• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Lakryte said:
Corporations do not get to control people because they live in a certain area. The only way that is possible is if people explicitly sign up for the services of that corporation. Not so with local government. The function is not the same. One relies on voluntary agreement, the other relies on coercive force. You can try to justify that coercive force as necessary, but you cannot deny it exists.
Click to expand...
They did. Again, you need to backtrack to the previous discussion Federalist and I had on this subject. You're jumping into the middle of this discussion without the foundation of it and making claims that are contrary to the situation. Go back to the posts in the 1200's and start reading if you want to take part in this.


The basic assumption is that a group of people, instead of incorporating as a "government" 100 years ago, gained control (buying, homesteading, whatever) to a 50 mile radius of land and formed a corporation to run it for them. Essentially, all property inside the corporate boundary is subject to the corporate rules and regulations, which function no different than laws, and the corporation is run pretty much the same as a county or city might be with the same goals and intents as a county or city. Your statements so far show ignorance of this. If you want to correct that ignorance and be a rational part of the discussion then go back and read the posts.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
It's just a few posts up ...
Click to expand...

I don't see it and you don't appear to wish to answer, so I guess I'll drop it.

In what way, specifically, do you see a difference between what the government does and what a corporation similar to the government might do?
Click to expand...

A government 1) may legally take the property of others without their consent and 2) may issue orders requiring certain behavior and then initiate violence against those who disobey. Non-government's may not legally do these things.
 
Federalist said:
I don't see it and you don't appear to wish to answer, so I guess I'll drop it.
Click to expand...
It's in the city charter.


Federalist said:
A government 1) may legally take the property of others without their consent and
2) may issue orders requiring certain behavior and then initiate violence against those who disobey. Non-government's may not legally do these things.
Click to expand...
1. The corporation "owns" all the land, remember? It can do what it wants with it as long as there is "due process" according to the corporate rules.
2. "You may not murder" is also an order requiring certain behavior, whether it's a city or a corporation. In the case of the corporation, it may initiate limited violence to insure compliance, such as detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. Corporations cannot jail people as punishment but since the whole county is, essentially, the corporation the county sheriff and courts will no doubt take care of the criminal issues. Obviously, the corporation can have it's own civil court, as agreed in the corporate rules just like having a binding third-party arbitrator.
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's in the city charter.
Click to expand...

Such a charter should be binding on all its signatories and nobody else.

1. The corporation "owns" all the land, remember? It can do what it wants with it as long as there is "due process" according to the corporate rules.
Click to expand...

I said without their consent. Any relationship between the corporation and an individual is explicit and consensual. Again, the distinguishing feature of government is that it can legally take property without the consent of the owner.

2. "You may not murder" is also an order requiring certain behavior, whether it's a city or a corporation. In the case of the corporation, it may initiate limited violence to insure compliance, such as detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. Corporations cannot jail people as punishment but since the whole county is, essentially, the corporation the county sheriff and courts will no doubt take care of the criminal issues. Obviously, the corporation can have it's own civil court, as agreed in the corporate rules just like having a binding third-party arbitrator.
Click to expand...

That's a good point, and makes me realize that I was inaccurate in my previous post when I said "may issue orders requiring certain behavior and then initiate violence against those who disobey. " I should have simply said "may legally initiate violence against person and property". Why they do so (such as to enforce certain behavior) is not the defining characteristic. The key point is that they have the right to initiate violence against person and property. A government may legally kill you if it decides to do so. A corporation, not so much.
 
Federalist said:
Such a charter should be binding on all its signatories and nobody else.
Click to expand...
Encumbrances on land don't just "go away" by magic. Once the charter is agreed then all land inside those boundaries are subject to the laws of that institution and that encumbrance continues regardless of who owns the land. No land is truly fee simple and never has been.


Federalist said:
I said without their consent. Any relationship between the corporation and an individual is explicit and consensual. Again, the distinguishing feature of government is that it can legally take property without the consent of the owner.
Click to expand...
The owner knew the laws when he bought the land. Nothing was hidden from him and there was no deception. Anytime we enter into a different jurisdiction we are bound by the laws of that jurisdiction, just as people "buying" property that's part of the corporation are subject to the rules and regulations of that corporation.


Federalist said:
That's a good point, and makes me realize that I was inaccurate in my previous post when I said "may issue orders requiring certain behavior and then initiate violence against those who disobey. " I should have simply said "may legally initiate violence against person and property". Why they do so (such as to enforce certain behavior) is not the defining characteristic. The key point is that they have the right to initiate violence against person and property. A government may legally kill you if it decides to do so. A corporation, not so much.
Click to expand...
And I specifically stated such, that the actual county, instead of the corporation, would have to handle criminal cases except for temporarily detaining people for criminal behavior until law enforcement could take action.

As far as violence against property, it's all corporate land so there is no "violence" against the land. The corporations civil court can take property from a person but that's part of the corporations laws (binding arbitration by a third party) that everyone accepts when they buy their land inside the corporate limits.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Example???
Click to expand...

The government defines what is legal and isn't legal. Therefore If the government were to say it may legally kill you, then it may legally kill you.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Encumbrances on land don't just "go away" by magic. Once the charter is agreed then all land inside those boundaries are subject to the laws of that institution and that encumbrance continues regardless of who owns the land. No land is truly fee simple and never has been.
Click to expand...

Yes, subsequent buyers might need to also sign onto the rules of the charter. In which case they would be signatories.

The owner knew the laws when he bought the land. Nothing was hidden from him and there was no deception. Anytime we enter into a different jurisdiction we are bound by the laws of that jurisdiction, just as people "buying" property that's part of the corporation are subject to the rules and regulations of that corporation.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are correct. We all live under governments that have the legal right to take our property without our consent and initiate violence against us. This is the legal situation to which I object in the first place, sort of the whole point of this discussion. I argue that we ought to change the law so that governments must operate by the same laws that apply to all other people.

And I specifically stated such, that the actual county, instead of the corporation, would have to handle criminal cases except for temporarily detaining people for criminal behavior until law enforcement could take action.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. I was answering your question as to what distinguishes a government. It has may legally initiate violence against person and property. Other people can't legally do this.

As far as violence against property, it's all corporate land so there is no "violence" against the land. The corporations civil court can take property from a person but that's part of the corporations laws (binding arbitration by a third party) that everyone accepts when they buy their land inside the corporate limits.
Click to expand...

Yes, that could all be part specified by contract.
 
Federalist said:
The government defines what is legal and isn't legal. Therefore If the government were to say it may legally kill you, then it may legally kill you.
Click to expand...
That's not an example. Try again.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, subsequent buyers might need to also sign onto the rules of the charter. In which case they would be signatories.
Click to expand...
Land encumbrances are part of the land and, by law, are required to be shown to any buyer. Subdivision developers often put restrictions on the land inside a subdivision, which restrictions they file with the county recorder and are open access records. Anyone buying land in the subdivision is subject to those restrictions whether they "sign" or not as it's an encumbrance on the land itself. Another example is easements. When a utility company buys an easement across a piece of land they don't have to go back each time the land is sold and pay for the same easement again and again. The easement is an encumbrance on the land itself - no need for future signatures once the original deal has been made. Works the same for our corporation or the government.


Federalist said:
Yes, you are correct. We all live under governments that have the legal right to take our property without our consent and initiate violence against us. This is the legal situation to which I object in the first place, sort of the whole point of this discussion. I argue that we ought to change the law so that governments must operate by the same laws that apply to all other people.
Click to expand...
Eminent domain pays for what it takes so your anarchist ideology is showing again. The corporation could do the same thing as you've agreed below.

Otherwise, I have no clue to what you are referring here.


Federalist said:
Yes, I know. I was answering your question as to what distinguishes a government. It has may legally initiate violence against person and property. Other people can't legally do this.

Yes, that could all be part specified by contract.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're going on about when you say "property" in that context (nor initiating violence for that matter). The "civil court" of the corporate contract - the binding third party arbitration clause - can indeed take property from a person by the judgement of the arbitrator just as you've agreed here. If you mean something else then you need to clarify your position.
 
Federalist said:
Did I say I was going to provide an example?
Click to expand...
It's what I asked for as clarification and you couldn't provide it, so as far as I'm concerned you've avoided the issue completely. Obviously your claim is hyperbole at best.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Land encumbrances are part of the land and, by law, are required to be shown to any buyer. Subdivision developers often put restrictions on the land inside a subdivision, which restrictions they file with the county recorder and are open access records. Anyone buying land in the subdivision is subject to those restrictions whether they "sign" or not as it's an encumbrance on the land itself. Another example is easements. When a utility company buys an easement across a piece of land they don't have to go back each time the land is sold and pay for the same easement again and again. The easement is an encumbrance on the land itself - no need for future signatures once the original deal has been made. Works the same for our corporation or the government.
Click to expand...

These encumbrances and easements are agreed to as part of the sale when the buyer signs.

However, I know of no encumbrances or easements that dictate with whom the owner of the property may or may not trade.

Eminent domain pays for what it takes so your anarchist ideology is showing again. The corporation could do the same thing as you've agreed below.
Click to expand...

Eminent domain is not consensual. The land is taken by force, whether or not the landowner agrees. Private parties do not have the ability to take other people's land by force.

I have no idea what you're going on about when you say "property" in that context (nor initiating violence for that matter). The "civil court" of the corporate contract - the binding third party arbitration clause - can indeed take property from a person by the judgement of the arbitrator just as you've agreed here. If you mean something else then you need to clarify your position.
Click to expand...

Private parties can contract all sorts of things. However, these are mutually agreed to contracts. A government may forcibly take from someone without any agreement at all.

Again, the distinguishing feature of a government is that it may legally initiate violence against others or take their property against their will. Non-government people are not legally allowed to do so.
 
The person (or persons) who own the property should be allowed to set the conditions of use. It really should be that simple.
 
Phoenix said:
The person (or persons) who own the property should be allowed to set the conditions of use. It really should be that simple.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. This is the policy that I would support.
 
Federalist said:
These encumbrances and easements are agreed to as part of the sale when the buyer signs.

However, I know of no encumbrances or easements that dictate with whom the owner of the property may or may not trade.
Click to expand...
The laws that govern the land are part of it's underlying encumbrances. Much land, especially that in residential areas, ban the owner from trading on the land at all except for personal business like selling his non-business vehicle.


Federalist said:
Eminent domain is not consensual. The land is taken by force, whether or not the landowner agrees. Private parties do not have the ability to take other people's land by force.
Click to expand...
The contractual equal of eminent domain could be easily written into the corporate laws.


Federalist said:
parties can contract all sorts of things. However, these are mutually agreed to contracts. A government may forcibly take from someone without any agreement at all.

Again, the distinguishing feature of a government is that it may legally initiate violence against others or take their property against their will. Non-government people are not legally allowed to do so.
Click to expand...
The agreement exists before you enter the jurisdiction and you agree to the conditions of that agreement when you enter the jurisdiction, just as you would if the corporation owned all that land. No difference at all.


That's not true. The corporation could easily take land as long as there's compensation - it's their land, remember? No reason that can't be part of the corporation's laws. Even in the real world many subdivisions require dues and that's true for everyone owning land in the subdivision whether you're the original owner or not. The whole "neighborhood association" thing if there is one, including dues (aka, "extra taxes"), is part of the subdivision's covenants and restrictions by which all owners must abide.

I've already explained about personal property. That could be the decision of the binding third party arbitrator, just as it is in civil courts now.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
The laws that govern the land are part of it's underlying encumbrances.

Binding third party arbitrators and so that, which is part of the corporate laws. The contractual equal of eminent domain could also be easily written into the corporate laws.

You agree when you enter the jurisdiction.

That's not true. The corporation could easily take land as long as there's compensation - it's their land, remember? No reason that can't be part of the corporation's laws. Many subdivisions required dues and that's true for everyone owning land in the subdivision whether you're the original owner or not. The whole "neighborhood association" thing of there is one, including dues (aka, "extra taxes"), is part of the subdivision's covenants and restrictions.

I've already explained about personal property. That could be the decision of the binding third party arbitrator, just as it is in civil courts, today.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that people can enter into whatever contractual arrangements they wish. They could set up a system with all sorts of rules and conditions.

I still disagree with the idea of the government dictating to Joe with whom he may or may not trade. It is a violation of his personal liberty, and I can find no justification in the initiation of aggression against him.
 
Federalist said:
Yes, I agree that people can enter into whatever contractual arrangements they wish. They could set up a system with all sorts of rules and conditions.

I still disagree with the idea of the government dictating to Joe with whom he may or may not trade. It is a violation of his personal liberty, and I can find no justification in the initiation of aggression against him.
Click to expand...
Joe's personal liberty hasn't been infringed at all. Joe's Diner can't discriminate. Joe can be however much a bigot he wants to be.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Joe's personal liberty hasn't been infringed at all. Joe's Diner can't discriminate. Joe can be however much a bigot he wants to be.
Click to expand...

Good, as long as Joe is allowed to do as he pleases and nobody touches him or any of his property and he's free to engage in trade as he wishes, then I can find no objection.
 
Federalist said:
Good, as long as Joe is allowed to do as he pleases and nobody touches him or any of his property and he's free to engage in trade as he wishes, then I can find no objection.
Click to expand...
It's always been that way and still is as far as I know. That's never been an issue. :shrug:
 
MoSurveyor said:
It's always been that way and still is as far as I know. That's never been an issue. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Good, so as long as Joe may freely open and operate his diner and serve whom he wishes without ever being charged, fined, or molested in any way then I have no issue. I wasn't aware that this was the case, but I'm happy to hear that it is.
 
Federalist said:
Good, so as long as Joe may freely open and operate his diner and serve whom he wishes without ever being charged, fined, or molested in any way then I have no issue. I wasn't aware that this was the case, but I'm happy to hear that it is.
Click to expand...
Joe's Diner is subject to business laws - but Joe's Diner isn't Joe. Joe is just an employee of Joe's Diner.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I've already said Joe's Diner is subject to business laws - but Joe's Diner isn't Joe. Joe is just an employee of Joe's Diner.
Click to expand...

Joe's diner is simply Joe's property, a pile of bricks and lumber. Buildings are not subject to laws. People are subject to laws.

I think what you are saying, in an evasive way, is that Joe's ability to freely engage in serving food to people is going to be violently interfered with. If that's the case, then I oppose such initiations of violence against Joe or the taking of Joe's property.

There is no justification for the initiation of violence against people or the taking of their property.
 
Federalist said:
Joe's diner is simply Joe's property, a pile of bricks and lumber. Buildings are not subject to laws. People are subject to laws.

I think what you are saying, in an evasive way, is that Joe's ability to freely engage in serving food to people is going to be violently interfered with. If that's the case, then I oppose such initiations of violence against Joe or the taking of Joe's property.

There is no justification for the initiation of violence against people or the taking of their property.
Click to expand...
It's not Joe's property or if it is he's renting it to Joe's Diner. Just check Joe's Diner's tax records. I'm betting the business's rent/mortgage payment as well as all it's utilities and many other things get deducted from it's income. Joe doesn't get to do that, only businesses get that privilege.

Joe's Diner is responsible for what Joe does when he's serving and cooking food, how clean the Diner's restroom is and many other aspects of Joe's Diner. As for "violent interference" I have no clue what you're talking about. The police aren't going to throw Joe in jail if that's what you mean but the jurisdiction could certainly fine Joe's Diner for noncompliance with business laws and could banish the business if it's illicit behavior calls for that extreme.

No person's property or person has been violated. No person's property has been taken. Business assets are a different subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom