• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
MoSurveyor said:
The National Labor Relations Board has nothing to do with this discussion so the definition used for that subsection is useless to you as a rebuttal for the claim that businesses are persons. You're the one that looks silly, here.
Click to expand...

you seem to be losing track here, you said to me, and laughed, "why am i using u.s. code", and i told you its the law currently, becuase you stated a business is not a person, but the code says it is......so please keep up with me.


MoSurveyor said:
Animals are treated as people with respect to some laws. For example, you can't torture certain animals. Does that make them persons now?
Click to expand...

animals dont have rights per the constitution, however states can make laws re-guarding animals, in other words its not a federal duty.

"the federal government duties are few and defined, were as the states are vast"

MoSurveyor said:
And all you have are those libertarian ideals to back up the erroneous claims you've made in this thread. In other words, you really have nothing.
Click to expand...

actually i do, you see i have what is written on paper for everyone to see, its call the constitution, the supreme law of the land, and government doing anything outside of its delegated powers is unconstitutional, as the founders say, if government wants more powers , they have to get an amendment and approval of the states, becuase that increase of power, would be taking away a state power.

federal laws and state laws which infringe on the rights of people who have committed no crime, or who have not created a health or safety issue is unconstitutional, becuase the constitution only places limits on governments..never people or business.

please i ask you go to the libertarian platform and read it, ..its based on freedom liberty, and limited government....what harm can i do just to read it.

Platform | Libertarian Party
 
NIMBY said:
Especially with such happenings as the skyjackings on 9/11.
Click to expand...


well if everyone feels as you do, then it would be so easy then to get a amendment to the constitution to give government that power.........why dont they follow the Constitution?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry no.... natural rights, are rights natural to the body.

its natural to :
speak
worship
assemble
be secure
in ones property/person.
Click to expand...
Those "rights" are all dreamed up by men.


ernst barkmann said:
the constitution does not grant or give any right, you will not see those words.

most man made rights are rights to commodities, providing the people with something, which own constitution does not do.
Click to expand...
Any right beyond the "right" to try to survive and the "right" to try to procreate is man-made.


ernst barkmann said:
who controls you, make decisions for you.........you!
Click to expand...
Some people say God. Some say the devil. I think it's just physics.


ernst barkmann said:
who has authority over you?.............theres no authority in any constitution, that's gives government any authority, so it must be ...you!
Click to expand...
There is no authority at all without other people to recognize it as such.


ernst barkmann said:
government is here to secure my rights, they dont give me power or the ability to own property, they protect it when its under assault.
Click to expand...
Protect what? You constantly talk of these - as far as I've seen - virtually non-existent property rights. Where are they?


ernst barkmann said:
if i dont have the right to property, then i cannot protect myself with a weapon,

if i have no right to property meaning a home some place to live, then where i stand i have no authority.
Click to expand...
Your body itself is a weapon. There are some very good books in the library and public parks to practice martial arts to increase the power of that weapon. Bend over and pick up a rock or reach up and break off a stick. You now have another weapon. There is no right to a weapon beyond those simple things (and in your world even the rock and stick are most likely not yours). If you manage to somehow acquire another kind of weapon legally you have the right to keep it and carry it, as per the 2nd Amendment. We've already established that if you manage to somehow acquire property, that property cannot be taken from you without due process, which I believe would also apply to a weapon.


I've seen many, many, many libertarians and conservatives tell me people have no right to a home. Don't go against the Party Line now, especially in that slippery slope area. They might kick you out of the club! LOL!
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
yes you have told me before, you believe people make their own rights.......

tell me, how is it that if they do we dont have commodity rights then.
Click to expand...

I looked up COMMODITY RIGHTS and nothing came up. What is it you are talking about?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Those "rights" are all dreamed up by men.


Any right beyond the "right" to try to survive and the "right" to try to procreate is man-made.


Some people say God. Some say the devil. I think it's just physics.


There is no authority at all without other people to recognize it as such.


Protect what? You constantly talk of these - as far as I've seen - virtually non-existent property rights. Where are they?


Bend over and pick up a rock or reach up and break off a stick. You now have a weapon. If nothing else, there are some very good books in the library and public parks to practice martial arts. You have no right to a weapon. If you manage to somehow acquire a weapon legally you have the right to keep it and carry it, as per the 2nd Amendment. We've already established that if you manage to somehow acquire property, that property cannot be taken from you without due process, which I believe would also apply to a weapon.


I've seen many, many, many libertarians and conservatives tell me people have no right to a home. Don't go against the Party Line now, especially in that slippery slope area. They might kick you out of the club! LOL!
Click to expand...


so sad, what the american education system teaches today.
 
MoSurveyor said:
National air traffic control is obviously not an intrastate endeavour. Quit being silly.
Click to expand...

Pollution remains an interstate endeavor, as pointed out by the conservative Chicago Tribune. They detailed Indiana's abuse of state's wrongs with their Whiting BP Refinery being allowed to dump 18 times the federal Mercury level into Lake Michigan. There is a reason why Keystone is being rerouted.
 
ernst barkmann said:
OF COARSE, YOU CANT DUMP AND DESTROY OTHERS PROPERTY.
Click to expand...
Then why would you even bother to consider such an insane position?


ernst barkmann said:
again does the federal government have authority over the land, water and air of a state ...no.... every state is sovereign..to say otherwise is to say we have a national government, and we dont ....its a federal one, a separation of powers.
<snip - not law, just preaching>
the federal government is supposed to be the arbitrator of problems between states, not the ruler of states.
Click to expand...
Again, I suggest you review the EPA and the history of pollution in this country.
 
haymarket said:
I looked up COMMODITY RIGHTS and nothing came up. What is it you are talking about?
Click to expand...

commodity rights would be ...rights which would give, grant you you material goods of services.

South Africa is a good place to start ,in there constitution people are given a right to food, water, and housing, these are commodities that must be paid for.

becuase SA is a democracy the people can create such rights to those material goods, however in america a constitutional republic, not a democracy... its unconstitutional to create such a thing in our constitution, why?

becuase to grant of give a person a material good or serve means, that right would lay a cost or burden of labor on to another citizen, and our system of government declares no one can be made to serve another citizens his money.. time or labor.

this is why people cannot create there own right, becuase if they could, people would grants themselves anything they desired.
 
ernst barkmann said:
commodity rights would be ...rights which would give, grant you you material goods of services.

South Africa is a good place to start ,in there constitution people are given a right to food, water, and housing, these are commodities that must be paid for.

becuase SA is a democracy the people can create such rights to those material goods, however in america a constitutional republic, not a democracy... its unconstitutional to create such a thing in our constitution, why?

becuase to grant of give a person a material good or serve means, that right would lay a cost or burden of labor on to another citizen, and our system of government declares no one can be made to serve another citizens his money.. time or labor.

this is why people cannot create there own right, becuase if they could, people would grants themselves anything they desired.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea what you are talking about because we do not have such things in our Constitution.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well if everyone feels as you do, then it would be so easy then to get a amendment to the constitution to give government that power.........why dont they follow the Constitution?
Click to expand...

That is your favorite line. There will never be another amendment and you know why. Btw, should we have called out the individual Air Forces of the several states?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Then why would you even bother to consider such an insane position?
Click to expand...

i stated to you before dumping and polluting is a crime, of state power, you can have your rights deprived.


MoSurveyor said:
Again, I suggest you review the EPA and the history of pollution in this country.
Click to expand...

there is no duty which defers to air, water and ground control in our constitution.... becuase we have a federal government not a national one.
 
ernst barkmann said:
so your saying the government has the power, to control the sky over a state?
Click to expand...
As far as air traffic it pretty much does, yes. I believe the lower limit is 500' when it's not near an airport, then it depends on where it is in relation to the airport. I could be wrong on that 500' - my pilot friend died many years ago.
 
haymarket said:
Actually the poster seems to have earned an A plus and learned his lessons very well.
Click to expand...

anyone, who supports large government with unlimited power, and unconstitutional activity which you would approve of, your going to side with...however i have constitutional law.
 
MoSurveyor said:
As far as air traffic it pretty much does, yes. I believe the lower limit is 500' when it's not near an airport, then it depends on where it is in relation to the airport. I could be wrong on that 500' - my pilot friend died many years ago.
Click to expand...

can you give the the authority where government derives that power in its duties?
 
haymarket said:
I really have no idea what you are talking about because we do not have such things in our Constitution.
Click to expand...

we dont have any right that gives a person a material good or a service...now if people makes rights as you say they do, then why have they not created such a right already?
 
ernst barkmann said:
anyone, who supports large government with unlimited power, and unconstitutional activity which you would approve of, your going to side with...however i have constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Actually I support
*** the smallest government necessary
*** the US Constitution
*** very limited powers as listed in the Constitution
 
ernst barkmann said:
we dont have any right that gives a person a material good or a service...now if people makes rights as you say they do, then why have they not created such a right already?
Click to expand...

You are asking me to explain why something that does not exist does not exist. I really have no idea. I try to stick with debating what does exist
 
haymarket said:
Actually I support
*** the smallest government necessary
*** the US Constitution
*** very limited powers as listed in the Constitution
Click to expand...

oh, do you support the EPA,NLRB, HUD, DEPT EDUCATION, to name a few....becuase they are all unconstitutional.
 
Federalist said:
Your examples are not convincing. You fail to show how not having a piece of paper harms anyone. Actions harm people, not being without a piece of paper.
Click to expand...
That's like saying no one is safer on the roads just because everyone has to carry a little plastic card with them when they drive. :lol:

It's the actions and requirements behind the piece of paper on the wall of a business or the little plastic card in the driver's pocket that makes the difference. You know that as well as I do.
 
Federalist said:
Well what words, phrases, or concepts do you fail to understand?
Click to expand...

this

If a person commits the "crime" of trading without a permission slip, who is the victim?
Click to expand...

What is the crime of trading?

What is a permission slip?

What does any of that nonsense have to do with having a victim or not?

Again, just talk like a normal person for heavens sake.

I googled CRIME OF TRADING and PERMISSION SLIP and got nothing helpful to explain this Von Mises Institute double talk. It was all about insider trading and needing mommies and daddies signature to go somewhere if I am a kiddie.

So the problem is in your terminology.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You are asking me to explain why something that does not exist does not exist. I really have no idea. I try to stick with debating what does exist
Click to expand...

really, then i will ask a question of you, ..so you can find understanding.

can the people of the u.s. create a right to food?....which is a commodity

now according to you , they can, becuase you say people make there own rights.......so can they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom