• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
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.

Then it all comes down to the most basic question; What if our founders were wrong?

I'm not going to act like they were idiots, or wrong on every account, but they were just farmers from 200 years ago. If our founders had lived today and never in their own time, they would have written a different document, affirming different rights.
 
Then it all comes down to the most basic question; What if our founders were wrong?

I'm not going to act like they were idiots, or wrong on every account, but they were just farmers from 200 years ago. If our founders had lived today and never in their own time, they would have written a different document, affirming different rights.

question: why is it you think and others who feel like you do, can take away rights of people who have committed no crime........by what authority in the constitution are you and other people given this power?

the rights affirmed by the constitution are essentially the same rights affirmed by state constitutions before our federal one was even created.

rights are based on the individual, his life, his liberty and his property.

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.-- samuel adams

your argument is based on...you dont like what a citizen is doing, even though its not a crime, so you want to use the power to government to stop a citizen from exercising his rights,-------> based on your dislike.

if such legal authority existed, their would be no porn industry, becuase the majority would have shut it down.

abortion, would have never been made legal in the 1970's.......if we can take away OTHER people's rights based on our own morality.

again this all comes down to:"i dont like what he is doing and i want it stopped!"
 
First of all, you didn't actually acknowledge any of my question. Why should we care about the constitution? What makes it correct?
question: why is it you think and others who feel like you do, can take away rights of people who have committed no crime........by what authority in the constitution are you and other people given this power?
The states are not limited by the constitution. It doesn't work that way; statutory laws provide increasingly higher restrictions as you get more and more local. That's how it works. A local law can't give you more rights, but they can give you less. The idea that no law should restrict your rights, is ridiculous; that's what a law is.

rights are based on the individual, his life, his liberty and his property.
Yup, "individual", not "business".
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.-- samuel adams
More words from a man I don't respect as anything more than one of countless philosophers of his day. I think his ideas are short sighted, he couldn't have foresaw our state of corporatism. He made a nice beer, though.
your argument is based on...you dont like what a citizen is doing, even though its not a crime, so you want to use the power to government to stop a citizen from exercising his rights,-------> based on your dislike.

if such legal authority existed, their would be no porn industry, becuase the majority would have shut it down.

abortion, would have never been made legal in the 1970's.......if we can take away OTHER people's rights based on our own morality.

again this all comes down to:"i dont like what he is doing and i want it stopped!"
All of those rights are individual rights. I have no problem with bigots saying what they believe. I have no problem with porn, or abortion, or any other moral debate. If you don't like porn, don't buy it. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like bigots, don't hang out with them. But, that doesn't apply to businesses; In modern society, people are dependent on public accommodation type businesses, in a way that our founding fathers could never have foreseen. We have already created new laws to reflect these changes, the civil rights act is one of them. It's not the nannystate, it doesn't protect you from your own bigotry, it protects you from the discrimination of others.

Whether it's in the constitution is besides the point; it's not a holy scripture or divinely inspired. As libertarians, we need to attack the nannystate, to promote individual rights, not more rights for the businesses (who are not individuals). Do you seriously think that abolishing the civil rights act will promote individual rights?
 
when a citizen violates the rights of another citizen, that person is committing a crime.

when a citizen enters the property of another citizen, he has NO exercisable rights.........zero, meaning he has no right to free speech, bare a firearm, assembly, secure in his person or property if the owner believes you have stolen his property.

the property owner grants the citizen / patron a privilege of being served, or he may allowed the person to exercise a privilege.... he denies other patrons, becuase it is his property.

no where in constitutions be they state of federal government does it give authority to government or to people to take away rights of individual citizens, who have committed no crime, but just becuase how the citizens exercise his rights is not like by the people.......their is no mob rule..of who gets to do what.
 
when a citizen violates the rights of another citizen, that person is committing a crime.

when a citizen enters the property of another citizen, he has NO exercisable rights.........zero, meaning he has no right to free speech, bare a firearm, assembly, secure in his person or property if the owner believes you have stolen his property.

the property owner grants the citizen / patron a privilege of being served, or he may allowed the person to exercise a privilege.... he denies other patrons, becuase it is his property.

no where in constitutions be they state of federal government does it give authority to government or to people to take away rights of individual citizens, who have committed no crime, but just becuase how the citizens exercise his rights is not like by the people.......their is no mob rule..of who gets to do what.

I agree on all counts, for individuals. I support your right to throw people out of your small business for any reason, including racism, but not if you are a public accommodation. If you're a business, of a size and type that is relevant to this debate, your business decisions are no longer individual decisions. That's the issue, not whether an individual has a right to their property, but whether a business is an individual. They aren't.
 
First of all, you didn't actually acknowledge any of my question. Why should we care about the constitution? What makes it correct?

because it is the supreme law of the law, if its not followed, your life liberty and property are not safe.........government job is to secure rights.

the constitution setups the federal government[its structure] and gives then only 18 duties, and places restrictions on the federal government from violating the rights of the people.


The states are not limited by the constitution. It doesn't work that way; statutory laws provide increasingly higher restrictions as you get more and more local. That's how it works. A local law can't give you more rights, but they can give you less. The idea that no law should restrict your rights, is ridiculous; that's what a law is.

wrong.... the USSC ruled after the civil war, the states must comply with the bill of rights.

again..... i did not say rights cannot be curtailed, they can, but you must commit a crime( [criminal law] or by an action which could cause pain/ death destruction of person/ property [like storing propane next to fire source where others can get hurt.) to have them curtailed, by violating the rights of another citiznen.....they cannot be curtail, becuase you just want them to, or government does not like how they use their rights.



Yup, "individual", not "business".

rights as an individual own businesser, then i have rights, they dont disappear becuase i enter business.....i have a right to commerce, right to association, property.


More words from a man I don't respect as anything more than one of countless philosophers of his day. I think his ideas are short sighted, he couldn't have foresaw our state of corporatism. He made a nice beer, though.

All of those rights are individual rights. I have no problem with bigots saying what they believe. I have no problem with porn, or abortion, or any other moral debate. If you don't like porn, don't buy it. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like bigots, don't hang out with them. But, that doesn't apply to businesses; In modern society, people are dependent on public accommodation type businesses, in a way that our founding fathers could never have foreseen. We have already created new laws to reflect these changes, the civil rights act is one of them. It's not the nannystate, it doesn't protect you from your own bigotry, it protects you from the discrimination of others.

Whether it's in the constitution is besides the point; it's not a holy scripture or divinely inspired. As libertarians, we need to attack the nannystate, to promote individual rights, not more rights for the businesses (who are not individuals). Do you seriously think that abolishing the civil rights act will promote individual rights?


wrong how can you say..... if you dont like something, dont buy it, dont drink it, dont hang around...but then force a person, to associate with another person.

the constitution is the law, your stating we should only follow it when it meets your approval only, and it does not work like that.

civil rights comes from the 14th amendment to the constitution.....in reality it was written for the slave population only, and affirmed by the USSC in 1873 in the slaughterhouse case....

if was written so that STATES, could not discriminate against former slaves...not people or business.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
I agree on all counts, for individuals. I support your right to throw people out of your small business for any reason, including racism, but not if you are a public accommodation. If you're a business, of a size and type that is relevant to this debate, your business decisions are no longer individual decisions. That's the issue, not whether an individual has a right to their property, but whether a business is an individual. They aren't.

so your saying when you enter business public laws, .....take away your rights to association, property......when did laws, have the power over rights of citizens who have committed no crime.

even the federal government states a business is a person.......us code 29 152.

so i [myself] own a business.......when i enter business ------>i waved my rights?........rights are unalienable, they cannot be waved or surrendered.
 
even the federal government states a business is a person.......us code 29 152.
Let's be HONEST about this part since we've already been through this. The opening line of that subchapter of US Code specifically states:

"When used in this subchapter -
(1) The term "person" includes ..."

So, that term is ONLY APPLICABLE TO THAT SUB-CHAPTER OF US CODE!
I don't know why you have such a difficult time getting that simple fact through your head. :screwy
 
so your saying when you enter business public laws, .....take away your rights to association, property......when did laws, have the power over rights of citizens who have committed no crime.

Mr. ernst barkmann, I'm going to have to end our debate on a "agree to disagree".
We're getting nowhere here, we don't even define our rights the same way.

I've been a big proponent of the legalization of Marijuana, mostly because its prohibition was unconstitutional in the first place. But if I toke it up in front of the cops, no quoting of the constitution is going to stop them from throwing me in prison. I think we can agree that the nannystate is ridiculous, and we should fight it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's already here. The best route to fight the nannystate is peaceful protest and democracy; quoting the constitution isn't going to make them follow it.

In the end, your right to life won't stop a murderer, your right to property won't stop a thief, your right to liberty won't stop a government. Quoting your rights won't protect them.
 
Let's be HONEST about this part since we've already been through this. The opening line of that subchapter of US Code specifically states:

"When used in this subchapter -
(1) The term "person" includes ..."

So, that term is ONLY APPLICABLE TO THAT SUB-CHAPTER OF US CODE!
I don't know why you have such a difficult time getting that simple fact through your head. :screwy

tell me why do you not accept the fact government has made business/ corporations...persons
 
tell me why do you not accept the fact government has made business/ corporations...persons
The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail. Show me where I can deduct my "business expenses", like rent, utilities, food, etc, etc, from my income.
 
Last edited:
Mr. ernst barkmann, I'm going to have to end our debate on a "agree to disagree".
We're getting nowhere here, we don't even define our rights the same way.

I've been a big proponent of the legalization of Marijuana, mostly because its prohibition was unconstitutional in the first place. But if I toke it up in front of the cops, no quoting of the constitution is going to stop them from throwing me in prison. I think we can agree that the nannystate is ridiculous, and we should fight it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's already here. The best route to fight the nannystate is peaceful protest and democracy; quoting the constitution isn't going to make them follow it.

In the end, your right to life won't stop a murderer, your right to property won't stop a thief, your right to liberty won't stop a government. Quoting your rights won't protect them.

you are correct drugs are not in the constitution, although the government has made it illegal, it still not a duty of the federal government.

I am discussing what the constitution and what rights are, per the documents, I am not discussing what government has done, is doing because 99% of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.........per the constitution they have only 18 powers.

your correct the nanny state is here and been around a long time...and I believe its going to end one day, because sooner or later you run out of others people money.

the way to get rid of the nanny state is to end democracy and return to republican government.

democracy is what allows the nanny state to be created and grow.

ask this question ...why to liberals, cry democracy and beg for more of it........like the direct vote for president.

democracy is the most vile form of government- james Madison

I ask you to read the founders, federalist 10, 39, 47 63 these are very important.

also the works of john adams, were he speaks out against representive democracy as being a terrible form of government.
 
The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail.


that is not the meaning of person, he means the business , can act has a person towards government, a corporation can go to Washington as a person and petition the government just as you and I can...however because they have money, they will get the voice heard quicker then you or I will.
 
The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail. Show me where I can deduct my "business expenses", like rent, utilities, food, etc, etc, from my income.

can a business go to Washington and stand in line like a citizen can at the door of a senator of congressman.....yes they can, and they pay people to do it for them.

there are people who provide a service, it is to stand in line for business in Washington, until there time to speak to their representative.

how can you arrest a business which is composed of many people?.....only if a select individual has been accused of crime can one be arrested .

the business can be charged with a crime, and made to pay a fine.

this is a prime example of why constitutional violations do not apply to people or business, only crimes do.

and constitutional violations are place against government only..... and not crimes, how can government fine themselves, or go to jail.
 
that is not the meaning of person, he means the business , can act has a person towards government, a corporation can go to Washington as a person and petition the government just as you and I can...however because they have money, they will get the voice heard quicker then you or I will.
Which has nothing to do with your continuing misuse of "person" from your US Code reference.


Just because an entity of some kind has some similarities to another entity does not let you expand those similarities to include everything about them. Businesses are not persons.
 
Which has nothing to do with your continuing misuse of "person" from your US Code reference.


Just because an entity of some kind has some similarities to another entity does not let you expand those similarities to include everything about them. Businesses are not persons.

whether you want to admit it or not, using code 29 ....a business is considered a person by the government.
 
can a business go to Washington and stand in line like a citizen can at the door of a senator of congressman.....yes they can, and they pay people to do it for them.
there are people who provide a service, it is to stand in line for business in Washington, until there time to speak to their representative.
how can you arrest a business which is composed of many people?.....only if a select individual has been accused of crime can one be arrested .
the business can be charged with a crime, and made to pay a fine.
this is a prime example of why constitutional violations do not apply to people or business, only crimes do.
and constitutional violations are place against government only..... and not crimes, how can government fine themselves, or go to jail.
You want another example of how persons and businesses are different? A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself.
 
Courts use a legal fiction of treating corporations as artificial persons in order to allow the law to apply to corporations as a whole. This concept actually began with ancient Rome, where a business was considered to be a single, non-human body made up of many people. In the United States, being treated as an artificial person means that corporations have many of the same duties, responsibilities and protections as real people.

Read more: Why Is a Corporation Considered an Artificial Person Under the Law? | eHow
 
whether you want to admit it or not, using code 29 ....a business is considered a person by the government.
Not unless you're specifically talking about laws in that sub-chapter of the US Code, which deals with the National Labor Relations Board, IIRC. We've been through this and you're flat-out wrong. IO suggest you get more experience with laws and legal documents because it's obvious you don't have any more of a clue now than you did 10 pages ago. :roll:
 
You want another example of how persons and businesses are different? A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself.

Being a separate "entity" (like an "artificial person") is the hallmark of the corporate form. Being an "entity" means that the corporation is not tied to any one person or group of people (like a partnership or a sole proprietorship), but exists separately from its officers, directors, and shareholders as a distinct form.

The several advantages of a the corporate form may help us to map out why the corporate form is considered a separate entity or an "artificial person" under the law:


1.Limited Liability: The corporation is treated as a separate entity under the law in part because it can incur its own debts and liabilities. This means that if you slipped and fell in a Walmart store, for example, you could sue Walmart itself (the corporation), and not the individual officers of Walmart. Walmart the corporation would be responsible for any judgments. The board of directors, officers, and shareholders would not be personally liable, except under rare circumstances called "piercing the veil," where the owner is not respecting the corporate form.
2.1.The fact that you can sue a corporation may seem strange (because usually only PEOPLE can be sued), but the limited liability aspect of the corporate form is actually very important because it encourages the board of directors to make candid and risky business judgments, and it encourages shareholders to invest in the corporation. This ensures involvement, innovation, and good business strategies among people who might otherwise be scared away by lawsuits. It keeps our economy going.

3.Continuity: Because the corporate form is a separate entity, it can survive its founders, its shareholders, and its board of directors, and is NOT tied to the life of any one person. This creates continuity for investors and employees and allows the business to keep going, uninterrupted and without fear of liquidation. This is not so with other business forms such as a partnership. Thus, the corporation is treated as a separate person under the law so that it can exist independent of individual people.

4.Limited Rights as a "Person:" Because of these two main facets of the corporate form, several rights that we would consider to be individual rights have been given to corporations. For example, corporations can own property and other assets, can buy, sell, or lease property, and have very broad commercial rights so that the corporation can conduct business independent of an individual person and maintain continuity. Because corporations can own assets, they can pay off their debts, thus, it's also ties to limited liability. Corporations also have limited noncommercial rights like the right not to incriminate one's self which goes along with being able to be sued. Likewise, corporations have limited fourth amendment rights against searches and seizures and limited first amendment rights (although this is broadening), which are interwoven with the corporation's ability to own property and incur debt. This also continues to encourage corporate business decisions, although some doubt the latest reach of first amendment rights in Citizens United v. FEC, the latest Supreme Court case on this issue. .
 
Last edited:
Courts use a legal fiction of treating corporations as artificial persons in order to allow the law to apply to corporations as a whole. This concept actually began with ancient Rome, where a business was considered to be a single, non-human body made up of many people. In the United States, being treated as an artificial person means that corporations have many of the same duties, responsibilities and protections as real people.

Read more: Why Is a Corporation Considered an Artificial Person Under the Law? | eHow
When the Constution has "artificial person" written into it we can talk. Until then your continued use of that document as the only basis for your arguments will continue to hinder you.

But if you want to pull out court cases and use them as cites then I'll pull out the ones most obvious and on-point to this discussion, those concerning the Civil Rights Act. :lol:
 
Not unless you're specifically talking about laws in that sub-chapter of the US Code, which deals with the National Labor Relations Board, IIRC. We've been through this and you're flat-out wrong. IO suggest you get more experience with laws and legal documents because it's obvious you don't have any more of a clue now than you did 10 pages ago. :roll:

can a business petition the government?...as a citizen does?

can it be heard as a citizen is? is a business never charged with a constitutional violation or a crime, as a person is.
 
<snip - preaching>
I'm done reading your miles-long replies. If you can't make it succinct then it's probably garbage, since most of your other replies like this have also been garbage.
 
I'm done reading your miles-long replies. If you can't make it succinct then it's probably garbage, since most of your other replies like this have also been garbage.

really?..........how about your look a the court case.... drama.
 
can a business petition the government?...as a citizen does?

can it be heard as a citizen is? is a business never charged with a constitutional violation or a crime, as a person is.
I've already answered this, three posts ago. You continue in circles. Get a clue.
 
Back
Top Bottom