View Poll Results: Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 19 of 198 FirstFirst ... 917181920212969119 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 1973

Thread: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

  1. #181
    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 iliveonramen View Post
    Well first of all "private" property wouldn't exist obviously without the existence of a state and "public" property. Otherwise it would just be "property".

    But I'm hoping that you understood I was talking about property rights and the state has everything to do with the creation/enforcement of property rights.
    Actually, I would say that society, and that society's law, has everything to do with property rights. It is not necessary to have a group of individuals with license to initiate aggression (i.e. a state) in order to have a law specifying the rules by which ownership of resources is established.

  2. #182
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,164

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    Actually, I would say that society, and that society's law, has everything to do with property rights. It is not necessary to have a group of individuals with license to initiate aggression (i.e. a state) in order to have a law specifying the rules by which ownership of resources is established.
    So what happens when someone breaks those rules? What happens if multiple people break the rules? At some point a society agrees to some set of principles regarding property rights, they codify those principles into laws, and decide to enforce those laws by some means. It's not really a "law" if ultimately the only thing protecting private property is your ability to personally hold it. At that point those "laws" are meaningless platitudes. The society has to decide what actions are taken if the property rights aren't respected.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  3. #183
    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 iliveonramen View Post
    Sure...and some think a principled state doesn't allow people to turn away others based on the color of their skin. In fact that's what our country beliefs according to Civil rights legislation. It deemed that principle more important than the freedom to arbitrarily decide who and who you won't provide services to.
    What you describe is the idea that equal treatment trumps the right to liberty. That the right to ones labor is trumped by the desire of others to that labor. A principle based on aggression is not one that is worthy of respect and not one that upholds any desirable trait of mankind.

  4. #184
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    So what happens when someone breaks those rules? What happens if multiple people break the rules? At some point a society agrees to some set of principles regarding property rights, they codify those principles into laws, and decide to enforce those laws by some means. It's not really a "law" if ultimately the only thing protecting private property is your ability to personally hold it. At that point those "laws" are meaningless platitudes. The society has to decide what actions are taken if the property rights aren't respected.
    Are you suggesting the existence of a state solves that problem? The problem of rule breakers? Because it seems the state breaks far more rules than anyone else. Laws can exist without the state. Is that the best solution? Maybe, maybe not. But such a situation is definitely possible.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  5. #185
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,460

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Why would repealing that be worth any reasonable amount of political capital given all the other far bigger tragedies our government is involved in? I wouldn't answer it on the grounds that I don't have time to answer low priority ****. Relative to if something were actually going to change in government....my posts are pretty low priority don't think I'm fooling myself

  6. #186
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,164

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    What you describe is the idea that equal treatment trumps the right to liberty. That the right to ones labor is trumped by the desire of others to that labor. A principle based on aggression is not one that is worthy of respect and not one that upholds any desirable trait of mankind.
    I wouldn't say trump...I would say in the balance the right to liberty rumps equal treatment....but the "right" to discriminate on superficial reasons is trumped by the right of equality.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  7. #187
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,164

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Are you suggesting the existence of a state solves that problem? The problem of rule breakers? Because it seems the state breaks far more rules than anyone else. Laws can exist without the state. Is that the best solution? Maybe, maybe not. But such a situation is definitely possible.
    Yes...the existence of the state is because of that problem and others like it.
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  8. #188
    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 iliveonramen View Post
    I wouldn't say trump...I would say in the balance the right to liberty rumps equal treatment....but the "right" to discriminate on superficial reasons is trumped by the right of equality.
    What right to equality? You can not have a right to liberty and a right to equality and expect them to live in harmony.

    If you believe in simply the guidance of the state to declare what your rights are then it should be noted there is no right to equality even in law.

  9. #189
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 01:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: Do You Agree with John Stossel?

    Quote Originally Posted by iliveonramen View Post
    Yes...the existence of the state is because of that problem and others like it.
    I didn't asked why the state exists. I asked if it actually solves that problem. Considering the state violates property rights more than anyone else, and considering the scandals surrounding the NSA, it doesn't seem like the state solves that problem at all. The state itself is a rule-breaker. If humans tend to be rule-breakers, what is to stop a state of humans from breaking the rules? Nothing really.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  10. #190
    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 iliveonramen View Post
    So what happens when someone breaks those rules? What happens if multiple people break the rules? At some point a society agrees to some set of principles regarding property rights, they codify those principles into laws, and decide to enforce those laws by some means. It's not really a "law" if ultimately the only thing protecting private property is your ability to personally hold it. At that point those "laws" are meaningless platitudes. The society has to decide what actions are taken if the property rights aren't respected.
    In answer, I'll share a quote from Han Hermann Hoppe's book, Democracy the God that Failed:

    ...the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law for the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible: Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person's infringement on them is subject to lawful prosecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and strict liability.
    So in answer to your question, "What happens when someone breaks those rules?" The violation would be actionable in accordance with principles of proportionality of punishment and strict liability. In other words, the victim could pursue arbitration against the malfeasor.

Posting Permissions

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