• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do You Agree with John Stossel?

Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?

  • Total voters
    96
Henrin said:
That post had what reason to be made? Nothing I have said is wrong, sorry.
Click to expand...

no need for sorries, facts disagree with you :shrug:
 
Henrin said:
That post had what reason to be made? Nothing I have said is wrong, sorry.
Click to expand...

Other than this has been before the court, and they said you're wrong. That's a fact.
 
AGENT J said:
its cute you think your desperation will work and your opinion matters
again nothing has changed and you lose again

FACTS:
you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact

let us know when you have anythign to change these facts
Click to expand...

ok mister force!
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok mister force!
Click to expand...

FACTS:
you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact

you lose again, let us know when you have anythign to change these facts
 
AGENT J said:
FACTS:
you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact

you lose again, let us know when you have anythign to change these facts
Click to expand...

I lose again, what do you think this is a baseball game?

please take you child like behavior away from me.
 
ernst barkmann said:
I lose again, what do you think this is a baseball game?

please take you child like behavior away from me.
Click to expand...
oh look more failed insults, only one of us is denying facts with "nu-huh"
your desperation is growing
FACTS:
you being proved wrong has nothing to do with me, thats a fact
you were proved wrong by facts and reality, thats a fact
 
Federalist said:
And from where do these other people acquire the authority over Joe such that they can require he ask their permission to engage in trade on his own property?
Click to expand...
Typically the charter of incorporation which created the entity in question.
 
Federalist said:
If Joe did indeed assent to a contract, then I can understand that he would be bound by the terms of the contract he signed.

However, if he didn't assent to such a contract, then obviously no such contract exists.
Click to expand...
We all agree to the laws of the jurisdiction in which we settle. Before the age of consent, our parents do this for us.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Typically the charter of incorporation which created the entity in question.
Click to expand...

If Joe signed the charter, then okay. Otherwise, you'd need to explain how other people's decisions are binding upon Joe.
 
Federalist said:
If Joe signed the charter, then okay. Otherwise, you'd need to explain how other people's decisions are binding upon Joe.
Click to expand...
Joe agreed when he entered the community. People from KC can't take their laws to Los Angeles with them. When they enter Los Angeles, and all the intervening states/counties/cities to get there from KC, they give up the laws of KC for the laws of those other communities.


((Which also answers your other post.))
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Joe agreed when he entered the community.
Click to expand...

If Joe signed such an agreement, then okay. If not, then I still don't see how other people's decisions are binding upon Joe.
 
Federalist said:
If Joe signed such an agreement, then okay. If not, then I still don't see how other people's decisions are binding upon Joe.
Click to expand...
He agree when he entered the community, no signature required. All laws are public knowledge, no one keeps them hidden in a back room.
 
MoSurveyor said:
He agree when he entered the community, no signature required. All laws are public knowledge, no one keeps them hidden in a back room.
Click to expand...

How do you know he agreed if he didn't sign a contract?
 
MoSurveyor said:
He agree when he entered the community, no signature required. All laws are public knowledge, no one keeps them hidden in a back room.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you're still making this argument. Just because he didn't need to open a business doesn't mean or imply it's OK to restrict his liberty because he does.
 
Federalist said:
How do you know he agreed if he didn't sign a contract?
Click to expand...
He entered or stayed in that community, so unless someone dragged him there or kept him against his will, he agreed to the laws of that community. This is simple civics that everyone should know.
 
Henrin said:
I can't believe you're still making this argument. Just because he didn't need to open a business doesn't mean or imply it's OK to restrict his liberty because he does.
Click to expand...
No one is restricting his liberty. Only the actions of his business are restricted and Joe is nothing more than an employee of his business. If the business breaks the law, Joe doesn't get hauled away, his business is fined and maybe it's doors are closed (the business equivalent of jail) in extreme cases.

Regardless of how much you try to push this agenda, a business and a person are not the same thing.
 
MoSurveyor said:
He entered or stayed in that community, so unless someone dragged him there or kept him against his will, he agreed to the laws of that community. This is simple civics that everyone should know.
Click to expand...

And from where do these other people around Joe acquire the authority to tell Joe, "Unless you leave, we may use force against you to make you do what we want."
 
Federalist said:
And from where do these other people around Joe acquire the authority to tell Joe, "Unless you leave, we may use force against you to make you do what we want."
Click to expand...
Already asked and answered.

All you're whining about now is it that it's a collection of people that call themselves a government instead of a collection of people that call themselves a corporation. The name makes no difference if the function is the same. Get off the anarchist stick, it won't fly here.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Already asked and answered.

All you're whining about now is it that it's a collection of people that call themselves a government instead of a collection of people that call themselves a corporation. The name makes no difference if the function is the same. Get off the anarchist stick, it won't fly here.
Click to expand...
The function is not the same. If I live in a high crime area, does that mean that I consent to the crime? Does that mean that the crime is not really crime at all, and if my property is damaged I am consenting to that damage? No. Tolerating injustice because there isn't another option is not the same as consenting to it.
 
Lakryte said:
The function is not the same. If I live in a high crime area, does that mean that I consent to the crime? Does that mean that the crime is not really crime at all, and if my property is damaged I am consenting to that damage? No. Tolerating injustice because there isn't another option is not the same as consenting to it.
Click to expand...
The function is exactly the same, that's the whole point. Your examples, as off-target as they are, show no difference between a local government and a corporation owned by all the people of the community. If the corporation decides not to police it's streets properly then crimes will most likely happen.

If you're unhappy with the level of police service you receive from your corporation then you do have options, at least three of them. You can try to win influence over the Board of Directors or CEO by stirring up the other stockholders to get the corporation to fund more police in your area. Or you can find another piece of land with the same corporate foundation but better neighbors and/or police protection. Or you can find land with a different corporate foundation.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Already asked and answered.
Click to expand...

Link please?

All you're whining about now is it that it's a collection of people that call themselves a government instead of a collection of people that call themselves a corporation. The name makes no difference if the function is the same. Get off the anarchist stick, it won't fly here.
Click to expand...

Nope. The government initiates violence against people. That's the difference.
 
Lakryte said:
The function is not the same. If I live in a high crime area, does that mean that I consent to the crime? Does that mean that the crime is not really crime at all, and if my property is damaged I am consenting to that damage? No. Tolerating injustice because there isn't another option is not the same as consenting to it.
Click to expand...

Statists would say that the shopkeeper who gets shaken down by the mob ever month for "protection" is consenting to that as well. Consent and endure are two different things.
 
Totally agree with Paul. A business should be able to say whom they will and will not serve. It's their property. And, as Stossel said, I believe the businesses that continued to discriminate would have lost enough business to be shut down. I think of it this way. My faith and belief in the Bible teaches that discriminating based upon color, sex, or anything else is wrong. It also teaches that I should be modest with my sexuality and only share it with my wife. So for me to set foot in an establishment that would not serve blacks would have been the equivalent to setting foot in a bordello. I would not do it because I do not believe in what either establishment represents.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The function is exactly the same, that's the whole point. Your examples, as off-target as they are, show no difference between a local government and a corporation owned by all the people of the community. If the corporation decides not to police it's streets properly then crimes will most likely happen.

If you're unhappy with the level of police service you receive from your corporation then you do have options, at least three of them. You can try to win influence over the Board of Directors or CEO by stirring up the other stockholders to get the corporation to fund more police in your area. Or you can find another piece of land with the same corporate foundation but better neighbors and/or police protection. Or you can find land with a different corporate foundation.
Click to expand...
Corporations do not get to control people because they live in a certain area. The only way that is possible is if people explicitly sign up for the services of that corporation. Not so with local government. The function is not the same. One relies on voluntary agreement, the other relies on coercive force. You can try to justify that coercive force as necessary, but you cannot deny it exists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom