Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
sorry no right there...
Courts disagree.
sorry no right there...
No, it doesn't.
You might consider the facts stupid, but they are still the facts. It is a loss of property rights.
I ran an identical poll almost three years ago, since DP has added a significant number of users ......
No, it isn't.
I'm saying its stupid and petty to call that a loss of property rights.
Yes, it really is. Property rights involve the ability to exclude others from use of that property.It's nothing of the kind. It really isn't.
But accurate.
I'm not going to go into again. You can very easily read the thread and find many posters making the argument successfully that this law violates property rights.
Yes, it really is. Property rights involve the ability to exclude others from use of that property.
Yes, it includes all private property. Private property owners have a right to determine what public they are open to. They can limit the public as much as they want. Preventing them from doing so is a violation of their property rights. Sorry, that's just the definition of private property itself. If you want to argue against that, fine. But admit you are arguing against property rights. That is the honest thing to do.Not one open to the public. Sorry.
The law states differently. History led us elsewhere. Sorry.Yes, it includes all private property. Private property owners have a right to determine what public they are open to. They can limit the public as much as they want. Preventing them from doing so is a violation of their property rights. Sorry, that's just the definition of private property itself. If you want to argue against that, fine. But admit you are arguing against property rights. That is the honest thing to do.
The whole point of this topic is to say that the law is wrong, so such a statement is irrelevant. The reality is private property owners have the right to exclude anyone, period. The law violates those rights. If a third party entity tells me what I can or cannot do with my property then it ceases to fully be mine and thus ceases to fully be private property.The law states differently. History led us elsewhere. Sorry.
I do not understand why you are a statist. Can you explain?The law states differently. History led us elsewhere. Sorry.
The whole point of this topic is to say that the law is wrong, so such a statement is irrelevant. The reality is private property owners have the right to exclude anyone, period. The law violates those rights.
History doesn't make anything right. Unless you want to argue the historical mistreatment of women in the Middle East and its continuance today makes that right, or that the totalitarianism of North Korea that has resulted from history makes it right, and so on. That is the worst argument in defense of anything I have ever read.History is what makes it right.
No, just silly and sad.
I do not understand why you are a statist. Can you explain?
Your opinion that it is silly and sad does not negate the fact that it is a violation of property rights to force people to interact with or let others on their land/home/shop.
History doesn't make anything right. Unless you want to argue the historical mistreatment of women in the Middle East and its continuance today makes that right, or that the totalitarianism of North Korea that has resulted from history makes it right, and so on. That is the worst argument in defense of anything I have ever read.
But it's not. There are many rules must follow when they open a business. Not discriminating is but one. Sorry, but you're wrong on this.
And that rule is a violates the property right of the business owner. If a person cannot exclude someone from his property, then he cannot be said to be the exclusive owner.
Sorry, your argument that "just because it happened means it is right" is absurd. Otherwise you can justify the mistreatment of women in the middle east on historical grounds.But it does. It explains how we got here, and the how demonstrates why this is right. And you do better by avoiding the hyperbole others have thrown out. Over exaggeration doesn't strengthen an argument. There no such totalitarianism here.
Sorry, your argument that "just because it happened means it is right" is absurd. Otherwise you can justify the mistreatment of women in the middle east on historical grounds.