• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
If a corporation decides it wants to buy up all the land in an area, and held a vote to see if the people in that area would allow them to do so, it could not buy up the land of the people who voted no, even if the majority said yes.

The voters who say yes have no claim to the property of the voters who say no, therefore they can not transfer that property to the government through a vote.
Now you're proposing things contrary to the hypothetical situation.


I believe you'll find very specific rules in each State for the incorporation of counties and cities. Unless you're going to use the Way Back Machine to address the way States are made States then you have no case.

If you'd like to argue that everyone inside a proposed State's boundaries must agree to become a State then I'd say there would be no States at all. Even the original 13 colonies/states had people that fought for the British. It wasn't a 100% agreement - and I'd be willing to bet even the Constitution was not a 100% agreement of all citizens. Your argument fails terribly unless you're proposing absolute anarchy where there are no laws at all.
 
The laws are there to stop Joe from harming others by opening his business. We've already been through this.

The laws are an initiation of violence against Joe. Joe has harmed no one, so there is no justification for initiating violence against him.
 
Untrue and I've shown why.

You've offered an explanation, but I disagree with your characterization.

It's simple, really. If Joe owns a business and that business gets fined, then Joe is being fined. You can claim otherwise, but you would be engaging in sophistry.
 
Now you're proposing things contrary to the hypothetical situation.


I believe you'll find very specific rules in each State for the incorporation of counties and cities. Unless you're going to use the Way Back Machine to address the way States are made States then you have no case.

If you'd like to argue that everyone inside a proposed State's boundaries must agree to become a State then I'd say there would be no States at all. Even the original 13 colonies/states had people that fought for the British. It wasn't a 100% agreement - and I'd be willing to bet even the Constitution was not a 100% agreement of all citizens. Your argument fails terribly unless you're proposing absolute anarchy where there are no laws at all.
How am I proposing things contrary to the hypothetical situation? If the corporation takes over an area of land by having people vote on it, then said corporation isn't a corporation. Corporations can't do that. It would be like saying a pig is a winged animal because in a hypothetical scenario we give the pig wings.

Still the voters who say no have a rightful claim to their property. The point being discussed is that the function is not the same. For a corporation to gain control over a territory, it cannot hold a majority vote to get the property of those who refuse it. A government can, and does so through coercion. Most people justify that coercion, those that do not are anarchists. But that is irrelevant to the point that the coercion exists.
 
Last edited:
It's the truth and also works in Joe's favor. If someone dies from food poisoning from Joe's Diner then the business assets may be sold off to pay the damages awarded by the court but Joe's personal assets should be unaffected assuming Joe didn't personally commit a criminal act. Employees can sometimes be charged with criminal activity even if they're on the clock, depending on the circumstances.


The money wasn't Joe's to start with, it was the business's "money" just like the money the business uses to pay the business's electric bill and buy raw foods to be cooked for it's customers. Joe's Diner has it's own set of company accounting books that are separate from Joe's personal finances. Joe will get whatever profit is left after all the bills of Joe's Diner are paid - including court decisions that go either way.

Typically, a business will have it's own bank account. It makes documentation of the accounting easier.

That comment just put you down a notch in my book.

You realize you are just arguing the nuances of tax law? From here on out let's assume it's Joe Doe DBA Joe's Diner. All income is reported on his personal tax return and all expenses deducted from the same. This is common practice and debunks the well its a business not Joe line of debate.
 
You realize you are just arguing the nuances of tax law? From here on out let's assume it's Joe Doe DBA Joe's Diner. All income is reported on his personal tax return and all expenses deducted from the same. This is common practice and debunks the well its a business not Joe line of debate.


Doesn't change a thing. Not debunk anything. There are more than a few hoops Joe has to jump through as a business owner that Joe the individual doesn't. And he agreed to all of it when he chose to go into business.
 
Doesn't change a thing. Not debunk anything. There are more than a few hoops Joe has to jump through as a business owner that Joe the individual doesn't. And he agreed to all of it when he chose to go into business.

As I've said, forcing Joe to jump through hoops prior to begin serving people food in his own diner on his own property is a violation of his liberty and is ethically unjustified. Such laws ought to be repealed. There is no justification for initiating violence against someone who has harmed no one.
 
The laws are an initiation of violence against Joe. Joe has harmed no one, so there is no justification for initiating violence against him.
We've already been through this. In many cases Joe will harm people just by opening his business. That's why there is a licensing process.
 
You've offered an explanation, but I disagree with your characterization.

It's simple, really. If Joe owns a business and that business gets fined, then Joe is being fined. You can claim otherwise, but you would be engaging in sophistry.
Disagree with the truth all you want.

It's very simple. When Joe's Diner is held liable in court it's only Joe's Diner that gets fined. It may not even have been Joe that committed the illicit act, it could have been one of the Diner's other employees. It doesn't matter who it is, it's the Diner that gets fined.
 
How am I proposing things contrary to the hypothetical situation? If the corporation takes over an area of land by having people vote on it, then said corporation isn't a corporation. Corporations can't do that. It would be like saying a pig is a winged animal because in a hypothetical scenario we give the pig wings.
Corporations can do pretty much anything that can be written in a contract as long as it's not illegal. What, specifically, is illegal about a corporation owning any amount of land it can acquire by buying, homesteading, etc? (This happened long ago when the area was first settled.) What, specifically, is illegal about said corporation having corporate rules, regulations, and covenants that "governs" the lands it owns? Is there some specific limit as to complexity of those corporate "laws"? What, specifically, is illegal about the adults living inside the corporate limits each holding one voting share? The only thing a corporation can't cover in a contract are the criminal aspects of it's "citizens". In America, only a government entity can imprison someone, so there would have to be a county sheriff and court to deal with those elements.

You're quibbling when you have not apparently read the original posts on this hypothetical situation. I suggest you do so, again if needed, instead of jumping into the middle of something you apparently know nothing about.


Still the voters who say no have a rightful claim to their property. The point being discussed is that the function is not the same. For a corporation to gain control over a territory, it cannot hold a majority vote to get the property of those who refuse it. A government can, and does so through coercion. Most people justify that coercion, those that do not are anarchists. But that is irrelevant to the point that the coercion exists.
In the scenario everyone agreed to form the corporation. Your ignorance of the situation is showing again and, quite frankly, it's getting old.


I don't indulge anarchist fantasies, so it's not irrelevant to me.
 
Last edited:
Disagree with the truth all you want.

It's very simple. When Joe's Diner is held liable in court it's only Joe's Diner that gets fined. It may not even have been Joe that committed the illicit act, it could have been one of the Diner's other employees. It doesn't matter who it is, it's the Diner that gets fined.

You are wrong. This applies only if it's set up a specific way. IE if the diner is a LLC or corporation.
 
Doesn't change a thing. Not debunk anything. There are more than a few hoops Joe has to jump through as a business owner that Joe the individual doesn't. And he agreed to all of it when he chose to go into business.

You are missing that it's Joe, the individual business owner. Every hoop that gets jumped through is done by Joe. Everything that happens to the business is happening to Joe. Whether he agreed to it when he went into business isn't the issue. He had to agree to it or not be in business. The question is whether it's tyranny or an assault to liberty to make him do these things.
 
You are wrong. This applies only if it's set up a specific way. IE if the diner is a LLC or corporation.
I was treating it as an LLC, which is what I've seen most in my profession.

You realize you are just arguing the nuances of tax law? From here on out let's assume it's Joe Doe DBA Joe's Diner. All income is reported on his personal tax return and all expenses deducted from the same. This is common practice and debunks the well its a business not Joe line of debate.
But since you introduced the tax code:

Does Joe get to deduct "business expenses" like the rental/mortgage on the business property?
What about the utilities of the business?
How about the equipment (and it's depreciation) the business needs to function?

Now, does Joe get to deduct his personal rent/mortgage from his income?
How about his personal utility bills?
What about Joe's new personal washing machine and it's depreciation?

Still seems like there's a difference between Joe and his business.
 
You are missing that it's Joe, the individual business owner. Every hoop that gets jumped through is done by Joe. Everything that happens to the business is happening to Joe. Whether he agreed to it when he went into business isn't the issue. He had to agree to it or not be in business. The question is whether it's tyranny or an assault to liberty to make him do these things.
So it's perfectly OK for me to blast my stereo at 3 AM? Well, that's one less worry when I'm up at night! :D
 
We've already been through this. In many cases Joe will harm people just by opening his business. That's why there is a licensing process.

It is unjustified to initiate violence against someone just because he MIGHT harm others.

Make the law specify what harms are crimes, torts, etc, and then punish people for committing those harms.
 
It is unjustified to initiate violence against someone just because he MIGHT harm others.

Make the law specify what harms are crimes, torts, etc, and then punish people for committing those harms.
Joe has broken no business laws until he opens his business.
No one will cite him for thinking about opening a business. :roll:


That's pretty much been done but you reject that idea. :shrug:
 
Joe has broken no business laws until he opens his business. No one can cite him for thinking about opening a business.

That's pretty much been done but you reject that idea. :shrug:

Simply engaging in trade harms no one, therefore it should not be a crime or forcibly prevented in any way.

On the other hand, acts that harm other people should be legally recognized as crimes or torts.

No victim; no crime.
 
Simply engaging in trade harms no one,
That's the biggest pile of crap I've seen yet. Businesses can harm everyone around them in various ways depending on the business and what's around it. For you to pretend otherwise is dishonest at best.

therefore it should not be a crime or forcibly prevented in any way.
Therefore, it should be licensed and regulated.


On the other hand, acts that harm other people should be legally recognized as crimes or torts.
They are but you don't seem to like that system.
 
That's the biggest pile of crap I've seen yet. Businesses can harm everyone around them in various ways depending on the business and what's around it. For you to pretend otherwise is dishonest at best.

Therefore, it should be licensed and regulated.

They are but you don't seem to like that system.

No victim; no crime.

So tell me what sorts of harms you are talking about. I'm sure I'd agree that they are actionable. But I disagree with laws that make it a crime simply to operate a business.
 
So it's perfectly OK for me to blast my stereo at 3 AM? Well, that's one less worry when I'm up at night! :D

If you have enough land that it doesn't disturb your neighbor or you can contain it to your property sure. Otherwise you are infringing on another's rights and no it's not okay.
 
I was treating it as an LLC, which is what I've seen most in my profession.
But the laws apply universally so they apply to the individual as well as the defined LLCs or Corps.

But since you introduced the tax code:

Does Joe get to deduct "business expenses" like the rental/mortgage on the business property?
What about the utilities of the business?
How about the equipment (and it's depreciation) the business needs to function?

Now, does Joe get to deduct his personal rent/mortgage from his income?
How about his personal utility bills?
What about Joe's new personal washing machine and it's depreciation?

Still seems like there's a difference between Joe and his business.

Not according to the IRS as I have posted previously. If his business borrows 1 million dollars guess who has to pay it back? joe.
 
Corporations can do pretty much anything that can be written in a contract as long as it's not illegal. What, specifically, is illegal about a corporation owning any amount of land it can acquire by buying, homesteading, etc? (This happened long ago when the area was first settled.) What, specifically, is illegal about said corporation having corporate rules, regulations, and covenants that "governs" the lands it owns? Is there some specific limit as to complexity of those corporate "laws"? What, specifically, is illegal about the adults living inside the corporate limits each holding one voting share? The only thing a corporation can't cover in a contract are the criminal aspects of it's "citizens". In America, only a government entity can imprison someone, so there would have to be a county sheriff and court to deal with those elements.

You're quibbling when you have not apparently read the original posts on this hypothetical situation. I suggest you do so, again if needed, instead of jumping into the middle of something you apparently know nothing about.
Nothing is wrong with any of those things. But you are presupposing the corporation owns all the land in the first place. If it does, everything you say is true. If it doesn't, then what you say is false. And in the case of government, it did not homestead or legally purchase the land it claims dominion over. That's the difference you keep ignoring.

In the scenario everyone agreed to form the corporation. Your ignorance of the situation is showing again and, quite frankly, it's getting old.
I don't indulge anarchist fantasies, so it's not irrelevant to me.
Then there is no point to your scenario, because not everyone agreed to form the various governments that actually exist in the real world. Your hypothetical corporation scenario has no counterpart in reality. This discussion has nothing to do with anarchy, so stop bringing it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom