• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Individuals are being denied nothing. Business don't have the same rights as individuals.


We're talking about businesses here, not your personal transactions and social groups.



BTW - I think you'll find the Constitution is also technically statute law.

yes, it is technically, it is organic law, or fundamental law...as is the DOI ,the articles of confederation, the northwest Ordinance

An organic or fundamental law is a law or system of laws which forms the foundation of a government, corporation or other organization's body of rules. A constitution is a particular form of organic law for a sovereign state.

The Organic Laws of the United States of America can be found in Volume One of the United States Code which contains the General and Permanent Laws of the United States. U.S. Code (2007) defines the organic laws of the United States of America to include the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, the Articles of Confederation of November 15, 1777, the Northwest Ordinance of July 13, 1787, and the Constitution of September 17, 1787.

the DOI being organic law, and the foundation of the constitution, that all rights are unalienable, and right property is there taking its place among the wording of that document.
 
LOL! What right to property?!? LOL!

just 1 example......OK i dont feel like listing a page full......according to the constitution, .....the federal government has no authority on private or state land, unless the state approves of it, or unless, piracy ,counterfeiting or treason is taking place.

article 1 section 8 next to... last para....
 
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.
I don't like victimless crimes, either. It's too bad your example isn't one of them.


Your anarchistic interpretation of property rights has no bearing here. All land is acquired under certain contractual obligations, commonly known as laws. If you don't like the obligations then don't buy the land. No one is ever forced to buy land or live where they don't want to live.
 
Last edited:
the DOI being organic law, and the foundation of the constitution, that all rights are unalienable, and right property is there taking its place among the wording of that document.
just 1 example......OK i dont feel like listing a page full......according to the constitution, .....the federal government has no authority on private or state land, unless the state approves of it, or unless, piracy ,counterfeiting or treason is taking place.

article 1 section 8 next to... last para....
Article 1, Section 8 says nothing about individual or business property rights.
 
I don't like victimless crimes, either. It's too bad your example isn't one of them.

If a person commits the "crime" of trading without a permission slip, who is the victim? And in what way was the victim's person or property damaged?

Your anarchistic interpretation of property rights has no bearing here. All land is acquired under certain contractual obligations know as laws. If you don't like the obligations then don't buy the land. No one is ever forced to buy land or live where they don't want to live.

Or, the law could be changed to repeal the law prohibiting the victimless crime. That's what I propose.
 
Article 1, Section 8 says nothing about individual or business property rights.

you said government does not violate property rights... yes they do!

you did not read well..but no matter i will post it for you.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

translation:

this part of the constitution states that the federal government only has authority within a 10 sq mile area of D.C. and only where states and the federal government agree where needful buildings are to be built and used for the federal government, anything away from those areas, government has no authority, unless as i stated before piracy ,counterfeiting or treason is taking place.

we know very well the EPA, and other institutions of government have crossed on to state and private lands, without consent...these are property rights violations
 
copyright clause for one. :cool:
They have since been labeled "intellectual property" but that's only because of the laws Congress established. It says nothing about those rights specifically, other than Congress can - not must - establish them, nor does it refer to them as "property".

Have you now conceded that Congress can, indeed, dictate property laws based on that clause? :lol:
 
Last edited:
It violates the contract under which the property was obtained.

What contract? Was this contract perhaps put in place with these conditions so it can be controlled?
 
They have since been labeled "intellectual property" but that's only because of the laws Congress established. It says nothing about those rights specifically, other than Congress can - not must - establish them, nor does it call refer to them "property".

According to the founders and even Locke himself what is protected under the copyright clause is property.

Have you now conceded that Congress can, indeed, dictate property laws based on that clause? :lol:

I don't believe in intellectual property, so no.
 
If a person commits the "crime" of trading without a permission slip, who is the victim? And in what way was the victim's person or property damaged?
We're not talking about a person. We're talking about a business.


Business licenses are required for a wide variety of reasons, most of which have already been mentioned in this thread. Certainly someone opening up a truck stop across the street from my quiet, sidewalk cafe will put me out of business. That's why we have zoning laws and business licenses.


Or, the law could be changed to repeal the law prohibiting the victimless crime. That's what I propose.
All laws can be changed one way or another, even the Constitution. As far as I know, the only exception to that is Senators per State.
 
We're not talking about a person. We're talking about a business.

Same thing really.

Business licenses are required for a wide variety of reasons, most of which have already been mentioned in this thread. Certainly someone opening up a truck stop across the street from my quiet, sidewalk cafe will put me out of business. That's why we have zoning laws and business licenses.

What post are these reasons given? Noise pollution isn't much of a reason, sorry.
 
We're not talking about a person. We're talking about a business.

Business licenses are required for a wide variety of reasons, most of which have already been mentioned in this thread. Certainly someone opening up a truck stop across the street from my quiet, sidewalk cafe will put me out of business. That's why we have zoning laws and business licenses.

But who is the victim of the "crime" and what damage did the victim sustain to his person or property?
 
you said government does not violate property rights... yes they do!

you did not read well..but no matter i will post it for you.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

translation:

this part of the constitution states that the federal government only has authority within a 10 sq mile area of D.C. and only where states and the federal government agree where needful buildings are to be built and used for the federal government, anything away from those areas, government has no authority, unless as i stated before piracy ,counterfeiting or treason is taking place.
Your translation is bogus, as usual.


we know very well the EPA, and other institutions of government have crossed on to state and private lands, without consent...these are property rights violations
Only according to your bogus translations. The EPA and no doubt these "other institutions of government", too, operate under a different Section. You can look up the court cases themselves for that information, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
 
What contract? Was this contract perhaps put in place with these conditions so it can be controlled?
It doesn't matter what you may believe about motivation. If you don't like the property and the laws that govern it then simply don't buy. No one is forcing such a transaction upon you.
 
It doesn't matter what you may believe about motivation. If you don't like the property and the laws that govern it then simply don't buy. No one is forcing such a transaction upon you.

Yeah....

The point was that the terms of the contract can very well be unjust. The fact is however this contract you speak of is only put in place so the government can control property. It really serves no other purpose at all.
 
According to the founders and even Locke himself what is protected under the copyright clause is property.
Then the founders should have called it property in the contract we call The Constitution. They didn't. But that's OK, Congress later covered their ass when it made the laws dealing with intellectual rights.
 
Then the founders should have called it property in the contract we call The Constitution. They didn't.

:roll: If you understand ownership it's crystal clear this is referring to property

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
 
But who is the victim of the "crime" and what damage did the victim sustain to his person or property?
You think pollution isn't damage? :lamo


If you think about that a little you might begin to understand how you keep digging yourself in deeper.
 
Your translation is bogus, as usual.

the founders sought to keep the federal government limited, and the federal government was given power only in d.c. of were states approved,....if that were not the case, then the federal government is controlling a state, its lands, and we would not have a separation of powers.

government was not given authority over the people, at all, why do you believe government can dictate to people and over their property?



Only according to your bogus translations. The EPA and no doubt these "other institutions of government", too, operate under a different Section. You can look up the court cases themselves for that information, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

is the EPA in the CONSTITUTION...NO!

these government entities have no authority over the people...where in the constitution does it grant government powers, to control or tell the people what to do?

government and the people only intersect, at the point of pirates, counterfeiters, and traitors.
 
Back
Top Bottom