• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Henrin said:
Yes, exactly. The state is there to protect my rights, not to violate my liberty so others get service from me.
Click to expand...

Well ultimately our state is in place to do whatever the people it represents asks it to do. The nation could literally repeal amendments tomorrow with provisions that relate to private property.
 
iliveonramen said:
Well ultimately our state is in place to do whatever the people it represents asks it to do. The nation could literally repeal amendments tomorrow with provisions that relate to private property.
Click to expand...

A state without principles is a state without control.
 
Henrin said:
A state without principles is a state without control.
Click to expand...

Sure...and some think a principled state doesn't allow people to turn away others based on the color of their skin. In fact that's what our country beliefs according to Civil rights legislation. It deemed that principle more important than the freedom to arbitrarily decide who and who you won't provide services to.
 
Henrin said:
Why does it matter what kind of discrimination it is?
Click to expand...
The legal system has viewed discrimination based on immutable characteristics through a different lens than ordinary.
 
iliveonramen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would say that society, and that society's law, has everything to do with property rights. It is not necessary to have a group of individuals with license to initiate aggression (i.e. a state) in order to have a law specifying the rules by which ownership of resources is established.
 
Federalist said:
Actually, I would say that society, and that society's law, has everything to do with property rights. It is not necessary to have a group of individuals with license to initiate aggression (i.e. a state) in order to have a law specifying the rules by which ownership of resources is established.
Click to expand...

So what happens when someone breaks those rules? What happens if multiple people break the rules? At some point a society agrees to some set of principles regarding property rights, they codify those principles into laws, and decide to enforce those laws by some means. It's not really a "law" if ultimately the only thing protecting private property is your ability to personally hold it. At that point those "laws" are meaningless platitudes. The society has to decide what actions are taken if the property rights aren't respected.
 
iliveonramen said:
Sure...and some think a principled state doesn't allow people to turn away others based on the color of their skin. In fact that's what our country beliefs according to Civil rights legislation. It deemed that principle more important than the freedom to arbitrarily decide who and who you won't provide services to.
Click to expand...

What you describe is the idea that equal treatment trumps the right to liberty. That the right to ones labor is trumped by the desire of others to that labor. A principle based on aggression is not one that is worthy of respect and not one that upholds any desirable trait of mankind.
 
iliveonramen said:
So what happens when someone breaks those rules? What happens if multiple people break the rules? At some point a society agrees to some set of principles regarding property rights, they codify those principles into laws, and decide to enforce those laws by some means. It's not really a "law" if ultimately the only thing protecting private property is your ability to personally hold it. At that point those "laws" are meaningless platitudes. The society has to decide what actions are taken if the property rights aren't respected.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting the existence of a state solves that problem? The problem of rule breakers? Because it seems the state breaks far more rules than anyone else. Laws can exist without the state. Is that the best solution? Maybe, maybe not. But such a situation is definitely possible.
 
Why would repealing that be worth any reasonable amount of political capital given all the other far bigger tragedies our government is involved in? I wouldn't answer it on the grounds that I don't have time to answer low priority ****. Relative to if something were actually going to change in government....my posts are pretty low priority don't think I'm fooling myself :)
 
Henrin said:
What you describe is the idea that equal treatment trumps the right to liberty. That the right to ones labor is trumped by the desire of others to that labor. A principle based on aggression is not one that is worthy of respect and not one that upholds any desirable trait of mankind.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say trump...I would say in the balance the right to liberty rumps equal treatment....but the "right" to discriminate on superficial reasons is trumped by the right of equality.
 
Lakryte said:
Are you suggesting the existence of a state solves that problem? The problem of rule breakers? Because it seems the state breaks far more rules than anyone else. Laws can exist without the state. Is that the best solution? Maybe, maybe not. But such a situation is definitely possible.
Click to expand...

Yes...the existence of the state is because of that problem and others like it.
 
iliveonramen said:
I wouldn't say trump...I would say in the balance the right to liberty rumps equal treatment....but the "right" to discriminate on superficial reasons is trumped by the right of equality.
Click to expand...

What right to equality? You can not have a right to liberty and a right to equality and expect them to live in harmony.

If you believe in simply the guidance of the state to declare what your rights are then it should be noted there is no right to equality even in law.
 
iliveonramen said:
Yes...the existence of the state is because of that problem and others like it.
Click to expand...
I didn't asked why the state exists. I asked if it actually solves that problem. Considering the state violates property rights more than anyone else, and considering the scandals surrounding the NSA, it doesn't seem like the state solves that problem at all. The state itself is a rule-breaker. If humans tend to be rule-breakers, what is to stop a state of humans from breaking the rules? Nothing really.
 
iliveonramen said:
So what happens when someone breaks those rules? What happens if multiple people break the rules? At some point a society agrees to some set of principles regarding property rights, they codify those principles into laws, and decide to enforce those laws by some means. It's not really a "law" if ultimately the only thing protecting private property is your ability to personally hold it. At that point those "laws" are meaningless platitudes. The society has to decide what actions are taken if the property rights aren't respected.
Click to expand...

In answer, I'll share a quote from Han Hermann Hoppe's book, Democracy the God that Failed:

...the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law for the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible: Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in any way he sees fit so long as in so doing he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person's body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between private owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person's infringement on them is subject to lawful prosecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and strict liability.
Click to expand...

So in answer to your question, "What happens when someone breaks those rules?" The violation would be actionable in accordance with principles of proportionality of punishment and strict liability. In other words, the victim could pursue arbitration against the malfeasor.
 
Federalist said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that isn't what is being said. You exaggerate. What's being said is if you enter the market, you will follow the rules set forth. One of those is non discrimination. If you tone down the exaggeration, you might see the difference.
 
Boo Radley said:
It would help if you addressed what I actually said.
Click to expand...

I thought I did to the most part. I did however ignore this:

You have to put things in context and not expect no fairness in the law.
Click to expand...

The reason being is that unless we are talking about equal protection under the law there is no basis for it.
 
Boo Radley said:
But that isn't what is being said. You exaggerate. What's being said is if you enter the market, you will follow the rules set forth. One of those is non discrimination. If you tone down the exaggeration, you might see the difference.
Click to expand...

Again I disagree. You are essentially saying, "If you choose to enter the market (which means that you choose to trade with other individuals), then we (I and other individuals) will establish a set of rules you must follow. If you disregard these rules, we will come and seize you and put you in a cage." To me, this certainly constitutes aggression.
 
Henrin said:
I thought I did to the most part. I did however ignore this:



The reason being is that unless we are talking about equal protection under the law there is no basis for it.
Click to expand...

Certainly I think there is a Bit of equal protection in this. People fought for the right to sit at the counter so to speak.
 
Federalist said:
Again I disagree. You are essentially saying, "If you choose to enter the market (which means that you choose to trade with other individuals), then we (I and other individuals) will establish a set of rules you must follow. If you disregard these rules, we will come and seize you and put you in a cage." To me, this certainly constitutes aggression.
Click to expand...

It comes with rules and almost always has. And breaking rules has always had consequences (though jail usually isn't it, so you exaggerate yet again).
 
Boo Radley said:
It comes with rules and almost always has. And breaking rules has always had consequences (though jail usually isn't it, so you exaggerate yet again).
Click to expand...

I'm saying that one person making rules for another person and threatening that person IS aggression. How can you claim that it is not. If I tell you that I insist you do X, and I threaten you with aggression if you disobey, how can that possibly be seen as ethical?
 
Federalist said:
I'm saying that one person making rules for another person and threatening that person IS aggression. How can you claim that it is not. If I tell you that I insist you do X, and I threaten you with aggression if you disobey, how can that possibly be seen as ethical?
Click to expand...

It's not one person, it's us as a people. It's no a threat, it's the way cooperative living is achieved. If it wasn't so sad, such whining hyperbole would be funny.
 
Boo Radley said:
Certainly I think there is a Bit of equal protection in this. People fought for the right to sit at the counter so to speak.
Click to expand...

That is twisting logic on its face, throwing it on the ground and raping it until it dies. No one before this law came to pass except the business owner had a right to sit at that counter and get service and after such a law the property owner no longer could control access towards his property. All the government did was step on the business owners rights to force him to provide others service. There is no point of this that has to do with equal protection under the law. Stop making stuff up.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
That is twisting logic on its face, throwing it on the ground and raping it until it dies. No one before this law came to pass except the business owner had a right to sit at that counter and get service and after such a law the property owner no longer could control access towards his property. All the government did was step on the business owners rights to force him to provide others service. There is no point of this that has to do with equal protection under the law. Stop making stuff up.
Click to expand...

And they abused that badly. Like most laws, they come about in reaction to something. In this case, it was fought for due to very hateful behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom