View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 177 of 198 FirstFirst ... 77127167175176177178179187 ... LastLast
Results 1,761 to 1,770 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1761
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,048

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Jim Crowe was a government measure, in the same way the Inquisition was a royalty thing.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  2. #1762
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    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.
    What in the world is "collective rights" and how is it possible they wouldn't fundamentally violate individual rights?

    How can you uphold individual rights and collective rights at the same time?

    I think it's ****ed up to give the collective power over the life, liberty and estate of the individual. Yes, I chose those words on purpose. If your goal for society is to have it civilized you must pick the individual over the collective.
    Last edited by Henrin; 07-26-13 at 03:09 AM.

  3. #1763
    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 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?
    according to the constitution, the land/ property must be used for the public good , meaning it has to benefit every citizen, not just a few.

    it cant be used to build shopping malls of others things meant to make profit...this has been prevented by the court.


    rights are not collective, my rights are individual, you and the mod, do not get to decide what rights i have or how I will exercise them, only it I am committing a crime, or doing something which could cause pain of damage to a person or property, can my rights be curtailed.

    the founders wanted the people to be civic minded, however they were opposed to compulsory action, in reading the constitution, you will notice it gives the federal government no authority over the people, ...except for pirates, counterfeiters, and traitors.

    all it takes is a reading of the founders on rights, and they say individual rights

  4. #1764
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

    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.
    Dude, that's messed up.

  5. #1765
    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
    according to the constitution, the land/ property must be used for the public good , meaning it has to benefit every citizen, not just a few.

    it cant be used to build shopping malls of others things meant to make profit...this has been prevented by the court.
    Exactly, to take our land and build a mall is only going to serve the mall owner, another private citizen; that doesn't serve a collective good. To use eminent domain to take your land for public use is 100% allowed by the constitution. public good = collective good

    rights are not collective, my rights are individual, you and the mod, do not get to decide what rights i have or how I will exercise them, only it I am committing a crime, or doing something which could cause pain of damage to a person or property, can my rights be curtailed.
    That's exactly NOT what the 5th amendment says. It just says that your property can only be seized due to eminent domain or due to a crime. It's understood that the law must serve a common good, while not harming an insular minority, and not becoming vague enough that a man might not know he's committed the crime. Laws against discrimination are not against these qualifications; it serves the majority, without it creating an insular minority, and doesn't have any amount of vagueness. In this case, if you have discriminated, you've committed a crime.

    the founders wanted the people to be civic minded, however they were opposed to compulsory action, in reading the constitution, you will notice it gives the federal government no authority over the people, ...except for pirates, counterfeiters, and traitors.

    all it takes is a reading of the founders on rights, and they say individual rights
    Again, it doesn't really matter. 200 years ago, we had a labor shortage, a land surplus, and no idea that black people were human beings; they couldn't possibly foresee the problems of this age. The constitution is a flawed document written by flawed men. I'm not going to knock them for that; they did the best they could, in a way that should be told to the future generations. But, in my reading of the following;

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." - Declaration of Independence

    Even they realized that the government they created might not best serve us, they put in a clause that this Form of Government should be abolished if it doesn't effect Safety and Happiness. In the minute chance that the public accommodation law is deemed unconstitutional, it indicates a flaw in the constitution. If the constitution allows for discrimination, it doesn't effect Safety or Happiness, and should be abolished.

  6. #1766
    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 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.
    Then don't buy land in a city with zoning laws and don't vacation or visit those cities, either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    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.
    Then don't buy the land in those areas. Plenty of other places to buy land where you're not "hindered".


    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    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.
    If you want to be a bigot then don't lie by opening an OTTP business. It's a really simple rule - don't lie about your product.
    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

  7. #1767
    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
    Then don't buy land in a city with zoning laws and don't vacation or visit those cities, either.

    Then don't buy the land in those areas. Plenty of other places to buy land where you're not "hindered".

    If you want to be a bigot then don't lie by opening an OTTP business. It's a really simple rule - don't lie about your product.
    I don't think you understand what it is I am advocating. I am not advocating that a person can violate current law. I am expressing the fact that I don't support the current law and would vote to see it changed.

    Let's say we were talking about whether pot should be legal. And let's say that I were to say that I think the laws criminalizing pot should be repealed. And then let's say you just kept saying, "Well if you don't want to go to jail, don't smoke pot." You see what I'm getting at? You're simply describing the consequences of the current law, while I am saying that the law should be changed,

    So you see, you're responses above don't really address whether the zoning laws ought to exist; they are simply the equivalent of , "Well if you don't want to go to jail, don't smoke pot."

  8. #1768
    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 Federalist View Post
    I don't think you understand what it is I am advocating. I am not advocating that a person can violate current law. I am expressing the fact that I don't support the current law and would vote to see it changed.

    Let's say we were talking about whether pot should be legal. And let's say that I were to say that I think the laws criminalizing pot should be repealed. And then let's say you just kept saying, "Well if you don't want to go to jail, don't smoke pot." You see what I'm getting at? You're simply describing the consequences of the current law, while I am saying that the law should be changed,

    So you see, you're responses above don't really address whether the zoning laws ought to exist; they are simply the equivalent of , "Well if you don't want to go to jail, don't smoke pot."
    Repeal the law, and the reasons for the law will likely return. And the battle will begin again. Keep the law, no one is harmed. No brainier to me.

    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.

  9. #1769
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.
    No - we're supposed to be progressing forward in society, and not back.

    People can't dictate their race, much like they can't dictate if they're born blind or are short.

    Total bull**** - people can be pricks in their private life but, their own business be damned, they don't have a right otherwise.

    ...and it's not very often I disagree with Stossel.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  10. #1770
    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 don't think you understand what it is I am advocating. I am not advocating that a person can violate current law. I am expressing the fact that I don't support the current law and would vote to see it changed.

    Let's say we were talking about whether pot should be legal. And let's say that I were to say that I think the laws criminalizing pot should be repealed. And then let's say you just kept saying, "Well if you don't want to go to jail, don't smoke pot." You see what I'm getting at? You're simply describing the consequences of the current law, while I am saying that the law should be changed,

    So you see, you're responses above don't really address whether the zoning laws ought to exist; they are simply the equivalent of , "Well if you don't want to go to jail, don't smoke pot."
    I've given good reasons and repeated them more than once in this thread, so don't act like that's been my whole argument. At BEST it's misleading and you should know better.


    I understand very well what it is you're proposing - a Libertarian Fantasy Land that can never exist, though I'm sure you don't understand why or what's wrong with it.
    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
  •