• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Private property doesn't exist outside of the state providing laws and enforcing contracts.

Enforcing contracts is not an INITIATION of aggression. Nor is a state (people allowed to initiate aggression) necessary for the enforcement of contracts.
 
I'm not sure why you're grouping laws forcing someone to do business against their will with laws forcing parties to honor a contract.

Because the argument is that the majority of time people won't discriminate so why do we need the laws? The argument was the "principle" of the government telling you to do something is supposedly the reason it should be abolished. The works with contract enforcement as well....

Why exactly is state interference okay in protecting business owners but not protecting consumers from discriminatory practices?

I think if you're going to group these laws with others, shouldn't it be with pro-slavery laws?
No...not at all. One dealt with forced labor with no compensation. The other deals with compensating someone for the service they provide but not allowing arbitrary reasons to serve one person and not another.

You expect society to protect your business, ensure your contracts are honored, provide basic amenities are available and a plethora of other inputs necessary to run a business but you balk over the state and society not allowing you to arbitrarily to decide who you won't and will serve?
 
Enforcing contracts is not an INITIATION of aggression. Nor is a state (people allowed to initiate aggression) necessary for the enforcement of contracts.

No...it's the threat of an initiation of aggression. Monetary penalties or jail time.

So you're saying that we don't need contract enforcement? That you would support the repeal of laws pertaining to the enforcement of a contract?

Maybe 400 years ago when any business owners primarily dealt with suppliers and consumers in a small geographic area. Times have changes...most transactions are arms-length transactions.
 
Do you a more satisfactory definition of aggression that you'd like to offer?

Aggression isn't the issue. The right to have civil law is. We have kinds of laws that require us to comply. It's been well accepted that we do live by some rules. Nondiscrimination is one of those rules we have for the common good. they are not unusual and not aggression.
 
This is the gist of the argument... and I believe it to be a naive point-of-view.
No. The gist of the argument is that owners of private property have the right to exclude others from their property, however stupid and hateful that exclusion is.
 
Because the argument is that the majority of time people won't discriminate so why do we need the laws? The argument was the "principle" of the government telling you to do something is supposedly the reason it should be abolished. The works with contract enforcement as well....

Why exactly is state interference okay in protecting business owners but not protecting consumers from discriminatory practices?

I don't know that any of it is really necessary but I think a law requiring people to fulfill their contractual obligations is very different than a law advocating slave labor.

I don't know where this "big business" stuff is coming from though.


No...not at all. One dealt with forced labor with no compensation. The other deals with compensating someone for the service they provide but not allowing arbitrary reasons to serve one person and not another.

You expect society to protect your business, ensure your contracts are honored, provide basic amenities are available and a plethora of other inputs necessary to run a business but you balk over the state and society not allowing you to arbitrarily to decide who you won't and will serve?

Slaves were compensated.

Where do you think their food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. came from?

I'm not sure what compensation has to do with it anyway. Slavery involves being forced to work for someone against your will. It wouldn't have ceased being slavery if plantation owners dropped a few coins in their pockets here and there. Heck, it would still be slavery if they were highly paid people doing work against their will.
 
It's good politics to insist all white Christians are intolerant terrorists who would lynch or crucify anyone with a different skin tone or religious background than them but I just don't see any real evidence of it.

Wake up on the "histrionic drama queen" side of the bed this morning?

Must be, because this nonsense bears absolutely no relation to what I actually said.

There are very, very few businesses who refuse service to people because of ethnicity, religious practices, etc. and I just don't believe that is because a law was passed.

No, it's because a law was passed and enforced and the enforcement of that law sculpted behavior.

See how that puts the horse before the cart?

First the law came, then behavior began to change as a result of the law, then the idea that it's not cool to discriminate against people followed suit.

You might be more familiar with it as the concept of acculturation.

Kind of how schools were forcing kids to say prayers that they may or may not have believed in until a law was passed saying that forcing kids to pray in school was illegal.

First the law came, then the behavior changed, and though we're still working on it opinion began to change.

The only thing these laws do is force an extremely small minority of the people to do business with people they would rather not do business with and I'm just not sure where you draw the line.

Boo hoo hoo.

People have to sell stuff to people they may not have a strong personal afffinity for.

Poor little shop keeps.

:roll:

Your fictitious Louisiana Muslim family would certainly have other options than the Desert Storm vet owned grocery store...

If you reread my post you'll note that I've already conceded that they would.

My concern is that those other choices might be impossibly oppressive in terms of expense or time and distance involved.

If you can prove to me that this would absolutely not be a concern for anyone, anywhere in America then I'll happily let it go.

And please note that proving it to me will actually require objective proof, not just your opinion.

...but it's your fictitious story so let's assume they don't. Would the result on this Muslim family be any different if instead of not serving Muslims he moved his only game in town to a more lucrative spot or retired? Is it safe to say you believe the vet should be forced to work against his will until someone else comes along to provide for this Muslim family?

So your contention would be that he wouldn't sell his business, or that another enterprising entrepreneur wouldn't recognize the need in the market for a grocery store and fill the void?

Maybe you'll buy that but I've got much to much faith in capitalisim to accept it.

It's perfectly plausible that a given micromarket might only support one grocery score due to economies of scale preventing two from competing.

But it's simply preposterous to presume that the market forces wouldn't answer an opportunity for needs to be met.

That vet would have sold the business prior to retirement and he'd have invested the proceeds in an immediate annuity that's now funding his retirement.

If not, why?

Irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Aggression isn't the issue. The right to have civil law is. We have kinds of laws that require us to comply. It's been well accepted that we do live by some rules. Nondiscrimination is one of those rules we have for the common good. they are not unusual and not aggression.

Again, I disagree that such an edict doesn't constitute aggression. If a person says, "You must trade with whom I say and if you don't I will come and seize you and put you in a cage", to me that constitutes aggression. Again, perhaps it would help to look at how aggression is described in the Wiki article on the non-aggression principle.

Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.
 
ah yes .... John Stossel who does a rant about lawsuits ruining America but has no trouble suing when he cannot take a simple slap to the head. Hypocritical wimp sissy libertarian piece of trash.
 
I don't know that any of it is really necessary but I think a law requiring people to fulfill their contractual obligations is very different than a law advocating slave labor.

What planet are you living on that not being to refuse service to people on something as arbitrary as skin pigmentation is the same as lifelong forced labor without compensation.

I don't know where this "big business" stuff is coming from though.
Neither do I...since I didn't mention "big business".

I know it's hard for you but can you tone the partisan hackery down just a bit?
Color me confused! I guess this is about the "big business" comments that I didn't make!

Slaves were compensated.

Where do you think their food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. came from?

I'm not sure what compensation has to do with it anyway. Slavery involves being forced to work for someone against your will. It wouldn't have ceased being slavery if plantation owners dropped a few coins in their pockets here and there. Heck, it would still be slavery if they were highly paid people doing work against their will.

No it was slavery because it was ownership of another person. It was the total subjugation of a person and forcing them to lifelong labor and only providing them the necessities to exist in order to get more labor out of them.

It's nothing like losing the "freedom" to arbitrarily say you won't serve people with a darker skin tone.

The fact you make that argument is just silly and hard to take seriously.
 
ah yes .... John Stossel who does a rant about lawsuits ruining America but has no trouble suing when he cannot take a simple slap to the head. Hypocritical wimp sissy libertarian piece of trash.

Cool ad hom, bro.
 
Everything you mention is protected by the state's willingness to "initiate aggression against other". Private property doesn't exist outside of the state providing laws and enforcing contracts.

:roll: Who told you the existence of private property has anything to do with the state?
 
I'm sorry your definition would cover all laws and as such silly. You have to put things in context and not expect no fairness in the law. You are being quite hyperbolic.

The non-aggression principle does not imply anarchy. :roll:
 
No, it's because a law was passed and enforced and the enforcement of that law sculpted behavior.

See how that puts the horse before the cart?

First the law came, then behavior began to change as a result of the law, then the idea that it's not cool to discriminate against people followed suit.

There is several hundred years’ worth of history that says otherwise.

Discrimination has always existed in some capacity but, even in the most extreme capacities, people have managed to do business and get by long before 1964’s Civil Rights Act. The law sculpted behavior? Are you really under the impression that black people didn’t shop in stores before this act? I have news for you: WHITE PEOPLE TOOK THEIR MONEY.

The law didn’t sculpt behavior.

White Christians just aren’t the racists out for blood you insist we are.


Boo hoo hoo.

People have to sell stuff to people they may not have a strong personal afffinity for.

Poor little shop keeps.

:roll:

If it’s so small potatoes then why don’t you put the money you’re already bragging about where your mouth is and start selling stuff to these people? Why do we have to force someone when you’re willing and seldom a topic comes up that you don’t find a way to work in how well you’re doing?

And please note that proving it to me will actually require objective proof, not just your opinion.

Objective proof for your fictitious scenario?

WTF??

So your contention would be that he wouldn't sell his business, or that another enterprising entrepreneur wouldn't recognize the need in the market for a grocery store and fill the void?

Maybe you'll buy that but I've got much to much faith in capitalisim to accept it.

It's perfectly plausible that a given micromarket might only support one grocery score due to economies of scale preventing two from competing.

But it's simply preposterous to presume that the market forces wouldn't answer an opportunity for needs to be met.


WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

This is your fictitious story, not mine.

You even came up with the oddly specific Desert Storm vet who hates dangerous “Mooooooslims”.

There was no market forces in your fictitious story, remember? It was impossible for your Muslim family to shop in another store, buy off Amazon, grow or make their own stuff, etc. They would die if he didn’t sell to them, remember? I just assume it stood to reason that Amazon or the ability to farm wouldn’t suddenly exist in “soot-ville” if your racist white Christian vet wanted to retire or move to the west coast.
 
:roll: Who told you the existence of private property has anything to do with the state?

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

But I'm hoping that you understood I was talking about property rights and the state has everything to do with the creation/enforcement of property rights.
 
Well first of all "private" property wouldn't exist obviously without the existence of a state and "public" property. Otherwise it would just be "property".

Private property would exist just fine without the state. In fact, it is the only type of property without the state.

But I'm hoping that you understood I was talking about property rights and the state has everything to do with the creation/enforcement of property rights.

I'm well aware of what you're were talking about. The state has nothing to do with the creation of property rights.
 
The law didn’t sculpt behavior.

Nonsense.

White Christians just aren’t the racists out for blood you insist we are.

You keep throwing around this Christian nonsense.

Where did I say anything about Christians?

Where did I say anything about "white people" as far as that goes?

I said Americans. I think a black American or a Hispanic American would be just as intollerant as a white Christian American if given the chance.

You need to stop injecting your Christianity into every thread, it gets tedious and you certainly do it a whole HELL of a lot more often than I mention "how well I'm doing".

And I mean that seriously.

I may have mentioned "how well I'm doing" once or twice, tops. I doubt very much there's a single day in your posting history where you're not talking about what a huge white Christian you are.

If it’s so small potatoes then why don’t you put the money you’re already bragging about where your mouth is and start selling stuff to these people?

Because I don't think I have the aptitude for business ownership. It's not where my skills lie and my personality isn't suited for it.

Objective proof for your fictitious scenario?

WTF??

You got your wires completly crossed here hotstuff.

Go back, re-read my post, determine what I actually asked you for objective proof of, then come back here and answer me.

I mean, come on dude, we can all beat the **** out of a strawman.

I expect more from you white Christians.

:roll:
 
You expect society to protect your business, ensure your contracts are honored, provide basic amenities are available and a plethora of other inputs necessary to run a business but you balk over the state and society not allowing you to arbitrarily to decide who you won't and will serve?

Yes, exactly. The state is there to protect my rights, not to violate my liberty so others get service from me.
 
Private property would exist just fine without the state. In fact, it is the only type of property without the state.



I'm well aware of what you're were talking about. The state has nothing to do with the creation of property rights.

There are no such thing as "rights" unless it's codified and enforced. There are not natural rights. The natural state of things is you hold what you can as long as nobody else wants it or you can physically hold it from someone that does want it. That's not a "right".

But please...expand on your statement. I'm definitely open to different views.
 
Back
Top Bottom