• 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Should the public accommodations portion of the law be repealed?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
Federalist said:
As I've said, forcing Joe to jump through hoops prior to begin serving people food in his own diner on his own property is a violation of his liberty and is ethically unjustified. Such laws ought to be repealed. There is no justification for initiating violence against someone who has harmed no one.
Click to expand...

It's nothing of the kind. Not remotely.
 
Phoenix said:
You are missing that it's Joe, the individual business owner. Every hoop that gets jumped through is done by Joe. Everything that happens to the business is happening to Joe. Whether he agreed to it when he went into business isn't the issue. He had to agree to it or not be in business. The question is whether it's tyranny or an assault to liberty to make him do these things.
Click to expand...

Actually it's not. Joe has employees. He has customers. He has community concerns. It isn't just him.
 
Phoenix said:
Who has them? I just want to hear it again.
Click to expand...

Them?

I will assume you meant "then." Really, no business. You would have to be a single person with no employees and no customers. Now, if it really is just you, no building, no employees, you could probably function quietly without to much concern, as you're not having too much effect on others. But that's your choice. No one is required to have employees or customers.
 
Federalist said:
No victim; no crime.

So tell me what sorts of harms you are talking about. I'm sure I'd agree that they are actionable. But I disagree with laws that make it a crime simply to operate a business.
Click to expand...
We already went through several of those.


Depends on the kind of business. I believe there are some business endeavors that don't require a business license, though I could be wrong about that. It's been a long time since I looked into the specifics. However, if you have a place of business, as opposed to part-time use of a room in your home (and maybe a small amount of storage space), that's a different subject. That kind of license is there for many reasons, mostly to protect the people around the proposed business.
 
Phoenix said:
If you have enough land that it doesn't disturb your neighbor or you can contain it to your property sure. Otherwise you are infringing on another's rights and no it's not okay.
Click to expand...
That's just a small part of the reason a business license is required. There are many ways a business can have a negative impact on those around it and most if not all of those are considered during the licensing process.
 
Phoenix said:
But the laws apply universally so they apply to the individual as well as the defined LLCs or Corps.
Click to expand...
An LLC's liability usually don't fall back on the owners. That's one of the main reasons for having one.


Phoenix said:
Not according to the IRS as I have posted previously. If his business borrows 1 million dollars guess who has to pay it back? joe.
Click to expand...
That's got nothing to do with the deductions I listed. Are you saying the IRS doesn't allow business deductions as opposed to personal deductions??? I'm pretty sure my business can deduct all those things from it's income whereas I can't even though I obviously need sleep and about half my food & clothing, not counting personal hygiene, to hold down a job - which makes them all "business expenses".


That would depend on the loan.
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
Nothing is wrong with any of those things. But you are presupposing the corporation owns all the land in the first place. If it does, everything you say is true. If it doesn't, then what you say is false. And in the case of government, it did not homestead or legally purchase the land it claims dominion over. That's the difference you keep ignoring.
Click to expand...
I don't ignore it. Cities and counties are founded on rules set by the State - in my State, rules that were enacted before much of the land was owned. Like I said, if you want to say something about a region becoming a State then we'll talk because that's where it all starts. If you move into the State after Statehood is granted, which I'd bet is a good 95% of the population (and probably more), then you're the n00b and knew the rules when you entered and/or settled there. If you were born there, then your parents, grandparents or whoever made those decisions for you when they moved there and no one is stopping you from moving back out of the state.


Lakryte said:
Then there is no point to your scenario, because not everyone agreed to form the various governments that actually exist in the real world. Your hypothetical corporation scenario has no counterpart in reality. This discussion has nothing to do with anarchy, so stop bringing it up.
Click to expand...
Not everyone will agree to any form of government. Your argument - again - fails terribly.


I won't stop bringing it up because anarchy is the only option if you expect 100% agreement.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Depends on the kind of business. I believe there are some business endeavors that don't require a business license, though I could be wrong about that. It's been a long time since I looked into the specifics. However, if you have a place of business, as opposed to part-time use of a room in your home (and maybe a small amount of storage space), that's a different subject. That kind of license is there for many reasons, mostly to protect the people around the proposed business.
Click to expand...

Whether someone harms others is independent of whether that person is operating a business.

The crime should be the act that harms others, not going into business.

Again, give me an example of the sort of harm you are talking about, and I'd wager that I agree that such an activity should be considered a crime or tort. But I won't agree that simply establishing a business without permission is a crime.

And, getting back to the topic, refusing to do business with someone harms neither their person or their property, so it should never be considered a crime. Again, no victim, no crime.
 
Federalist said:
Whether someone harms others is independent of whether that person is operating a business.

The crime should be the act that harms others, not going into business.

Again, give me an example of the sort of harm you are talking about, and I'd wager that I agree that such an activity should be considered a crime or tort. But I won't agree that simply establishing a business without permission is a crime.
Click to expand...
After my last post I checked and all businesses have to be registered in Missouri if nothing else then for tax purposes. Businesses inside our city limits require a license but most businesses in the county don't, so what level of licensing (if any) would be up to the individual cities.

The primary reason for all laws is deterrence, to stop crimes from happening in the first place.

Pollution, noise, increased traffic (which carries it's own public safety issues), availability of utilities (I don't want outages because your deep fryers are tripping the block's circuit breakers), general public safety (do I really need to mention the Texas explosion again?), zoning --- the list goes on and on and varies depending on the type of business and what area we're talking about. The business license process resolves all those things before they become issues.



Federalist said:
And, getting back to the topic, refusing to do business with someone harms neither their person or their property, so it should never be considered a crime. Again, no victim, no crime.
Click to expand...
The courts seem to think there is harm and I'll let those court cases speak for themselves on that count, since they connect the dots (for those who need it) much better than I can.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
After my last post I checked and all businesses have to be registered in Missouri if nothing else then for tax purposes. Businesses inside our city limits require a license but most businesses in the county don't, so what level of licensing (if any) would be up to the individual cities.

The primary reason for all laws is deterrence, to stop crimes from happening in the first place.

Pollution, noise, increased traffic (which carries it's own public safety issues), availability of utilities (I don't want outages because your deep fryers are tripping the block's circuit breakers), general public safety (do I really need to mention the Texas explosion again?), zoning --- the list goes on and on and varies depending on the type of business and what area we're talking about. The business license process resolves all those things before they become issues.
Click to expand...

I agree that polluting and noise disturbances could not be crimes or torts. Of course, one does not have to be a business in order to commit these acts. Obviously, anyone could be guilty of such acts, whether they are engaging in trade or not.

The increase in traffic is the road owner's problem (or blessing, depending on his revenue model). If the road owner wants to place limits on traffic, that is his prerogative and people using the road will have to abide by such limits. But again. the road owner has no right to tell someone whether he may or may not engage in trade on his own property.

Same with the electric, water, etc. These providers may limit what a customer may purchase (God knows why they would do this, since they would be forgoing income), but they have no right to tell anyone whether they may engage in trade on their own property.

I could see a case being made in which someone is doing something on their own property that is so obviously dangerous so as to pose a threat to other people. In this case, I think that it would reasonable for a judge to issue injunctions against such activities. But once again, anyone can act in a dangerous manner, and acting in a dangerous manner is not inextricably linked to engaging in trade with one's fellow man. We can make hazardous activities crimes or torts regardless of whether one is engaged in trade on one's own property.

Again, if a person acts so as to harm the person or property of another, his actions can be regarded as crimes or torts and they should be punishable. However, simply engaging in trade with others on one's own property is orthogonal to whether one's acts harm others. Trading with others does not necessarily result in victims, therefore it should not be a crime. Only harming others or their property should be a crime.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The courts seem to think there is harm and I'll let those court cases speak for themselves on that count, since they connect the dots (for those who need it) much better than I can.
Click to expand...

Does refusing to business with someone effect that person's body in any way? Does it effect their property in any way?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I don't ignore it. Cities and counties are founded on rules set by the State - in my State, rules that were enacted before much of the land was owned. Like I said, if you want to say something about a region becoming a State then we'll talk because that's where it all starts. If you move into the State after Statehood is granted, which I'd bet is a good 95% of the population (and probably more), then you're the n00b and knew the rules when you entered and/or settled there. If you were born there, then your parents, grandparents or whoever made those decisions for you when they moved there and no one is stopping you from moving back out of the state.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's the entire point. A corporation cannot enact rules over land before that land is owned. Government can--through coercion.

Not everyone will agree to any form of government. Your argument - again - fails terribly.
Click to expand...
No, that is my argument. A government can come in and claim dominion over land without agreement of everyone currently there. A corporation cannot.

I won't stop bringing it up because anarchy is the only option if you expect 100% agreement.
Click to expand...
No. Another option is accepting that an institution of coercion may be a "necessary evil." You've never heard the saying that government is "a necessary evil"? What you are trying to do is make this into an argument about anarchy. Its not. Its an argument about the nature of government, regardless of whether you think it should exist or not.
 
Federalist said:
I agree that polluting and noise disturbances could not be crimes or torts. Of course, one does not have to be a business in order to commit these acts. Obviously, anyone could be guilty of such acts, whether they are engaging in trade or not.
Click to expand...
I assume you meant they COULD BE?


Federalist said:
The increase in traffic is the road owner's problem (or blessing, depending on his revenue model). If the road owner wants to place limits on traffic, that is his prerogative and people using the road will have to abide by such limits. But again. the road owner has no right to tell someone whether he may or may not engage in trade on his own property.
Click to expand...
I'm not here for your anarchist fantasies.

In the real world there are obvious safety hazards with increased traffic flow and probable maintenance issues as well. It would not be reasonable to limit each individual house in a subdivision to X number of cars per year (how would one keep track?) and certainly a daily limit would be ridiculous. It may not be an issue for a large family's (great) grandparents to have a twice a year get together where there are maybe 40 people (incl children/grandchildren/etc) but having that much extra traffic every single day would be cause for concern, let alone how much traffic an average business generates.


Federalist said:
Same with the electric, water, etc. These providers may limit what a customer may purchase (God knows why they would do this, since they would be forgoing income), but they have no right to tell anyone whether they may engage in trade on their own property.
Click to expand...
It's easy to see why in your anarchist world - they loose other customers because of poor service.

Utilities usually have a different rate schedule for businesses as well, though I'm honestly not sure if it's higher or lower than a residence.
(PS: Business rates here are more expensive for the first ~250 kWh and cheaper after that.)


Federalist said:
I could see a case being made in which someone is doing something on their own property that is so obviously dangerous so as to pose a threat to other people. In this case, I think that it would reasonable for a judge to issue injunctions against such activities. But once again, anyone can act in a dangerous manner, and acting in a dangerous manner is not inextricably linked to engaging in trade with one's fellow man. We can make hazardous activities crimes or torts regardless of whether one is engaged in trade on one's own property.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the survivors in Texas. Tell me, how much money does it take to replace a child, a mother, or a father? Should we execute all the owners? That might be enough deterrence to keep future business owners from creating or allowing a lethal threat like that.


Federalist said:
Again, if a person acts so as to harm the person or property of another, his actions can be regarded as crimes or torts and they should be punishable. However, simply engaging in trade with others on one's own property is orthogonal to whether one's acts harm others. Trading with others does not necessarily result in victims, therefore it should not be a crime. Only harming others or their property should be a crime.
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier, business permits are required in Missouri for tax reasons, which works both ways. Businesses can buy goods without paying taxes on those goods but they also have to collect taxes on what they sell.

Other than that, licensing is a city by city thing (some cities have none at all) except for some very specific county level permits for certain businesses, which is a county by county thing.
 
Last edited:
Lakryte said:
Exactly, that's the entire point. A corporation cannot enact rules over land before that land is owned. Government can--through coercion.
Click to expand...
A city government can't do anything about any land before it's incorporated. The act of incorporation is the same as the corporation buying it's land. Quit being dense.


Lakryte said:
No, that is my argument. A government can come in and claim dominion over land without agreement of everyone currently there. A corporation cannot.
Click to expand...
And tell me, how would someone surrounded by corporate land get off their own property without the corporation's permission?


Lakryte said:
No. Another option is accepting that an institution of coercion may be a "necessary evil." You've never heard the saying that government is "a necessary evil"? What you are trying to do is make this into an argument about anarchy. Its not. Its an argument about the nature of government, regardless of whether you think it should exist or not.
Click to expand...
So now you're saying that "initiating violence" is OK? I'll be sure to quote you on that ...
 
Henrin said:
The answer is no, btw.
Click to expand...

The courts laid out very specific harm. That's what happens when you don't read what is presented to you. But then again, it is almost impossible to teach someone something that person THINKS he or she already knows.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The courts seemed to think there was damage. You'll excuse me if I take their word over yours ...
Click to expand...

Feel free to share how not doing business with someone causes bodily harm.
 
Henrin said:
Feel free to share how not doing business with someone causes bodily harm.
Click to expand...


There are many types of harm. The harm has been spelled out. You don't address it because that would require you abandoning this silliness.
 
Boo Radley said:
There are many types of harm. The harm has been spelled out. You don't address it because that would require you abandoning this silliness.
Click to expand...

That is because you don't have any harms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom