• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Federalist said:
I don't care if you want to restrict the actions of a business. (In fact, I have never seen a business act, so I don't see what such restriction accomplish.) However, I object to using force to restrict the actions of people. Joe has the right to freely engage in trade on his own property does he not?
Click to expand...

You restrict it by restricting how it operates. It's how this works. Joe can do in his personal life what he wants. His business must comply to all kinds of laws,including non discrimination.
 
Boo Radley said:
You restrict it by restricting how it operates. It's how this works. Joe can do in his personal life what he wants. His business must comply to all kinds of laws,including non discrimination.
Click to expand...

I am fine with you restricting how the business operates. Make it comply with whatever restrictions you wish, and if it disobeys, put put it in jail.

However, I do object to restricting Joe's ability to freely engage in trade on his own property. As I said, I am concerned with restrictions on the actions of actual people.
 
Federalist said:
I am fine with you restricting how the business operates. Make it comply with whatever restrictions you wish, and if it disobeys, put put it in jail.

However, I do object to restricting Joe's ability to freely engage in trade on his own property. As I said, I am concerned with restrictions on the actions of actual people.
Click to expand...

I don't at his home, his lake view cabin, or any other property. His business, however, is not him. It's his business. It must comply.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't at his home, his lake view cabin, or any other property. His business, however, is not him. It's his business. It must comply.
Click to expand...

I don't care what you do to his business. However, I am very concerned if you initiate violence against Joe himself to restrict his ability to freely engage in trade on his own property.
 
Federalist said:
I don't care what you do to his business. However, I am very concerned if you initiate violence against Joe himself to restrict his ability to freely engage in trade on his own property.
Click to expand...

Again, Joe's Diner isn't joe. Everything that goes on there isn't him. It's the business. Don't act like you don't understand this point. We we say Joe's business can't discriminate, we know Joe owns the business. But Joe is not the business.
 
Boo Radley said:
Again, Joe's Diner isn't joe. Everything that goes on there isn't him. It's the business. Don't act like you don't understand this point. We we say Joe's business can't discriminate, we know Joe owns the business. But Joe is not the business.
Click to expand...

You may place any restrictions you want on Joe's business. I don't care about mythical beasties. In fact, I'll let you in on a little secret: I don't think they even really exist.

I DO however care about the rights of Joe, and I object to your use of violence to restrict his ability to freely engage in trade on his own property.
 
Federalist said:
You may place any restrictions you want on Joe's business. I don't care about mythical beasties. In fact, I'll let you in on a little secret: I don't think they even really exist.

I DO however care about the rights of Joe, and I object to your use of violence to restrict his ability to freely engage in trade on his own property.
Click to expand...

What you're doing is ignore the point.
 
Boo Radley said:
What you're doing is ignore the point.
Click to expand...

No, I'm making a point.

You want to restrict Joe's ability to freely trade on his own property.

In order to do so you fabricate something called "a business" and say that you are restriction the actions of "the business". There is no such thing. There is only Joe, and you want to restrict his ability to freely engage in trade. All this "business" talk is just a rationalization.

Tell you what, go ahead and put the business in jail.
 
Federalist said:
No, I'm making a point.

You want to restrict Joe's ability to freely trade on his own property.

In order to do so you fabricate something called "a business" and say that you are restriction the actions of "the business". There is no such thing. There is only Joe, and you want to restrict his ability to freely engage in trade. All this "business" talk is just a rationalization.

Tell you what, go ahead and put the business in jail.
Click to expand...

It's his business. It is a business and nit Joe. That's the point. I know you think you're being clever, but thus is the heart if the matter. Jose's Diner isn't Joe. Joe doesn't have to like anyone. Joe can be a bigot. But once he opens those doors to the public, it's not Joe. It's Joe's Diner, a business. What happens within that context isn't about Joe at all, but the business.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's his business. It is a business and nit Joe. That's the point. I know you think you're being clever, but thus is the heart if the matter. Jose's Diner isn't Joe. Joe doesn't have to like anyone. Joe can be a bigot. But once he opens those doors to the public, it's not Joe. It's Joe's Diner, a business. What happens within that context isn't about Joe at all, but the business.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is his business, i.e. an activity in which he engages, i.e. trading with other people. You are saying that you want to use force to interfere with his ability to freely do so. You want violently interfere with Joe's ability to trade with other people on his own property. I contend that initiating force against one's fellow man is unethical and unjustified. Where you get off assuming authority over people's peaceful behavior on their own property is beyond me. You're not the boss of Joe, or do you contend that you are possessed of some sort of divine right to rule your fellow man.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, it is his business, i.e. an activity in which he engages, i.e. trading with other people. You are saying that you want to use force to interfere with his ability to freely do so. You want violently interfere with Joe's ability to trade with other people on his own property. I contend that initiating force against one's fellow man is unethical and unjustified. Where you get off assuming authority over people's peaceful behavior on their own property is beyond me. You're not the boss of Joe, or do you contend that you are possessed of some sort of divine right to rule your fellow man.
Click to expand...

I'm saying its not about him. It's about the business. On his own, separate form the business, he can do anything he wants. HIS freedoms are not infringed. His diner, however, can't infringe on anyone else's. it's a simple, simple concept to follow.
 
Boo Radley said:
I'm saying its not about him. It's about the business. On his own, separate form the business, he can do anything he wants. HIS freedoms are not infringed. His diner, however, can't infringe on anyone else's. it's a simple, simple concept to follow.
Click to expand...

If his diner discriminates against someone, I suggest you arrest and prosecute the diner.

However, I object to your proposal to use state violence to interfere with the peaceful behavior of Joe and to prevent him from freely trading (or refusing to trade) on his own property.
 
Federalist said:
If his diner discriminates against someone, I suggest you arrest and prosecute the diner.

However, I object to your proposal to use state violence to interfere with the peaceful behavior of Joe and to prevent him from freely trading (or refusing to trade) on his own property.
Click to expand...

Now you're going all hyperbolic again. No need to exaggerate. Joe is the responsible party for the business. He is responsible for the business meeting its obligations to follow the law.
 
Boo Radley said:
Now you're going all hyperbolic again. No need to exaggerate. Joe is the responsible party for the business. He is responsible for the business meeting its obligations to follow the law.
Click to expand...

So now you're saying that Joe is not free to engage (or not engage) in trade on his own property. What do you think gives you (or anyone else) the authority to interfere with Joe's ability to freely trade? Is this some sort of divine right that gives you authority over your fellow man?
 
Federalist said:
So now you're saying that Joe is not free to engage (or not engage) in trade on his own property. What do you think gives you (or anyone else) the authority to interfere with Joe's ability to freely trade? Is this some sort of divine right that gives you authority over your fellow man?
Click to expand...

Once he choose to enter into business, that business came subject to rules. yes. You mis-frame this badly all the time, but it is the Diner, what goes on in the diner, now in the public market place that is subject to rules and regulations. Many of them actually.
 
Boo Radley said:
Once he choose to enter into business, that business came subject to rules. yes. You mis-frame this badly all the time, but it is the Diner, what goes on in the diner, now in the public market place that is subject to rules and regulations. Many of them actually.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that once Joe decides to engage in trade on his own property, you feel as if you have the legitimate authority to use force to make him trade according to your desires. How did you come by the authority to dictate to your fellow man how he may engage in trade on his own property. Is this some sort of divine right you have that makes you superior to him?
 
Federalist said:
So you're saying that once Joe decides to engage in trade on his own property, you feel as if you have the legitimate authority to use force to make him trade according to your desires. How did you come by the authority to dictate to your fellow man how he may engage in trade on his own property. Is this some sort of divine right you have that makes you superior to him?
Click to expand...

Not feel. It's the law. Just like laws that govern the health standards or tax rules or any other element of the business. He is not abused in any way.
 
Federalist said:
So you're saying that once Joe decides to engage in trade on his own property, you feel as if you have the legitimate authority to use force to make him trade according to your desires. How did you come by the authority to dictate to your fellow man how he may engage in trade on his own property. Is this some sort of divine right you have that makes you superior to him?
Click to expand...

we have people who feel becuase someone does something that they themselves do not agree with, even though no crime has been committed, they have a superior right to make rules for others to correct their behavior.

you see this a lot with people who believe the public should be able to make their own rights.

this is why control of rights in the hands of the people is a dangerous thing.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not feel. It's the law. Just like laws that govern the health standards or tax rules or any other element of the business. He is not abused in any way.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, "the law", which means an edict issued by a group of people.

And you feel that these people are legitimately justified in dictating to their fellow man how he may engage in trade on his own property. And how do these people acquire their authority over Joe to dictate how he may engage in trade on his own property. Do they have some special powers? Some sort of divine right that gives them the authority to issue orders ("laws") to their fellow man?
 
ernst barkmann said:
we have people who feel becuase someone does something that they themselves do not agree with, even though no crime has been committed, they have a superior right to make rules for others to correct their behavior.

you see this a lot with people who believe the public should be able to make their own rights.

this is why control of rights in the hands of the people is a dangerous thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, the world appears to be full of control-freak scumbags who feel as if they have a divine right to rule over their fellow man. Where they get off claiming to be the king of others is beyond me. It just seems so anti-egalitarian and feudal.
 
Federalist said:
Ah yes, "the law", which means an edict issued by a group of people.

And you feel that these people are legitimately justified in dictating to their fellow man how he may engage in trade on his own property. And how do these people acquire their authority over Joe to dictate how he may engage in trade on his own property. Do they have some special powers? Some sort of divine right that gives them the authority to issue orders ("laws") to their fellow man?
Click to expand...

Laws are laws. They keep us from anarchy. A comment I made a while back. They have a history. They often ensure the public tranquility if not good. No one anywhere is completely free to do anything he or she wants. Same here. The owner is not, I repeat, is not being abused in any way. Suck it up.
 
Boo Radley said:
Laws are laws. They keep us from anarchy. A comment I made a while back. They have a history. They often ensure the public tranquility if not good. No one anywhere is completely free to do anything he or she wants. Same here. The owner is not, I repeat, is not being abused in any way. Suck it up.
Click to expand...

Laws are laws. Edicts are edicts. Orders are orders. Commands are commands. This is obvious.

But, what gives the commander(s) the legitimate authority to command how Joe engages in trade on his own property?
 
Federalist said:
Laws are laws. Edicts are edicts. Orders are orders. Commands are commands. This is obvious.

But, what gives the commander(s) the legitimate authority to command how Joe engages in trade on his own property?
Click to expand...

The people. We the people. We gave it legitimacy. it was earned through civil rights. It was done the way it should be done. not from above, but from the people.
 
Boo Radley said:
The people. We the people. We gave it legitimacy. it was earned through civil rights. It was done the way it should be done. not from above, but from the people.
Click to expand...

But how did the people of which you speak acquire the legitimate authority to tell Joe how he may engage in trade on his own property. Do these people have some sort of divine right to rule over Joe? If so, how did they acquire this special power?
 
Federalist said:
But how did the people of which you speak acquire the legitimate authority to tell Joe how he may engage in trade on his own property. Do these people have some sort of divine right to rule over Joe? If so, how did they acquire this special power?
Click to expand...

In our system, the people give authority to the government. This is basic government 101. Government couldn't function without our support. We do this by voting, most often for representatives who represent our interests. Again, the civil rights movement would explain fully how it worked in this case.

And they are not ruling Joe; Just his business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom