• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
That is where I disagree with the majority of libertarians. I do not believe that our rights are absolute.

Hmm. So you don't think you have an absolute right to be free from the initiation of aggression against your body or your property? Under what circumstances would you think it would be justified for someone else to violate your body or take or destroy your property?
 
Hmm. So you don't think you have an absolute right to be free from the initiation of aggression against your body or your property? Under what circumstances would you think it would be justified for someone else to violate your body or take or destroy your property?

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.
 
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.

Given your position, I can see why you disagree with the philosophy of libertarianism. The libertarian position is that it is always unjustified for any person to initiate aggression against the body or property of another person.
 
Even if they can't outright say it, people are going to refuse others business based on discrimination. But that doesn't mean our laws should give them the nod.

The historical purpose for the laws was anti-segregation. People's societal participation should not be hindered because of their skin color, orientation, etc.

Stossel hones in on organizations that are safe spaces for certain minorities as examples, but they're not good ones. A gay-only softball league is meant to be a safe space from bullying. The whole reason why they exist is BECAUSE mainstream leagues discriminate against gays.

I disagree with Stossel. He over-simplifies the issue, just like most people of the privileged class. It's always the privileged who say discrimination doesn't happen anymore, or protective laws aren't needed. Hell yes, they are. Try living a day in a black person's shoes, or a gay person's who is walking around with his or her partner, and you will understand.
 
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.

i do not understand how you call yourself a libertarian.

classical liberals ..or libertarians,........ believe in individual rights, not collective rights.

obama believes in collective rights, as proven by his Kansas speech.

the idea of the collective determining what rights are are repugnant to libertarians.




what the u.s. government taught in 1928 below

No collective morality.
— In the very nature of our Government, the responsibility for its social, economic, and political standards rests absolutely upon the character of its individual citizens. There can be no collective morality, integrity, honor, that is not the sum of the principles of the individuals of the community, State, or Nation. If the majority are mercenary, the character of the Nation will be ruthless. If the growing tendency to irreligious thought persists, the Nation will become irresponsible


93. Mankind a mass of individual ego. — Psychology and social science have discovered that mankind is made up of a mass of individual ego, each revealing similar characteristics of instincts, idiosyncrasies, and manifestations of selfish interests — in the control of which his intelligence has developed forms of government.From earliest childhood self-assertion, self-determination, self-preservation manifest themselves.It is human nature for the strong to take advantage of the weak, whether it be strength of body, strength of mind, or strength of a group; that group may be a minority in numbers, yet all-powerful by reason of the forces under its control.The chief purpose of government is that of controlling this instinct and directing it into channels through which society will gain the greatest benefit.

94. Two forms of government. — One form of government gives the State the supreme control and places all its citizens upon a common level of "equal condition''; the other recognizes the rights of the individual as greater than the government, and emphasizes the superiority of "equality of opportunity" incontrast with "equality of condition."

95. Collectivist government. —"Equality of condition".
— In this system of government stress is laid upon the proposition that "all men are created equal,"meaning that no man has a right to that which is denied to another; that any system of government failing to recognize and conform to this "ideal" is wrong,and therefore an enemy of society and a foe of mankind.

The ignorant, illiterate, physically and mentally deficient, the lazy,improvident, and reckless have equal right with the alert, aggressive, busy,educated, high-minded, orderly citizen who aspires to the best and is willing to pay the price of attainment through self-discipline, hard work, and careful management.It is not in human nature to recognize "equality of condition" except to acquire personal advantage. One may be willing to divide anther's property with the and fourth individual providing the share remaining to him is something more than he formerly possessed.

Denial of personal rights.
— "Collectivism" is the denial of personal rights.The State (community) becomes the chief concern of all. It claims that the "lawof equality," once applied, would destroy every human desire for individual dominance, making society safe, content, comfortable, and happy.This "ideal" is to be accomplished by the application of force under the direction of leaders, in the selection of whom the people will have little or no choice. It is necessary, at first, to enforce the will of community interests until the people become educated and submissive to the new order.Denied all personal rights "collectivism" gives its "instructions'' where to live,where to work, what to do, what to think, and what to say. for the State is the law.

Confiscation of private property.
— "Collectivism" declares that the possession of property has developed protection of property through governments, courts,police power, and public opinion, making it difficult for one to acquire private property except by work. Private property must be abolished so that all will liveon a plane of "equal condition." As a matter of fact, however, "human nature"will see to it that the "equal condition" will very quickly become an equal condition of misery, want, and discontent.

Religion outlawed.
— The collectivist government proceeds against"imperialism" by outlawing the church. The church at the behest of capital "fedthe people the opium of religion," making them willing slaves to do the will of their capitalistic masters. In the interest of the new order there must be left noplace for religion, lest the people gain courage to throw off the yoke of their new-found freedom.

Abolition of the family.
— With personal rights, private property, and the church abolished, to make subjection complete "the state" declares that in pure

"collectivism" there can be no family ties, for children, like all other property,are an asset of the community and must be robbed of family love and obligation as a necessary step to loyalty to the state. Marriage may be practiced if conscience insists, but is not demanded in the interest of the new society, for with the abolishment of personal rights, private property, church, and home,society no longer possesses a moral, ethical, or spiritual code."

Socialism" kills.
— The doctrine of "socialism" is "collectivism." It tears down the social structure, weakens individual responsibility by subjection to or reliance upon the state in all material, social, and political matters. It compels the thought that at his best man is no better than the worst; he loses his self-respect and his keener sense of moral and ethical values. Ambition is nullified by restriction of choice in occupation and reward of attainment. Initiative, thievery backbone of all progress, is smothered in the morass of impersonal service, mass servility, and mob inertia."Socialism" aims to save individuals from the difficulties or hardships of the struggle for existence and the competition of life through calling upon the state to carry the burden for them."Equality of condition," the ruling law of "collectivism," is the death knell alike to individual liberty, justice, and progress through the destruction of individual and national character.When the citizens of a nation, seeking comforts and pleasures, find no joy or satisfaction in hard work, the years of that nation are numbered. Free bread and the circus marked the declining days of Rome. A surfeit of food, clothes,comfortable homes, and much time for idleness can easily become the first step to the overthrow of civilization.

96. Individualistic government. —"Equality of opportunity"
— "Equality of opportunity" carries with it the absolute right of every man to keep what is hisown. There can be no confiscation of property without due process of law and just recompense to the rightful owner. Upon this foundation have been based most of the great accomplishments of the past as well as assurance for still greater achievements.

Right to private property.
— Each citizen enjoys the right to private property.Granted the privilege of working for one's self ambition is fired, initiative is encouraged, labor is not restricted, and the hard thinker and hard worker gets the reward denied the lazy and indifferent, creating thereby classes, caste,poverty, and wealth.
Economic freedom.

— The individualistic form of government, promotes and guards the individual amid the difficulties and hardships of his struggle for existence and in the competitions of life.The workman is protected because the nation needs his labor and the employer is protected because the nation needs his industry.The productive power of free initiative has full play and a sure reward. Under its protection he finds joy and satisfaction in the fruits of his labor. There disincentive to invention, improvement, and the establishment of families and homes.

Political rights.
— It protects the citizen in his personal freedom. Equal political rights are assured. He has a voice in the Government which is "of the people, for the people, and by the people."When a people are free to undertake things and take advantage of the opportunities open to them wealth, character, and national strength are-developed.

Protection to home and family.
— The social unit of civilization is the family.Under this form of government the institution of marriage and the rights of childhood are respected, the home and the family are protected, and womanhood is inviolable.

Respect for religion.
— The "individualistic" form of government believes in the exercise of religious freedom and shows tolerance toward and respect for all religious beliefs.The American Government rests upon the deep religious convictions of her people. If it is to continue it will be through unceasing respect for and confidence in the nobler things of life.

97. An American institution. — In the governments of the Old World,conditions which built up a fixed caste system and created an impassable barrier between certain groups of society gave exceptional advantages to the favored and denied to the masses all but a bare existence.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/98704940/1928-Army-Training-Manual-Reprint
Constitution of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Given your position, I can see why you disagree with the philosophy of libertarianism. The libertarian position is that it is always unjustified for any person to initiate aggression against the body or property of another person.

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.

i do not understand how you call yourself a libertarian.

classical liberals ..or libertarians,........ believe in individual rights, not collective rights.

obama believes in collective rights, as proven by his Kansas speech.

the idea of the collective determining what rights are are repugnant to libertarians.

(removed list)

what the u.s. government taught in 1928 below

1928 Army Training Manual (Reprint)
Constitution of the United States.

First of all, that's not the Constitution of the United States, that's an Army training manual. I hope people can see the irony there.

The vast majority of those claims are solely an "Us vs Them" brainwashing tactic from the after effects of the Red Scare. This says absolutely nothing about the constitution or how we should interpret it; it's just the lead up to what became McCarthyism in the 50's. What some random guys, in a government literature mill from the 20's, printed out about the "dangers" of collectivism doesn't bother me at all. If they're even still alive, they can shove it.

In either case, pure or right-leaning libertarians are the only ones that find all collective rights to be repugnant. I equal this to the same arguments used to support a laissez-faire, free market. Whether you like the idea of a free market or not, it's just knee jerking without analyzing the history of free-markets; economic bubbles, low wages, ecological damage, etc. Libertarianism in itself, still requires you to define what liberty is; if it's defined by your right to defend your property, it doesn't mean much to people who don't have any property worth protecting.
 
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.



First of all, that's not the Constitution of the United States, that's an Army training manual. I hope people can see the irony there.

The vast majority of those claims are solely an "Us vs Them" brainwashing tactic from the after effects of the Red Scare. This says absolutely nothing about the constitution or how we should interpret it; it's just the lead up to what became McCarthyism in the 50's. What some random guys, in a government literature mill from the 20's, printed out about the "dangers" of collectivism doesn't bother me at all. If they're even still alive, they can shove it.

In either case, pure or right-leaning libertarians are the only ones that find all collective rights to be repugnant. I equal this to the same arguments used to support a laissez-faire, free market. Whether you like the idea of a free market or not, it's just knee jerking without analyzing the history of free-markets; economic bubbles, low wages, ecological damage, etc. Libertarianism in itself, still requires you to define what liberty is; if it's defined by your right to defend your property, it doesn't mean much to people who don't have any property worth protecting.


the point i am trying to make is the government is explaining the evils of collectivism........and it is still evil today..... 85 years later

the founders... our rights are individual, not collective, and the founders warned against collectivism by creating a senate controlled by the states in federalist 63...

The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.--federalist 63

your ideas when you first spoke, of people have rights........is not constant with collective rights.
 
the point i am trying to make is the government is explaining the evils of collectivism........and it is still evil today..... 85 years later

the founders... our rights are individual, not collective, and the founders warned against collectivism by creating a senate controlled by the states in federalist 63...

The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies in the total exclusion of the people, in their collective capacity, from any share in the latter, and not in the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration of the former.--federalist 63

your ideas when you first spoke, of people have rights........is not constant with collective rights.

The government can explain the evils of collectivism all they like, it doesn't make it true. Remember, the government is just a bunch of rich guys; do you really think they're going to tell you that capitalism makes them richer while it makes us poorer?

Although I'm definitely not particularly well read on the Federalist, issue 63 only briefly touches this issue and seems to only acknowledge that a senate should not have ultimate power. I'm not really seeing the connection here, and it doesn't really apply to any idea of socialism; Marxism was invented almost a century after the Federalist was written.

If you don't believe that our founding fathers had collective rights in mind, explain the 5th Amendment; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is not only an allowance for Eminent Domain, it defines it. If you're property will better serve the public (the collective good), the government can and will take it, with just compensation.
 
The government can explain the evils of collectivism all they like, it doesn't make it true. Remember, the government is just a bunch of rich guys; do you really think they're going to tell you that capitalism makes them richer while it makes us poorer?

Although I'm definitely not particularly well read on the Federalist, issue 63 only briefly touches this issue and seems to only acknowledge that a senate should not have ultimate power. I'm not really seeing the connection here, and it doesn't really apply to any idea of socialism; Marxism was invented almost a century after the Federalist was written.

If you don't believe that our founding fathers had collective rights in mind, explain the 5th Amendment; "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This is not only an allowance for Eminent Domain, it defines it. If you're property will better serve the public (the collective good), the government can and will take it, with just compensation.


no the founders when you read them state, rights are individual, rights....not collective.

the founders state we can vote collectively, however the people are barred of collective activity by the senate....of coarse before the 17 th.

collectivism destroys, as stated decades before you and I were ever born.,
 
no the founders when you read them state, rights are individual, rights....not collective.

the founders state we can vote collectively, however the people are barred of collective activity by the senate....of coarse before the 17 th.

collectivism destroys, as stated decades before you and I were ever born.,

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?
 
Jim Crowe was a government measure, in the same way the Inquisition was a royalty thing.
 
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:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


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".


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.
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ... :roll:
 
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 .




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.



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:
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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom