View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 178 of 198 FirstFirst ... 78128168176177178179180188 ... LastLast
Results 1,771 to 1,780 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #1771
    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
    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.
    Actually, I'm proposing that the law should allow a person to engage in trade with his fellow man without needing permission from the government.

  2. #1772
    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
    Actually, I'm proposing that the law should allow a person to engage in trade with his fellow man without needing permission from the government.
    Yeah --- OK ...
    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. #1773
    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
    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
    can you show me where the federal government is using eminent domain to take people's land for the good of the entire nation?

    since when the bill of rights was written it only applied to the federal government .




    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    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.


    these laws you put forth are statutory laws, and they are never HIGHER than constitutional law.

    laws created to make people behave in a moral way, is not the business of government.

    is government here to make us moral or immoral ...no.........government primary duty is to secure the rights of the people

    if government have the power to make us moral, then governments would be controlling all of our actions, based on what they [politicians] think is right for the american citizens to behave.....ie...eating drinking smoking, sex, language...........they were not given no such power.

    discrimination laws are not a crime.....its not criminal law............its statutory law.....

    Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive or common law of the judiciary) or by a legislator (in the case of an absolute monarchy).[1] Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutory laws are subordinate to the higher constitutional laws of the land.



    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    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.

    you stated earlier the founders say that rights are collective...i told you to read the founders and they state clearly there individual...........now your saying it does not matter what they say, after you yourself stated they said something.

    you are confused....and very much.....the constitution is WRITTEN for government only..... government CANNOT discriminate.........people/business are not government they dont make laws, they are owned by people with rights, and these rights cannot be abolished, becuase you are others dont like how someone exercises them, so you DOI and constitutional argument is a FAILURE.

    people are exercising their rights every day in america, ....in ways i dont like, however its not a crime, and they are free to continue doing so, why do you and others believe you have THE POWER to stop people from exercising their individual rights..............just becuase you think its wrong........you have no authority to stop them.
    Last edited by Master PO; 07-27-13 at 07:28 PM.

  4. #1774
    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
    can you show me where the federal government is using eminent domain to take people's land for the good of the entire nation?

    since when the bill of rights was written it only applied to the federal government .
    The local park down the street only helps this neighborhood. Not the next city over the hill, or the next county, or the next state. The local park doesn't help the entire nation, it doesn't have to. The collective good is still measured by the individuals that make it up; that guy living 100 miles away, although part of the collective, has absolutely no impact on the efficacy of the local park. Or local public school, DMV, court building, etc.

    I don't expect eminent domain to help all people, in fact it's impossible for that to happen.


    these laws you put forth are statutory laws, and they are never HIGHER than constitutional law.
    The 5th Amendment is a constitutional law. Was it supposed to be higher than itself?

    laws created to make people behave in a moral way, is not the business of government.
    We agree, I've always been a proponent of ending the nannystate. But, that is "people", not "businesses". The government should and does regulate businesses for unethical practices. The idea that a free market will just "compete" out all the bad stuff is ridiculous; it never has before.

    is government here to make us moral or immoral ...no.........government primary duty is to secure the rights of the people

    if government have the power to make us moral, then governments would be controlling all of our actions, based on what they [politicians] think is right for the american citizens to behave.....ie...eating drinking smoking, sex, language...........they were not given no such power.

    discrimination laws are not a crime.....its not criminal law............its statutory law.....
    Although I agree on all counts, that doesn't apply to businesses. That's where there should be a clear separation; I'm all for a reduction of the nannystate but, not a return to a laissez-faire capitalism. We have a right to expect a safe product and not to be discriminated by businesses. As much as you seem to want to remove that right, by saying it's not in the constitution (and I agree, it's not), I say that's a reason why libertarianism isn't popular; that is a brick wall between us and voters, since they like the right to safe products and no discrimination. Although I doubt we'll ever agree on these issues, I think we can agree that we need to work from our common strengths. Without some cooperation and PR, libertarianism is never going to win an election.

    you stated earlier the founders say that rights are collective...i told you to read the founders and they state clearly there individual...........now your saying it does not matter what they say, after you yourself stated they said something.
    I do believe that the founders wrote of both kind of rights, they aren't mutually exclusive. There is an intricate balance that must be reached between social good and individual rights. But, I don't believe that our founders were the epitome of reason or knowledge. I only said they wrote something, I didn't say they were right.

    people are exercising their rights every day in america, ....in ways i dont like, however its not a crime, and they are free to continue doing so, why do you and others believe you have THE POWER to stop people from exercising their individual rights..............just becuase you think its wrong........you have no authority to stop them.
    The first amendment is the path to a balance between the two. Bigots can scream their heads off about this and that "agenda", but they should never have the right to take action to discriminate against others. A business is not an individual, it doesn't have individual rights, and it must follow more regulations than an individual. That is acceptable to the vast majority of Americans, who don't want businesses to have so much power to begin with. Remember, these laws were fought for by a majority of Americans; this is democracy at work.


    I ask you this, what if the civil rights act was made a constitutional amendment? What would be your argument?

  5. #1775
    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 local park down the street only helps this neighborhood. Not the next city over the hill, or the next county, or the next state. The local park doesn't help the entire nation, it doesn't have to. The collective good is still measured by the individuals that make it up; that guy living 100 miles away, although part of the collective, has absolutely no impact on the efficacy of the local park. Or local public school, DMV, court building, etc.

    the bill of rights was written for the federal government not the states.

    when you quote the 5th it was meant the the federal government to take property for the benefit of the nation itself.










    I don't expect eminent domain to help all people, in fact it's impossible for that to happen.




    The 5th Amendment is a constitutional law. Was it supposed to be higher than itself?


    We agree, I've always been a proponent of ending the nannystate. But, that is "people", not "businesses". The government should and does regulate businesses for unethical practices. The idea that a free market will just "compete" out all the bad stuff is ridiculous; it never has before.


    Although I agree on all counts, that doesn't apply to businesses. That's where there should be a clear separation; I'm all for a reduction of the nannystate but, not a return to a laissez-faire capitalism. We have a right to expect a safe product and not to be discriminated by businesses. As much as you seem to want to remove that right, by saying it's not in the constitution (and I agree, it's not), I say that's a reason why libertarianism isn't popular; that is a brick wall between us and voters, since they like the right to safe products and no discrimination. Although I doubt we'll ever agree on these issues, I think we can agree that we need to work from our common strengths. Without some cooperation and PR, libertarianism is never going to win an election.


    I do believe that the founders wrote of both kind of rights, they aren't mutually exclusive. There is an intricate balance that must be reached between social good and individual rights. But, I don't believe that our founders were the epitome of reason or knowledge. I only said they wrote something, I didn't say they were right.


    The first amendment is the path to a balance between the two. Bigots can scream their heads off about this and that "agenda", but they should never have the right to take action to discriminate against others. A business is not an individual, it doesn't have individual rights, and it must follow more regulations than an individual. That is acceptable to the vast majority of Americans, who don't want businesses to have so much power to begin with. Remember, these laws were fought for by a majority of Americans; this is democracy at work.


    I ask you this, what if the civil rights act was made a constitutional amendment? What would be your argument?
    rights are not collective....if so then the founders would have created democracy.

    the founders did not create DEMOCRACY, BE IT DIRECT OR REPRESENTATIVE, there is no will of the people...thats false.....they created republican government article 4 section 4 , rights of the individual citizens, ...are not at the mercy of a collective body.

    you quoted rights are unalienable........well they sure are......... meaning they cannot be taken away by man or government, the bill of rights does not grant or give rights, it only affirms them, rights which existed before the constitution was ever written.

  6. #1776
    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 not collective....if so then the founders would have created democracy.

    the founders did not create DEMOCRACY, BE IT DIRECT OR REPRESENTATIVE, there is no will of the people...thats false.....they created republican government article 4 section 4 , rights of the individual citizens, ...are not at the mercy of a collective body.

    you quoted rights are unalienable........well they sure are......... meaning they cannot be taken away by man or government, the bill of rights does not grant or give rights, it only affirms them, rights which existed before the constitution was ever written.
    Then it all comes down to the most basic question; What if our founders were wrong?

    I'm not going to act like they were idiots, or wrong on every account, but they were just farmers from 200 years ago. If our founders had lived today and never in their own time, they would have written a different document, affirming different rights.

  7. #1777
    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
    Then it all comes down to the most basic question; What if our founders were wrong?

    I'm not going to act like they were idiots, or wrong on every account, but they were just farmers from 200 years ago. If our founders had lived today and never in their own time, they would have written a different document, affirming different rights.
    question: why is it you think and others who feel like you do, can take away rights of people who have committed no crime........by what authority in the constitution are you and other people given this power?

    the rights affirmed by the constitution are essentially the same rights affirmed by state constitutions before our federal one was even created.

    rights are based on the individual, his life, his liberty and his property.

    Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.-- samuel adams

    your argument is based on...you dont like what a citizen is doing, even though its not a crime, so you want to use the power to government to stop a citizen from exercising his rights,-------> based on your dislike.

    if such legal authority existed, their would be no porn industry, becuase the majority would have shut it down.

    abortion, would have never been made legal in the 1970's.......if we can take away OTHER people's rights based on our own morality.

    again this all comes down to:"i dont like what he is doing and i want it stopped!"

  8. #1778
    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?

    First of all, you didn't actually acknowledge any of my question. Why should we care about the constitution? What makes it correct?
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    question: why is it you think and others who feel like you do, can take away rights of people who have committed no crime........by what authority in the constitution are you and other people given this power?
    The states are not limited by the constitution. It doesn't work that way; statutory laws provide increasingly higher restrictions as you get more and more local. That's how it works. A local law can't give you more rights, but they can give you less. The idea that no law should restrict your rights, is ridiculous; that's what a law is.

    rights are based on the individual, his life, his liberty and his property.
    Yup, "individual", not "business".
    Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.-- samuel adams
    More words from a man I don't respect as anything more than one of countless philosophers of his day. I think his ideas are short sighted, he couldn't have foresaw our state of corporatism. He made a nice beer, though.
    your argument is based on...you dont like what a citizen is doing, even though its not a crime, so you want to use the power to government to stop a citizen from exercising his rights,-------> based on your dislike.

    if such legal authority existed, their would be no porn industry, becuase the majority would have shut it down.

    abortion, would have never been made legal in the 1970's.......if we can take away OTHER people's rights based on our own morality.

    again this all comes down to:"i dont like what he is doing and i want it stopped!"
    All of those rights are individual rights. I have no problem with bigots saying what they believe. I have no problem with porn, or abortion, or any other moral debate. If you don't like porn, don't buy it. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like bigots, don't hang out with them. But, that doesn't apply to businesses; In modern society, people are dependent on public accommodation type businesses, in a way that our founding fathers could never have foreseen. We have already created new laws to reflect these changes, the civil rights act is one of them. It's not the nannystate, it doesn't protect you from your own bigotry, it protects you from the discrimination of others.

    Whether it's in the constitution is besides the point; it's not a holy scripture or divinely inspired. As libertarians, we need to attack the nannystate, to promote individual rights, not more rights for the businesses (who are not individuals). Do you seriously think that abolishing the civil rights act will promote individual rights?

  9. #1779
    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?

    when a citizen violates the rights of another citizen, that person is committing a crime.

    when a citizen enters the property of another citizen, he has NO exercisable rights.........zero, meaning he has no right to free speech, bare a firearm, assembly, secure in his person or property if the owner believes you have stolen his property.

    the property owner grants the citizen / patron a privilege of being served, or he may allowed the person to exercise a privilege.... he denies other patrons, becuase it is his property.

    no where in constitutions be they state of federal government does it give authority to government or to people to take away rights of individual citizens, who have committed no crime, but just becuase how the citizens exercise his rights is not like by the people.......their is no mob rule..of who gets to do what.

  10. #1780
    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
    when a citizen violates the rights of another citizen, that person is committing a crime.

    when a citizen enters the property of another citizen, he has NO exercisable rights.........zero, meaning he has no right to free speech, bare a firearm, assembly, secure in his person or property if the owner believes you have stolen his property.

    the property owner grants the citizen / patron a privilege of being served, or he may allowed the person to exercise a privilege.... he denies other patrons, becuase it is his property.

    no where in constitutions be they state of federal government does it give authority to government or to people to take away rights of individual citizens, who have committed no crime, but just becuase how the citizens exercise his rights is not like by the people.......their is no mob rule..of who gets to do what.
    I agree on all counts, for individuals. I support your right to throw people out of your small business for any reason, including racism, but not if you are a public accommodation. If you're a business, of a size and type that is relevant to this debate, your business decisions are no longer individual decisions. That's the issue, not whether an individual has a right to their property, but whether a business is an individual. They aren't.

Posting Permissions

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