights, as proven by his Kansas speech.

    the idea of the collective determining what rights are are repugnant to libertarians.

    (removed list)

    what the u.s. government taught in 1928 below

    1928 Army Training Manual (Reprint)
    Constitution of the United States.
    First of all, that's not the Constitution of the United States, that's an Army training manual. I hope people can see the irony there.

    The vast majority of those claims are solely an "Us vs Them" brainwashing tactic from the after effects of the Red Scare. This says absolutely nothing about the constitution or how we should interpret it; it's just the lead up to what became McCarthyism in the 50's. What some random guys, in a government literature mill from the 20's, printed out about the "dangers" of collectivism doesn't bother me at all. If they're even still alive, they can shove it.

    In either case, pure or right-leaning libertarians are the only ones that find all collective rights to be repugnant. I equal this to the same arguments used to support a laissez-faire, free market. Whether you like the idea of a free market or not, it's just knee jerking without analyzing the history of free-markets; economic bubbles, low wages, ecological damage, etc. Libertarianism in itself, still requires you to define what liberty is; if it's defined by your right to defend your property, it doesn't mean much to people who don't have any property worth protecting.

  7. #1757
    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
    The problem is with labeling ones ideas in a way that connects you with like minded people. I am further away from Democrat or Republican than I am Libertarian, so I label myself Libertarian. But, I don't agree with every point from every libertarian. I do not agree with personal rights over collective rights, but believe that personal rights should not be curtailed due to nannystatism or a "common" morality. The closest label I've found so far is "Libertarian-Marxism"; it supports the end of a nannystate, but claims all property to be commonly owned by the state. I'd use that label on my profile, but it's not an available option.



    First of all, that's not the Constitution of the United States, that's an Army training manual. I hope people can see the irony there.

    The vast majority of those claims are solely an "Us vs Them" brainwashing tactic from the after effects of the Red Scare. This says absolutely nothing about the constitution or how we should interpret it; it's just the lead up to what became McCarthyism in the 50's. What some random guys, in a government literature mill from the 20's, printed out about the "dangers" of collectivism doesn't bother me at all. If they're even still alive, they can shove it.

    In either case, pure or right-leaning libertarians are the only ones that find all collective rights to be repugnant. I equal this to the same arguments used to support a laissez-faire, free market. Whether you like the idea of a free market or not, it's just knee jerking without analyzing the history of free-markets; economic bubbles, low wages, ecological damage, etc. Libertarianism in itself, still requires you to define what liberty is; if it's defined by your right to defend your property, it doesn't mean much to people who don't have any property worth protecting.

    the point i am trying to make is the government is explaining the evils of collectivism........and it is still evil today..... 85 years later

    the founders... our rights are individual, not collective, and the founders warned against collectivism by creating a senate controlled by the states in federalist 63...

    The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.--federalist 63

    your ideas when you first spoke, of people have rights........is not constant with collective rights.

  8. #1758
    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
    the point i am trying to make is the government is explaining the evils of collectivism........and it is still evil today..... 85 years later

    the founders... our rights are individual, not collective, and the founders warned against collectivism by creating a senate controlled by the states in federalist 63...

    The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.--federalist 63

    your ideas when you first spoke, of people have rights........is not constant with collective rights.
    The government can explain the evils of collectivism all they like, it doesn't make it true. Remember, the government is just a bunch of rich guys; do you really think they're going to tell you that capitalism makes them richer while it makes us poorer?

    Although I'm definitely not particularly well read on the Federalist, issue 63 only briefly touches this issue and seems to only acknowledge that a senate should not have ultimate power. I'm not really seeing the connection here, and it doesn't really apply to any idea of socialism; Marxism was invented almost a century after the Federalist was written.

    If you don't believe that our founding fathers had collective rights in mind, explain the 5th Amendment; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is not only an allowance for Eminent Domain, it defines it. If you're property will better serve the public (the collective good), the government can and will take it, with just compensation.

  9. #1759
    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
    The government can explain the evils of collectivism all they like, it doesn't make it true. Remember, the government is just a bunch of rich guys; do you really think they're going to tell you that capitalism makes them richer while it makes us poorer?

    Although I'm definitely not particularly well read on the Federalist, issue 63 only briefly touches this issue and seems to only acknowledge that a senate should not have ultimate power. I'm not really seeing the connection here, and it doesn't really apply to any idea of socialism; Marxism was invented almost a century after the Federalist was written.

    If you don't believe that our founding fathers had collective rights in mind, explain the 5th Amendment; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is not only an allowance for Eminent Domain, it defines it. If you're property will better serve the public (the collective good), the government can and will take it, with just compensation.

    no the founders when you read them state, rights are individual, rights....not collective.

    the founders state we can vote collectively, however the people are barred of collective activity by the senate....of coarse before the 17 th.

    collectivism destroys, as stated decades before you and I were ever born.,

  10. #1760
    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
    no the founders when you read them state, rights are individual, rights....not collective.

    the founders state we can vote collectively, however the people are barred of collective activity by the senate....of coarse before the 17 th.

    collectivism destroys, as stated decades before you and I were ever born.,
    You still haven't addressed eminent domain; the constitution acknowledges the right of the government to forcibly buy your land for the public's benefit. How is that anything but a collective right over the individual right?

    The only collectivism that is obviously prohibited by the government is the creation of monopolies and trusts. Monopolies do not serve the common good of consumers, so they are broken up; your individual right to form a monopoly with your rich buddies is curtailed by the collective need for competitive prices. This doesn't imply a free market; it implies a regulated market as the fairest form of capitalism for the masses.

    If that is the collectivism that you mean, understand that I am also against it. But, when it comes to the rights of a business to discriminate, what collectivism are they fighting? The consumers? We should be a collective of consumers, how else will we be best served by the capitalist market?

Posting Permissions

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