• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
I disagree. Your property rights include zoning law protection. If you desire a commercial plot then buy/lease one. To have your home adjacent to a convienience/liquor store or even a business that frequently hosts weddings/parties invites trouble from the added traffic noise and frequent wanderings of those visiting it that are either drunk or on drugs. Even if you personally do not care about that, many potential buyers do - the value, taxation and resale/lease potential of a lot will vary based upon its zoning and the use/condition of adjacent (and nearby) lots.

I agree with the intent, but not the means. If people want to ensure that a liquor store doesn't open in their neighborhood, then they can simply to all agree to a covenant that prevents that. Then those who want such rules can buy in that neighborhood. Those that don't care, can buy somewhere else. There's no need to violate people's property rights to make this happen.
 
So now you've wandered into to your anarchist Fantasy Land. I'm not playing that game here.

I do not think its fair to suggest that the poster has wandered into Fantasy Land. Such a statement supposes that the poster has left Fantasy Land at one time and resided in the real world. There is no evidence of that.
 
I agree with the intent, but not the means. If people want to ensure that a liquor store doesn't open in their neighborhood, then they can simply to all agree to a covenant that prevents that. Then those who want such rules can buy in that neighborhood. Those that don't care, can buy somewhere else. There's no need to violate people's property rights to make this happen.

And that is what municipal zoning laws are.
 
I agree with the intent, but not the means. If people want to ensure that a liquor store doesn't open in their neighborhood, then they can simply to all agree to a covenant that prevents that. Then those who want such rules can buy in that neighborhood. Those that don't care, can buy somewhere else. There's no need to violate people's property rights to make this happen.

Zoning laws are exactly that, simply on a larger scale. Only a few places, that I am aware of, are not subject to state, county or local zoning laws - Houston, TX is one.

Zoning in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
No. Zoning laws are different. They are not enacted by means of a signed contract. They are imposed.

They are enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people through legal means authorized by State Constitutions and city charters under the law of the land.

Those duly elected representatives of the people are legally empowered to enter into contracts, covenants and legal agreements in the name of the community they legally represent.

cov·e·nant [kuhv-uh-nuhnt] Show IPA
noun
1.
an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.

In this case, the formal agreement is entered into by the duly elected representatives of the people whom they legally represent and can act for.
 
Last edited:
They are enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people through legal means authorized by State Constitutions and city charters under the law of the land.

Those duly elected representatives of the people are legally empowered to enter into contracts, covenants and legal agreements in the name of the community they legally represent.

Yes, that is how zoning laws are different. They are imposed by the government, not voluntarily entered into by individuals through private contract.

And the imposition of such laws punish vicitimless "crimes" and constitute a violation of property rights. Again, the government dictates that you can't engage in trade without a permission slip, then the government is violating your property rights.
 
Yes, that is how zoning laws are different. They are imposed by the government, not voluntarily entered into by individuals through private contract.

And the imposition of such laws punish vicitimless "crimes" and constitute a violation of property rights. Again, the government dictates that you can't engage in trade without a permission slip, then the government is violating your property rights.

Baloney. We the people elect representatives to enter into those contracts, covenants and legal agreements on our behalf. We have bestowed upon them that power through Constitution and law. It is not IMPOSED upon us by some dictator. This is America. This is not Wonderland where the Mad Hatter might hold sway.
 
Baloney. We the people elect representatives to enter into those contracts, covenants and legal agreements on our behalf. We have bestowed upon them that power through Constitution and law. It is not IMPOSED upon us by some dictator. This is America. This is not Wonderland where the Mad Hatter might hold sway.

Strawman. I didn't say they were imposed by a dictator. They are imposed by the duly elected government. But they are imposed nonetheless.

That is the way in which zoning laws are different from a voluntary, contractual covenant.
 
Strawman. I didn't say they were imposed by a dictator. They are imposed by the duly elected government. But they are imposed nonetheless.

That is the way in which zoning laws are different from a voluntary, contractual covenant.

and that is the way that real life is different from libertarian wonderland :roll:
 
and that is the way that real life is different from libertarian wonderland :roll:

Well it's really just a difference in what sort of laws one supports. Some people support making certain acts "crimes", even though they result in no victim. I see such laws as violations of property rights, so I oppose them.

I support laws that protect property rights, not laws that violate property rights.
 
Well it's really just a difference in what sort of laws one supports. Some people support making certain acts "crimes", even though they result in no victim. I see such laws as violations of property rights, so I oppose them.

I support laws that protect property rights, not laws that violate property rights.

But you really don't. And your actions tell us that you don't. You freely live in communities with municipal zoning laws and you benefit from them. You enjoy the various results of improvements made from the use of eminent domain and you freely use them . You talk one game and live quite another.
 
But you really don't. And your actions tell us that you don't. You freely live in communities with municipal zoning laws and you benefit from them. You enjoy the various results of improvements made from the use of eminent domain and you freely use them . You talk one game and live quite another.

By "support", I meant that I argue in favor of laws that support property rights. In future, when I say "support" or "oppose", you can take it to mean "arguing in favor" or "argue against".
 
By "support", I meant that I argue in favor of laws that support property rights. In future, when I say "support" or "oppose", you can take it to mean "arguing in favor" or "argue against".

Yes - I understand that you differentiate what you give lip service to from what you actually do in real life.
 
Well there's certainly nothing wrong with the owners in a subdivision entering into a covenant that would prevent them or any future owner from doing so.
No one needs a contract, that's what zoning laws are for.


However, to establish the victimless "crime" of engaging in trade without a government-issued permission slip is definitely a violation of property rights.
You can't even manage to show any kind of "property rights" like you've been describing without resorting the court's interpretations and now you're trying to stretch those rights to cover businesses like they're personal property instead of business property. LOL!
 
I agree with the intent, but not the means. If people want to ensure that a liquor store doesn't open in their neighborhood, then they can simply to all agree to a covenant that prevents that. Then those who want such rules can buy in that neighborhood. Those that don't care, can buy somewhere else. There's no need to violate people's property rights to make this happen.
I should never have to be concerned that an airport, railway yard, or any other pollution source will be built anywhere near my property without the input of myself and the other people effected by it.

You're still living in Fantasy Land and with every post you add to the long lost of reasons things are done the way they are instead of your way.
 
No one needs a contract, that's what zoning laws are for.

Yes, zoning laws attempt to accomplish the same thing. However, they differ from a contractual agreement in that they are imposed by force and not entered into explicitly and voluntarily. As such, they are a violation of property rights.

You can't even manage to show any kind of "property rights" like you've been describing without resorting the court's interpretations and now you're trying to stretch those rights to cover businesses like they're personal property instead of business property. LOL!

They are private property owned by individuals. And making it a "crime" for an individual to engage in trade without a government-issued permission slip cannot be construed to be anything other than a violation of that individual's property rights.
 
I should never have to be concerned that an airport, railway yard, or any other pollution source will be built anywhere near my property without the input of myself and the other people effected by it.

You and others who share your concerns could, if you wished, make whatever contractual agreements you want to prevent that from happening in your locality.
 
You are correct. My business is not a person. My business is the activity in which I am engaged. Of course activities don't have rights or property, only people do.
Your business is it's own entity with it's own laws and regulations, some of which also protect you. It is not an individual and there are no "personal" property rights and obligations involved, there are only business rights and obligations.
 
You and others who share your concerns could, if you wished, make whatever contractual agreements you want to prevent that from happening in your locality.
We do, they're called zoning laws.
 
I said contractual arrangements.
Most people see government as a contract because that's exactly what it is. :shrug:

Would you prefer 2 million people get together, buy all the land for a 50 mile radius, then proceed to form a non-profit corporation to run the thing? LOL! What would be the difference than what we have now? Some Fantasy Land hypothetical viewpoint that wouldn't really change a damn thing??


What do you think a City Charter is? It wasn't invented by some dictator who wanted to name a chunk of land. It was established by the people of the community to serve their needs. You guys really need to shed the Property Mentality. Other people do things differently whether you understand it or not.
 
Last edited:
Most people see government as a contract because that's exactly what it is.

It's not a contract because it is not entered into voluntarily by all parties.

Would you prefer 2 million people get together, buy all the land for a 50 mile radius, then proceed to form a non-profit corporation to run the thing?

That wouldn't be my preference, but it 2 million people wished to do that, then they certainly have the right to do so.

What do you think a City Charter is? It wasn't invented by some dictator who wanted to name a chunk of land. It was established by the people of the community to serve their needs. You guys really need to shed the Property Mentality. Other people do things differently whether you understand it or not.

Yes, I understand that others do things differently. They violate the property of others. That is the policy against which I am arguing.
 
It's not a contract because it is not entered into voluntarily by all parties.
It was when the City was founded with it's Charter. Any new property owners are subject to that contract just as they would be with your hypothetical contract.


That wouldn't be my preference, but it 2 million people wished to do that, then they certainly have the right to do so.
And, essentially, that's exactly what they did except it wasn't 2 million people at the time. Populations tend to increase and the community grows, annexing land not originally included when a majority of those people outside the contract area would like to be included. As you'll also note in the census and demographics of any region, they change depending on the contracts and how well those companies have been administered by the various CEOs and Boards of Directors over time.


Yes, I understand that others do things differently. They violate the property of others. That is the policy against which I am arguing.
They didn't violate anything, they founded a city and/or county with a contract called a "Charter". It wasn't your property before you were born, it wasn't your property before you bought it, and when you did buy the property the contractual obligations associated with it were plainly spelled out in public records available to everyone. Now you're whining because you don't like the contractual obligations you accepted. I'm so sad for you.
 
Last edited:
It was when the City was founded with it's Charter. Any new property owners are subject to that contract just as they would be with your hypothetical contract.

And, essentially, that's exactly what they did except it wasn't 2 million people at the time. Populations tend to increase and the community grows, annexing land not originally included when a majority of those people outside the contract area would like to be included. As you'll also note in the census and demographics of any region, they change depending on the contracts and how well those companies have been administered by the various CEOs and Boards of Directors over time.

They didn't violate anything, they founded a city and/or county with a contract called a "Charter". It wasn't your property before you were born, it wasn't your property before you bought it, and when you did buy the property the contractual obligations associated with it were plainly spelled out in public records available to everyone. Now you're whining because you don't like the contractual obligations you accepted. I'm so sad for you.

I argue in favor of eliminating victimless crimes. I'm sorry if that annoys you.

Making it a "crime" for someone to engage in trade without first acquiring a government-issued permission slip is a violation of his right to use his property. That's why I argue for the elimination of such laws, as well as all victimless crime laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom