• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
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.

Let's say Joe owns a piece of land. He builds a building on that land. He begins serving food to people who want to buy that food. It's all Joe.

Nobody has any justification for telling Joe who he must serve food to in his own diner on his own property.
 
No person's property or person has been violated. No person's property has been taken. Business assets are a different subject.

Whose property are these "business assets"?
 
Let's say Joe owns a piece of land. He builds a building on that land. He begins serving food to people who want to buy that food. It's all Joe.

Nobody has any justification for telling Joe who he must serve food to in his own diner on his own property.
They do if the establishment is open to the general public, they don't if it's a club.

Civil Rights Act 1964
 
They do if the establishment is open to the general public, they don't if it's a club.

Civil Rights Act 1964

I am aware of the law. I am arguing against the law, on the basis that it is unethical because it is unethical to uninvitedly damage or take another's person or property.
 
Let's say Joe owns a piece of land. He builds a building on that land. He begins serving food to people who want to buy that food. It's all Joe.

Nobody has any justification for telling Joe who he must serve food to in his own diner on his own property.
If he's serving food to people for money then he has opened a business and needs a business license, at which point it is no longer Joe, it's Joe's Diner.

The people around Joe are protecting their property and interests by requiring Joe to get a business license and operate as a business. Otherwise, Joe may be doing them harm by opening his business. That's one reason we have business licenses, to make sure Joe isn't harming someone else by his actions.

However, Joe can open a non-OTTP business and not be subject to the business laws that pertain to an OTTP businesses. (He still needs a license, though.) In that case he can decide who he wants to let in his door. There are many private (non-OTTP) businesses in the country.
 
I am aware of the law. I am arguing against the law, on the basis that it is unethical because it is unethical to uninvitedly damage or take another's person or property.
You're not required in any way to have an OTTP business, which is what pbrauer is talking about. You can license your business as non-OTTP if you so desire.
 
If he's serving food to people for money then he has opened a business and needs a business license, at which point it is no longer Joe, it's Joe's Diner.

And that is the law to which I object. As I said, nobody has a right to tell Joe whether or not he may serve people food on his own property. Such a law is an unjustified initiation of violence against Joe. As such, it is unethical and I must oppose it.
 
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.
I am familiar with the discussion. If a corporation owns a 50 mile radius of property, then people are subject to the rules of that corporation if they are to live on that property. I get that, and you would be correct. It is not reasonable of you to assume my comment is rooted in ignorance of this discussion.

My point is, and remains, that no--government in the form we have today is not equivalent to such a corporation. The government does not own the land. The government did not homestead the land, and the government did not legitimately buy the land. Did the colonists agree to sell their property to the U.S. government? No. No such agreement was made. Government simply claimed the territory under its jurisdiction through the use of coercion. The difference is clear.
 
And who owns Joe's diner?
One would assume from your previous posts that you believe Joe owns Joe's Diner. That doesn't mean Joe and Joe's Diner are the same entity. Joe is a person, Joe's Diner is a business.
 
And that is the law to which I object. As I said, nobody has a right to tell Joe whether or not he may serve people food on his own property. Such a law is an unjustified initiation of violence against Joe. As such, it is unethical and I must oppose it.
The corporation can decide what can and can't go on inside it's area to the extent shown in the corporation's laws. Joe knew this when he entered the corporate limits and Joe knew about the encumbrances upon any property within the corporate limits when he bought his property. If Joe doesn't like the situation then Joe has no one to blame but himself.
 
One would assume from your previous posts that you believe Joe owns Joe's Diner. That doesn't mean Joe and Joe's Diner are the same entity. Joe is a person, Joe's Diner is a business.

Yet, you said before that nothing was being taken from Joe. That is obviously not true.

Joe's diner is having money taken from it; Joe's diner belongs to Joe; therefore Joe is having money taken from him.
 
The corporation can decide what can and can't go on inside it's area to the extent shown in the corporation's laws. Joe knew this when he entered the corporate limits and Joe knew about the encumbrances upon any property within the corporate limits when he bought his property. If Joe doesn't like the situation then Joe has no one to blame but himself.

Yes, I understand what the law is. I am saying that I think the law should be repealed because it is unethical to initiate violence against people or to take their property.

Do you think it is justified to tell Joe with whom he may trade in his own diner on his own property?
 
I am familiar with the discussion. If a corporation owns a 50 mile radius of property, then people are subject to the rules of that corporation if they are to live on that property. I get that, and you would be correct. It is not reasonable of you to assume my comment is rooted in ignorance of this discussion.

My point is, and remains, that no--government in the form we have today is not equivalent to such a corporation. The government does not own the land. The government did not homestead the land, and the government did not legitimately buy the land. Did the colonists agree to sell their property to the U.S. government? No. No such agreement was made. Government simply claimed the territory under its jurisdiction through the use of coercion. The difference is clear.
That's not true. Cities and counties both "incorporate" when they become entities and the citizens effected by that incorporation vote on it. Mr. Moneybags doesn't just come into an area and declare a city or county into existence.

I'm pretty sure States follow a similar process though it's not "incorporation" for a State since Congress must approve entrance into the Union.
 
Yet, you said before that nothing was being taken from Joe. That is obviously not true.

Joe's diner is having money taken from it; Joe's diner belongs to Joe; therefore Joe is having money taken from him.
Nothing is being taken from Joe.

No, Joe made less profit from his business because it was fined for acting contrary to the law but in most cases Joe's personal finances are unaffected by any fines placed on Joe's Diner.


And, again, Joe can always open a non-OTTP business.
 
Yes, I understand what the law is. I am saying that I think the law should be repealed because it is unethical to initiate violence against people or to take their property.

Do you think it is justified to tell Joe with whom he may trade in his own diner on his own property?
Joe agreed to the laws when he entered that jurisdiction, just as he would agree to the corporations laws if he enters their corporate limits.

If Joe's Diner is being operated on said property then it's the property of Joe's Diner, not Joe.
 
Last edited:
Nothing is being taken from Joe.

No, Joe made less profit from his business because it was fined for acting contrary to the law but in most cases Joe's personal finances are unaffected by any fines placed on Joe's Diner.


And, again, Joe can always open a non-OTTP business.

Really? That's your story?

If Joe owns a business, and the business is fined, that money is being taken from Joe.

You might as well argue that Joe is not actually being fined, his bank account is being fined.

Frankly, I've come to expect better from you.
 
Joe agreed to the laws when he entered that jurisdiction, just as he would agree to the corporations laws if he enters their corporate limits.

If Joe's Diner is being operated on said property then it's the property of Joe's Diner, not Joe.

Yes, I understand what the law currently is. I'm saying that I think the law that requires people to ask permission to operate a diner should be repealed. Such a law is an initiation of violence against the person wishing to operate the diner. OTTP license; non-OTTP license; none of them should be required.
 
That's not true. Cities and counties both "incorporate" when they become entities and the citizens effected by that incorporation vote on it. Mr. Moneybags doesn't just come into an area and declare a city or county into existence.

I'm pretty sure States follow a similar process though it's not "incorporation" for a State since Congress must approve entrance into the Union.
If a corporation decides it wants to buy up all the land in an area, and held a vote to see if the people in that area would allow them to do so, it could not buy up the land of the people who voted no, even if the majority said yes.

The voters who say yes have no claim to the property of the voters who say no, therefore they can not transfer that property to the government through a vote.
 
If a corporation decides it wants to buy up all the land in an area, and held a vote to see if the people in that area would allow them to do so, it could not buy up the land of the people who voted no, even if the majority said yes.

The voters who say yes have no claim to the property of the voters who say no, therefore they can not transfer that property to the government through a vote.

Wow, you mean people can't make decisions for other people? Shocking.
 
Really? That's your story?
It's the truth and also works in Joe's favor. If someone dies from food poisoning from Joe's Diner then the business assets may be sold off to pay the damages awarded by the court but Joe's personal assets should be unaffected assuming Joe didn't personally commit a criminal act. Employees can sometimes be charged with criminal activity even if they're on the clock, depending on the circumstances.


If Joe owns a business, and the business is fined, that money is being taken from Joe.

You might as well argue that Joe is not actually being fined, his bank account is being fined.

Frankly, I've come to expect better from you.
The money wasn't Joe's to start with, it was the business's "money" just like the money the business uses to pay the business's electric bill and buy raw foods to be cooked for it's customers. Joe's Diner has it's own set of company accounting books that are separate from Joe's personal finances. Joe will get whatever profit is left after all the bills of Joe's Diner are paid - including court decisions that go either way.

Typically, a business will have it's own bank account. It makes documentation of the accounting easier.

That comment just put you down a notch in my book.
 
It's the truth and also works in Joe's favor. If someone dies from food poisoning from Joe's Diner then the business assets may be sold off to pay the damages awarded by the court but Joe's personal assets should be unaffected assuming Joe didn't personally commit a criminal act. Employees can sometimes be charged with criminal activity even if they're on the clock, depending on the circumstances.


The money wasn't Joe's to start with, it was the business's "money" just like the money the business uses to pay the business's electric bill and buy raw foods to be cooked for it's customers. Joe's Diner has it's own set of company accounting books that are separate from Joe's personal finances. Joe will get whatever profit is left after all the bills of Joe's Diner are paid - including court decisions that go either way.

Typically, a business will have it's own bank account. It makes documentation of the accounting easier.

That comment just put you down a notch in my book.

If Joe owns the entire business then anything that takes money away from the business takes money away from Joe. The business is his property. If you fine the business you are fining Joe.
 
Yes, I understand what the law currently is. I'm saying that I think the law that requires people to ask permission to operate a diner should be repealed. Such a law is an initiation of violence against the person wishing to operate the diner. OTTP license; non-OTTP license; none of them should be required.
The laws are there to stop Joe from harming others by opening his business. We've already been through this.

Again, all you're whining about is that it's a city government instead of a corporation, which would make no functional difference at all.
 
If Joe owns the entire business then anything that takes money away from the business takes money away from Joe. The business is his property. If you fine the business you are fining Joe.
Untrue and I've shown why. I've also shown it's to Joe's advantage to have it that way.
 
Back
Top Bottom