• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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 has nothing to do with your continued misuse of the US Code Title 29, which specifically states: "When used in this subchapter ..." before it states the definitions for the subchapter. Your misuse of that reference is dishonest at best.

ok I will ask this simple question ...is a business a person...yes or no?
 
That has nothing to do with your continued misuse of the US Code Title 29, which specifically states: "When used in this subchapter ..." before it states the definitions for the subchapter. Your misuse of that reference is dishonest at best.


code 29 states a business is a person....but u.s. code also states a business is a person all the time, do you dispute this?

is a business a person all the time it is in business?....yes or no
 
ok I will ask this simple question ...is a business a person...yes or no?
A person in the sense of the constitution? No.

A business as you're using the term is a construct of a capitalist society as any sensible person should understand. A business does not now nor ever has equated to a person, if nothing else because it's not a biological entity - but there are a whole slew of other differences, some derivatives of biology, that even you should be able to grasp.
 
Last edited:
A person in the sense of the constitution? No.

A business as you're using the term is a construct of a capitalist society as any sensible person should understand. A business does not now nor ever has equated to a person, if nothing else because it's not a biological entity - but there are a whole slew of other differences, some derivatives of biology, that even you should be able to grasp.

a business is not flesh and blood this is true, but it has property, wealth, which is at risk by those who would seek to defraud or steal from it.

if a person or entity, such as a business, had no rights ...I could steal from it lawfully.......because again what is government there to secure ....if no rights exist for it.
 
a business is not flesh and blood this is true, but it has property, wealth, which is at risk by those who would seek to defraud or steal from it.

if a person or entity, such as a business, had no rights ...I could steal from it lawfully.......because again what is government there to secure ....if no rights exist for it.

Just for reference, if corporations are people, should they be treated as such in a court of law?

For example, if corporation X was proven guilty of running a sweatshop where the human and civil rights are violated - what should the punishment be for the people in charge of that corporation?

- Revocation of a business license.
- Fine.
- Jail time.
- Execution; if their actions proved deadly?

Another example: If corporation Y is proven guilty of having manufactured dangerous products causing the death of a certain number of people, what should the punishment?


- Revocation of a business license.
- Fine.
- Jail time.

---------

The hard reality is that corporations are trying to have it both ways and so are you. The ability to own property doesn't make you a person or entitle you to rights. A corporation isn't some sort of brain working in conjunction with board members. It's a fictional entity through and through that is allowed to own property by the state which gives it the license to even exist.
 
Last edited:
then you admit a business has rights then
I forgot with whom I was speaking. In your terms a business has no "natural rights" but we have granted it certain protections under the law.



Of course, your "natural rights" (at least most of them) aren't natural at all - but that's a different subject.
 
Just for reference, if corporations are people, should they be treated as such in a court of law?

For example, if corporation X was proven guilty of running a sweatshop where the human and civil rights are violated - what should the punishment be for the people in charge of that corporation?

- Revocation of a business license.
- Fine.
- Jail time.
- Execution; if their actions proved deadly?

Another example: If corporation Y is proven guilty of having manufactured dangerous products causing the death of a certain number of people, what should the punishment?


- Revocation of a business license.
- Fine.
- Jail time.

---------

The hard reality is that corporations are trying to have it both ways and so are you. The ability to own property doesn't make you a person or entitle you to rights. A corporation isn't some sort of brain working in conjunction with board members. It's a fictional entity through and through that is allowed to own property by the state which gives it the license to even exist.

I have no problem with the law being used against business, to the full extend, if they violated rights of people
 
I have no problem with the law being used against business, to the full extend, if they violated rights of people

Only, that's not what I asked. If a corporation is found guilty of human rights violations and civil rights violations, should a guy working in accounting who was given some company stock be sent to jail? Is he responsible for those human rights violations? Who is responsible? The corporation? Okay, then how will they (they - being the arbitrary person you'll pick to take the the blame) be punished? Will they be punished like biological people? If they won't be punished as biological persons would, how can they possibly be called persons? Or does person hood only extend to that which you are given a license to own?

Surveyer basically pointed out the massive flaw in calling a corporation a "person" and believing they are entitled to rights as people are. If they are entitled the same way people are, then their punishments for breaking laws should be as harsh. However, they are not. If nothing else, this basically means we humans are second class citizens subjected to harsher penalties under the same law.
 
Only, that's not what I asked. If a corporation is found guilty of human rights violations and civil rights violations, should a guy working in accounting who was given some company stock be sent to jail? Is he responsible for those human rights violations? Who is responsible? The corporation? Okay, then how will they (they - being the arbitrary person you'll pick to take the the blame) be punished? Will they be punished like biological people? If they won't be punished as biological persons would, how can they possibly be called persons? Or does person hood only extend to that which you are given a license to own?

Surveyer basically pointed out the massive flaw in calling a corporation a "person" and believing they are entitled to rights as people are. If they are entitled the same way people are, then their punishments for breaking laws should be as harsh. However, they are not. If nothing else, this basically means we humans are second class citizens subjected to harsher penalties under the same law.

how can you punish individuals of a corporation which would be composed of many people, who would have nothing to do with and no knowledge of a crime the company they are working for is doing?

if individuals of companies can be identified , in wrong doing.....a crime ....they should receive the full arm of the law, if not the company is fined and/or have their license pulled.

if a government state, local, federal, commit a crime or a constitution violation, do they go to jail, how can you send government to jail?..the same applies to them

governments violate constitutional law when they violate rights of the people.........people commit crimes when they violate the rights of other people.

which is why governments cannot discriminate, because its a constitutional violation.

if a person discriminates, its not a crime, who rights have they violated?...no one's...its only statutory laws which has been violated.

the rights of the people, are superior to statutory law.
 
how can you punish individuals of a corporation which would be composed of many people, who would have nothing to do with and no knowledge of a crime the company they are working for is doing?

This is exactly where I wanted you.

If I commit a crime, I can't place culpability on an abstract idea I had and pass down punishment to it. The fault lays squarely on my head as a physical person. So how is it even possible to call a corporation a person, with the same responsibilities, rights and benefits as a person and then decree that if the corporation commits a crime, you can arbitrarily pick who within it will be guilty of said crime?

As I said, you're trying to have it both ways. If a corporation is a person then it should be treated as such in all aspects of the law and not those you arbitrarily pick.
More simply, this is how your argument ends:

1. A corporation is a person: Yes.
2. A corporation who commits a crime is punished like a person: No.

1. I am a person: Yes.
2. If I commit a crime, I am punished as a person: Yes.

-------

So which is it? Are corporations persons subject to EVERY aspect of the law as all other persons, or are they persons who aren't subject to the laws as all persons? If they aren't subject to the same laws and punishments as persons, then that effectively puts them above citizens.

The funniest part about this entire argument is that the founders pretty much warned against corporations being considered people because they didn't even satisfy the basic conditions for being persons.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly where I wanted you.

If I commit a crime, I can't place culpability on an abstract idea I had and pass down punishment to it. The fault lays squarely on my head as a physical person. So how is it even possible to call a corporation a person, with the same responsibilities, rights and benefits as a person and then decree that if the corporation commits a crime, you can arbitrarily pick who within it will be guilty of said crime?

As I said, you're trying to have it both ways. If a corporation is a person then it should be treated as such in all aspects of the law and not those you arbitrarily pick.
More simply, this is how your argument ends:

1. A corporation is a person: Yes.
2. A corporation who commits a crime is punished like a person: No.

1. I am a person: Yes.
2. If I commit a crime, I am punished as a person: Yes.

-------

So which is it? Are corporations persons subject to EVERY aspect of the law as all other persons, or are they persons who aren't subject to the laws as all persons? If they aren't subject to the same laws and punishments as persons, then that effectively puts them above citizens.

The funniest part about this entire argument is that the founders pretty much warned against corporations being considered people because they didn't even satisfy the basic conditions for being persons.


a corporation is a person stated by u.s. code ..I believe its in 1......i will post it later today.

if a corporation commits a crime........and you cannot tie it to a person...what do you do.........arrest every person in the company, even if it could be thousands?...not possible.

if the government commits a crime, not a constitutional violation....and no person is tied to the crime........does everyone in government go to jail?.

every person, business ,union, organizations is listed as a person by government, because they all have to have rights, ...if any of them had no rights, they would be at the mercy of those who wished to take advantage of them.

this thread has gone far from where it started, but again a business be it small or large has rights.....if it commits a crime, criminal activity, it will be fined and or shutdown. if a person of the company is found to be guilty of the crime he faces trial.

but statutory laws....no... they don't override the constitutional law/ rights of people or business, unless the law could show what a person or business is doing could violate the rights of others
 
but statutory laws....no... they don't override the constitutional law/ rights of people or business, unless the law could show what a person or business is doing could violate the rights of others
The constitutional rights of business?!? :lamo
 
Then you should be more clear in your posts.

i have been very clear..........a person or business has rights.

and government has no authority using statue laws, to take away those rights which are listed in the Constitution.

only criminal activity or activity which could damage a person physically or his property.....can ones rights be curtailed

government has no authority to curtail the rights of people, becuase they dont like......[which is an emotional feeling]... how they exercise them.
 
i have been very clear..........a person or business has rights.

and government has no authority using statue laws, to take away those rights which are listed in the Constitution.

only criminal activity or activity which could damage a person physically or his property.....can ones rights be curtailed

government has no authority to curtail the rights of people, becuase they dont like......[which is an emotional feeling]...how they exercise them.
The constitution lists no rights for businesses. Again, I laugh at your false assumptions. :lol:


Regardless of your previous post on this line of discussion it seems I DID get your meaning right the first time and, considering this post, you should be ashamed at that previous response implying I was somehow misreading you.
 
The constitution lists no rights for businesses. Again, I laugh at your false assumptions. :lol:


Regardless of your previous post on this line of discussion it seems I DID get your meaning right the first time and, considering this post, you should be ashamed at that previous response implying I was somehow misreading you.

so your saying a business, cannot be secure in its property or papers, and governments, even other people can go thru its books and use its property at will.

so your saying business has no right to voice it opinions of anything even politics of the government, that government can silence business and shut them up.

business have not right to a day in court, then they are guilty , whenever accused of wrong doing by anyone.

laugh?, no i look at you and see silliness of your part.
 
so your saying a business, cannot be secure in its property or papers, and governments, even other people can go thru its books and use its property at will.
so your saying business has no right to voice it opinions of anything even politics of the government, that government can silence business and shut them up.
business have not right to a day in court, then they are guilty , whenever accused of wrong doing by anyone.
laugh?, no i look at you and see silliness of your part.
I didn't say any of that, I simply stated it's not in the constitution. You're the one adding all the extra baggage here.

Society has extended many protections to business but that doesn't mean, in YOUR vocabulary, that those protections are somehow "natural rights" - and, quit frankly, you continue to look silly trying to turn a business into a person since even on it's face that's a false argument. It's sad, really ...
 
I didn't say any of that, I simply stated it's not in the constitution. You're the one adding all the extra baggage here.

Society has extended many protections to business but that doesn't mean, in YOUR vocabulary, that those protections are somehow "natural rights" - and, quit frankly, you continue to look silly trying to turn a business into a person since even on it's face that's a false argument. It's sad, really ...

i dont believe i have applied [natural] to business, like a corporation.

a single owner of a business has his natural rights over this property.

so again your wrong in your assessment.
 
i promised this earlier

1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth | Title 1 - General Provisions | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute



1 USC § 1 - Words denoting number, gender, and so forth


In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.
 
i dont believe i have applied [natural] to business, like a corporation.

a single owner of a business has his natural rights over this property.

so again your wrong in your assessment.
So you think the rights in the constitution aren't "natural rights"? It's good to see some of you guys finally coming to your senses.


And he can operate a business as a bigot all he wants as long as he doesn't license as an OTTP business because that would be misrepresentation and deception.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom