stossel is usually just as bad as every person on t.v.... BUT HE IS DEAD RIGHT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS... I don't need to government to tell me "DON'T BE RACIST"
"Government" is just people. Businesses are people. There are some things that "government" decides "businisses" can't do. "We" decides that "we" can't do some things.
So I should be able to benefit from the public transportation system (roads, publicly funded projects, signs and traffic lights), have my property protected with tax money from everyone, including "those people" and should be able to benefit from being connected to publicly subsidized utilities and be able to discriminate? Here's an idea. If you want to discriminate your business should be isolated in the woods. You pay for the road, protection, etc.
@srhanna If the govt decides to get involved through funding and ownership then you yourself should benefit and that should really be counted as public.
If I ask a woman out and she declines, then she is a bigot and has discriminated against me. Or if I cannot afford a hotel room I can sleep in someone's nice hotel and they put me out, they are bigots. If one doesn't own their property, then who does?
This will light the litmus paper because libertarianism is a philosophy of freedom and hence freedom means people have the right to discriminate. I don't agree but that is the philosophy; it takes individualism is taken to an extreme. In the USA discrimination was bad and government intervened. My view go by Christian tradition - that is my philosophy. I'm speechless.
To remind everyone, as an owner, he or she has worked to attain/maintain his/her private property and does not want it to be wrecked. And to do this, it's just a matter of whom you TRUST.
(cont.) When you invite a person in your car, you are RISKING your LIFE so by choosing the white person, the driver reduces his CHANCES of becoming a victim. So by discriminating, the driver is forcing black customers to force other blacks to not commit crimes, which can explain all of these 'black' cites, like Compton, CA. Thus, this repeal may lower the CRIME RATE and race relations can improve. So, using Woodrow Wilson's adage "War to end all wars", I say RACISM TO END ALL RACISM.
I used to think that racism was just plain wrong but I find it maybe a pragmatic tool, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you were a white taxi driver in the Big Apple, and there were two customers, one white and the other black. Under that law you can't discriminate but with the repeal you can. As for the reason, that driver may know that statistically blacks commit more crimes than whites. Yes, not all blacks commit crimes but do you KNOW that PARTICULAR person? (cont.)
"you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they're going to be racist, or not racist, because once the government gets involved its a slippery slope".
I'm sorry, but i heard that one time and had to replay it to make sure my mind wasn't playing tricks on me.
Oh megyn, megyn ,megyn, megyn, you stupid, deplorably ignorant excuse for a newscaster. Do you think before you speak? Or does stupidity come natural to you? Racism in ANY institution is harmful to society, no matter the spin
The law is already there. Why is this a big deal anyway, is it necessary to remove a law that prohibits racism? Laws should be made to make society better not to make way for hate. If the law is removed, a lot of America's nasty past will bear its ugly head & give way to civil unrest
Incorrect. In no way shape or form is social policy and/or law a power of the Federal Government. Read the Constitution. Laws regarding social activities should not be in the hands of any government entity because of simply put, regardless of party or whether George Soros has paid for it, it is not Constitutional. Therefore, it's gotta be progressive crap.
@terryliver if a business banned black, it's excluding about 20% of it's potential customers plus anyone like me that is willing to boycott places like that.
And no, laws do not and can not make society better. All they can do is impose values onto others by force.
@Houshalter I agree with the first part of what u have to say, but I must respectfully disagree with the statement about laws. A society without laws is total chaos. Laws bring order & stability to any society. Laws are not perfect but it is necessary. Its simple Don't KILL, Don't RAPE, Don't STEAL aren't you glad these laws are there to protect u & your family. Should these laws not "force" a murderer to not Kill or "force" a thief not to steal.
@terryliver "A society without laws is total chaos." History says otherwise.
Killing, raping, stealing, are all property rights violations. Those are not laws, those are rights.
The government can not protect your property by taking half of it first, it can't protect your freedom by creating endless lists of things you aren't allowed to do, it can't stop violence by initiating massive wars and genocides, it can't protect the poor by destroying the economy every other decade, etc.
@Houshalter I must say again that i disagree.When u infringe on someones human rights isn't that "Breaking the Law"? If I Rape or Kill isn't that breaking the law?Then why are murderers & thieves in Jail? I would think that it's because they have broken a Law.
And Yes we still have problems even when the law is there, we all know that it will be much worse if there was no Law at all.
@terryliver if the law didn't exist, it wouldn't make murder right. Likewise, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
Maybe some degree of "law" is necessary, but in the vast majority of situations people think it is, it really isn't, and when it is, it should be done on a competitive basis rather then a single monopoly that people are forced to pay for and use against their will. If you want a war on drugs, pay for it yourself.
...But when employers argue for priveleges and special treatment because they "create jobs", then a certain amount of compromise should be expected. Those favors SHOULD come with conditions, or that favoritism should be denied. In an age of monopolistic megacorporations, free market competition is often not a factor, and the bad P.R. that comes from such racist behavior will have no recriprocal backlash from irate consumers, because they can't simply go to the competitors instead.
Note to Stossel and Rand Paul--it was done your way for years--it brought us civil rights marches, rampant discrimination based on race, and Southern Democrats becoming Republicans. You remember the Southern Democrats--the ones who were for "separate but equal".
@exsinor John Stossel and Rand paul are not advocating the "separate but equal" idea, or any other form of state-endorsed racism. All they are saying is that private business owners should be allowed to be racist.
@xoy71 Balderdash If it is allowed, it is endorsed. As long as it is a business open to the public, racism is not to be allowed. If they want to practice racism, they should become a private dues paying club or organization.
@exsinor I support the right of free speech. Does that mean I endorse everything everything that can possibly be said? Of course not, so how is supporting freedom of association endorsing racists?
Stossel is right. An open mind and critical thinking is the only way to approach something so sensitive, and freedom of association has always been a freedom in this country.
@bhxinfected tragic. The private businesses in question were run by people who were unequally benefited from slavery and discrimination. The institution that allowed them to get those businesses. It was necessary to fix the problem that the inequality created. And the anchor made a great point with respect to murder.
@broggi007 True, but they aren't different with respect to the private acts taken by private business open to the public. Claiming that private businesses open to the public should be able to act racistly the market will punish those that perform poorly ignores the fact that we allow the government to impose other restrictions on private businesses (that the market would also punish). Murder being one of them, serving poisonous food is another, false advertisement, breaching contract, etc. etc.
So according to the example of Murder provided... Private club leaders should be allowed to commit murder within their organization? They are currently allowed to discriminate based on race so they should be allowed to murder right?
@cdog4100 And no one is arguing against complete government regulation on business... It is needed in some instances. But physical harm like murder and poisonous food vs hurt feelings like racial discrimination are two completely different animals... if they appear synonymous to you then OK.
@broggi007 You have made an an attempt at distinguishing when government's should intervene (apparently at the level of immediate physical harm). Rand did not. But when the public accommodation cases came down, blacks LITERALLY had to sleep in their cars, or next animals, etc. You'll no doubt concede that this is more than an issue of hurt feelings. This is an issue of where to draw the line, not that no line need be drawn. Exactly the point that the anchor was making (perhaps poorly).
@cdog4100 You are right in that blacks were severely mistreated during the times before the civil rights act. In the northern states there wasn't much of an issue for blacks trying to find establishments that will cater to them. There were restaurants and establishments in the South that catered to black people during that time but they tended to be hard to find or get to. Should everyone have the RIGHT to have a place that will cater to them within a reasonable distance/reach? Perhaps...
@cdog4100 Say that I agree with you in that there was perhaps a need for this law back in the day... is it still relevant today? Laws in this country are destined to be amended and change as the needs change. Do we still need it? Prohibition came and went...
@broggi007 Hey man, I am all for you or Rand Paul making arguments that are something like "Racism does not cause sufficient enough harm such that we should allow the government to intervene." I think your wrong, but that at least is consistent with how we decide what laws are appropriate. That is not the argument Rand Paul makes. Paul says that government has no place regulating race in private business because it infringes liberty - but, as I said early, every law does.
@cdog4100 I agree with you wholeheartedly that laws infringe upon liberties but it is important to have them in many instances. There will always be people on both sides of the aisle and my reason for replying to you wasn't to try and convert you! It was to call into question this sort of comparison between infringing on someone's "right" to have coffee in a privately owned establishment and someone's pretty obvious right to life (ie.not be murdered)
@broggi007 Well, then we are at a point of agreement. I was never making the argument that there is no difference between murder and having a cup of coffee, but making the argument that proscribing those actions is inherently liberty infringing, and I think that that Rand Paul makes a vapid argument when he suggests that merely because a law infringes liberty it is invalid. And it is one that Stossel enthusiastically embraces. That is what I meant by "the Anchor was making a good point about M"
@cdog4100 anything that infringes on people's rights is invalid. To say otherwise would be a complete contradiction of terms. How can you even acknowledge right's exist when you admit it is ok to infringe on them?
@Houshalter I do not acknowledge that an absolute right to liberty exists, nor do I suggest that it is ok to infringe on rights. Your question presumes that liberty is an absolute right. It is not. When the Gov't jails murderers it does not infringe on their rights, even thought it deprives them of their liberty. I hope I've cleared up your confusion.
@Houshalter completely inapposite to the issue. Liberty is not an absolute right in our system of government. Look up the due process clause of the 5th amendment. I've answered the question you've asked. Let's move on.
@cdog4100 - You cite the fifth amendment, while ignoring the first, ninth, and tenth amendments. The rights of the people are to be considered before the rights of the government. The entire document is written to establish a government, and limit that government's powers to those enumerated in the document. The liberty of the individual against the power of government is a running theme.
@mpc91 I am not ignoring any of the constitution. Your comments truthfulness is only matched by its irrelevancy. The government can, should, and does act to regulate private behavior. Civil rights act is such a law. There is no absolute right to "liberty." And to your First Amendment argument, there is no absolute right to "free speech." Government can regulate the time manner and place of speech. True threats are not protected, even though they constitute "speech" in the strictest sense.
@cdog4100 - Wrong part of the first amendment, I was referring to the freedom of association.
And you are ignoring the ninth and tenth amendment which specify that the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
That you put liberty in quotation marks shows that while you may have read the Constitution, you certainly don't understand it. It is meant to protect the people from overreaching government, and we've lost that.
@mpc91 I need to correct you first, free speech is not the wrong part of the Constitution to look toward when looking for evidence of protections against an overreaching government. Second, you continue to bring up points that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If your trying to make an argument, do it. Typing "you don't understand the [Const.]" does not an argument make. Again, nothing you've said undercuts anything I have previously stated.
Stossel how do you know when you come to a place thats Discriminates? I know you could have different days of the week were only one group can come in. Or run it like the flavor of the day or the soup of the day. And what if short redhead midgets is the flavor of the day. that means most people get in, Right? LOL
Stossel and Paul are right. If someone wants to be a racist in their own home and not let certain people in, no one would dispute it is their right, however repugnant it is. Why should it be any different for a business? It's still privately owned. The owner should be able to set their own rules.
Any business that practiced descrimination today would be boycotted and picketed out of existance in weeks. The issue would be solved without government involvement.
This dumb blonde asks, "How do you know that they would have integrated voluntarily?" I wish John would have said, "Because a law was required to prevent them from doing so." Jim Crow laws punished business owners and operators who tried to integrate. Simply repealing Jim Crow laws though wouldn't have fit with statists agenda to create laws which dictate behavior. Less bad laws is never going to be as good as new laws with high sounding names.
With Freedom Watch and Stossel, it's so ironic how Fox news has become the only watchable network on TV. How hilarious is that? Just think about a few years go, when the Fox network was considered the most unreliable among people in the know. Democracy Now with Amy Goodman was the only objective news source. What the hell is going on? My favorite shows with Stewart and Colbert are becoming worse and worse. There's a huge paradigm shift going on and it scares the shit out of me.
@chicapees dont worry. the democrats and republicans are on the same team. When the democrats are in power, the republicans represent the will of the people as opposed to the will of the establishment. When the republicans are in power, the democrats voice the will of the people. The pendulum game. It gives the less than 20% who are interested in whats going on the illusion thats its a fight between the two sides (limits).
if they want to tackle an issue like this, they should have used smoking as an example. Why should the government be able to tell a private establishment whether they can be smoking or non-smoking?
Discrimination is a slippery slope, and although one should not be allowed to discriminate in a public area, on the same hand, someone shouldn't be told whether they are allowed to discriminate or not.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H.L. Mencken
In a way, they kinda have a point about the private business stuff, but it's really not as big of a deal as they're making it out to be. I mean, is it really that bad if the government says "Hey. You gotta let black people eat at your restaurant."?
yes, its like the government telling you to let a military man stay at your place in the time of war . if i owe a bar i want to be able to serve who i want whenever i want i do not want the government regulating what sort of people i have in my establishment that goes for workers, consumers etc. it just gives the government more power then it should.
@59Gretsch Uhm the demographic of Faux News is in fact the minority. That's why they are fighting so hard to smear the current president. Sorry, mate, but you lost. :)
@59Gretsch I'm not talking about ratings. I'm talking about their demographic, which is the Republican party. You know, that party that disappeared in disgrace a few years ago?
1. If you think the Republican party has disappeared, stick around for a few more months.
2. if you think FOX watchers consist only of republicans again you are way off track.... in fact their ratings are so dominate... I don't know how you could imagine the GOP is dead???
@59Gretsch My original comment was the Faux News is ridiculous. You started talking about ratings, which has nothing to do with my comment. Faux News is ridiculous, and is Republican propoganda.
The fact that it has high ratings is beside the point. Jersey Shore has high ratings also, because most Americans are fucking idiots. Take a look in the mirror if you'd like to see an example. :)
@astupid16yearold Don't be silly, one law like this naturally leads to the "next step".
By the way, when was the "Americans w/ disabilities" act passed?
Sounds noble enough but the costs are unbelievable. but the Gov has the right to make your small biz comply even though no one but you has access to thaT BATHROOM.
@59Gretsch oh you mean the disabilities act of 1990 passed by former president george bush senior with a provision that requires businesses to setup layout in such a way possible that handicap people have access to the bathroom? Not really sure how that is related to preventing racial discrimination when selling to customers, and how that could lead to a "slippery slope with freedom in the cross hairs". Do you think we shouldn't care about handicap people and their access to our businesses?
@astupid16yearold I can see your knowledge of the "peoples with disability act" is limited so no use to further proceed.
Small hint..... Just because something might be a "Good idea" doesn't mean it's the federal gov's place to impose it across the land... because when they do, it does only lead to the next "good idea".
Arguing that parts of the law are no longer necessary due to social progress, and do not need to be enforced with as much vigor is a feasible position, and arguably true. Any business that panders to racists would be severely harmed.
Arguing that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, on the other hand, is definitely not smart, and seems almost like you are pandering to certain groups.
this debate is vast and complex, i don't blame rand paul for saying it for the simple reason that he seems to hold individual rights over civil rights that is the mark of libertarians. i also think that Rand Paul didn't think enough to give an actual response instead going the way of talking points, which i blame about 80% on fox for trying to simplify complex issues to news bites. but you can't blame the left for going after rand because of my issue above.
but don't get me wrong my comment is about the simplification of complex issues dumbing down the country then trying to show the depth when it bites them in the ass. if you want to respond to me about anything in the civil rights issue message me i have not said one thing about my side and jumping the gun will put you on the same level as fox is.
I don't buy into this notion at all. Sometimes government intervention is needed and it can play a role in changing society for the better. I really doubt the average Southerner would have agitated to change the existing system on any meaningful or timely scale.
i didn't hear many average white southerners objecting to this alleged "state coercion" at all at the time. do you have any evidence to the contrary? it wasn't just "state coercion" driving discriminatory attitudes - the kkk was not and is not a government bureau for example.
The KKK? That was a case of Government policies(Such as Jim Crow laws) giving birth to movements. This has happened multiple times since(Pro-life pro-choice, for one).
Oh, and as I said, the government was simply late to the party and took all the credit from businesses voluntarily de-segregating.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK "Oh, and as I said, the government was simply late to the party and took all the credit from businesses voluntarily de-segregating."
What evidence or information that supports that conclusion?
@kaysandesses That's a rather childish assertion by somebody who can't back up their words. If you bothered in the slightest to do as I recommended, you'd see that I am right.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I find it ironic you should mention "debate", considering you apparently have no idea how one is conducted. A debater doesn't prove their case by saying "look it up". -yawn-
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You wrongly accuse me of resorting to an ad hominem attack for calling you out because you can't support your "argument" with facts, and then you end your post by calling me a "kid"? Too funny, I think my cat knows more about conducting a debate than do you. "Look it up".... Perhaps you should look up the term ad hominem to see what it really means, intstead of what you think it means.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Which is something I have not done and you have. Mind providing evidence to back your assertions instead of telling me to "look it up"? You won't, and I won't waste anymore time dealing with someone who lacks the integrity to actually back up what they say.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK What complete a utter bullshit. You made a claim and when challenged to back it up you replied with "look it up". That, you mindless little prick is the epitome of trolling. I know it, and what's even better is that YOU know it. Now go play in the street.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You're every bit as misinformed as Stossel. Neither of you have any grasp of what happened in the South. Megyn is right on the spot here.
@poop121 Hate to tell you but the government was 4 years late in integrating the lunch counters at woolworths. you know what did? people, free people using non violent protest hurt the bottom line and that's REALLY all businesses care about STOSSEL FTW!
Media Matters? Aren't you guys run by George Soros money? YES. Is media matters a progressive organization? YES. What are progressives? Socialists and Communists! Keep fighting fools, America is on to you and Maobama, 1 and done 2012!!!!
Rand Paul is not Raciest. He is very clear on this point. I don't agree with his stance on this particular issue but overall I think he is good for America.
@smaakjeks Yes, it's wonderful to rely on others for help when we need it. It's vitally important to make connections with others, to help others, and to seek out help when you need it.
The issue, of course, is choice. What if I don't want to be a part of a society? Why should I be able to count on the help of people I have never met, even people who might not like me because I have hurt or injured them in the past?
Peaceful society is based on voluntary cooperation and relations.
If you don't want to be part of society, you shouldn't live where society exists. I'm not a fan of the phrase "if you don't like it, then get out". It's often used as an annoying and bullying tactic to coerce acceptance by dissenters. But really, if society is exactly what one doesn't want to take part in, then one has to move out of town. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
@smaakjeks Please tell me where exactly I can "get out of society". Virtually every square inch of soil on this planet has some armed government lording over it...
There are thousands of square miles of open wilderness on every continent where no one will care about you or demand anything from you. I think you would likely get lonely, starved or ill at some point, though.
@smaakjeks And yet, if I walk out of them, into a small town, and trade some beaver skins I've gathered for supplies..even if I don't use any aspects of civilization, not even roads..someone will give me a hard time.
And what if I want to go with, say, a few hundred friends and set up a self-sufficient community?
I promise you, SOMEONE will have a problem, virtually every square inch of the world
I thought you said you didn't want to live in a society? Now you're talking about trading beaver skins and bringing a few hundred people somewhere to live. In any case, you're wrong. There are examples of self sufficient communities out in the middle of nowhere that you could join. As long as you pick a spot that has little potential economic or political value, no western government will give a monkey's if you set up a yurt and live off the land.
"My point was that we are forced to live under the yolk of some government, or we will die."
If you want to live with other people, there will be some form of governance to maintain stability. Whether it be an existing one, or if a new one emerges from the group of people you drag into the wilderness with you.
"The freedom to starve to death alone is no freedom."
What can I say? Pick the lesser of two evils. Live lonely and free, or with others in varying degrees of forced cooperation.
Is that really so? Since when is cooperation 'forced'? I have cooperated with many different people in my life. In no instance was anything 'forced.' People cooperate because they have a mutual gain from cooperating, and will lose if they don't. Government can be defined by the monopoly of violence. I don't see anything inherent about this state of affairs.
Do you think humans are incapable of devising a way to maintain order without any party having a monopoly of violence? If so, I disagree.
Humans engage in a tit-for-tat game of reciprocal altruism. That game has rules.
"I have cooperated with many different people in my life. In no instance was anything 'forced.'"
That's because you do cooperate. By the same token, I've never met a government employee who forced me to comply with anything, because I stick to the rules.
"If so, I disagree."
What's the alternative and how can it remain stable and beneficial for most?
He would speak against them, he would encourage protest against them, but he would NOT have the government force them to serve people they do not want too. That is tyranny.
@adiostraitorobama There is no mistake in what I'm saying. All along, I've only spoken of a sight-unseen customer. There are many aspects of being a store owner. You could have a tourist shop, a fast food shop in a minority part of town, a barber shop in the high end of town, etc. There are too many avenues in which to conclude that one way of saying something will not include another unconsidered scenario. It's splitting hairs to even talk about this subject.
There are many people that have low opinions against young, obese, ugly, or obnoxious people but businesses serve these customers anyway even though these are not protected categories. Will the political correctness people want to pass anti-discrimination laws for these folks? Anti-discrimination laws are a form of thought control. Glad we have Stossel on TV!
No, you can be as racist or discriminating against people you want. No one can take away your right to hate anyone with every fiber of your being. But, if you own a store you have to take their money. How is that thought control?
@smaakjeks These laws are intended by the gov't to social engineer our thoughts and beliefs. And if a store refuses to serve some unruly customers, the gov't will prosecute the owner for the what he must have been thinking.
Nonsense. Customers who don't abide by store policy can and do get refused service. You just simply cannot refuse service on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation etc. That's it. If there are douchebags in your establishment and they happen to be of a minority, for example, you can still toss them out on their ass like everyone else. That is not social engineering.
@smaakjeks So do you think we need laws to prevent discrimination against obese or young people too? We must need that because businesses are free to discriminate against them, right? I think discriminating against the obese or young is wrong but the gov't doesn't. And how exactly does the gov't define someone's race? Or prove that a store owner refused service because he didn't like them vs. their race. The right answer is that our gov't needs to stop dividing us into groups with labels
In principle it's quite simple. You should not be able to refuse someone service for who/what they are (fat, young, women, gays), as long as they don't behave in a disorderly or disruptive manner. You demonstrate that by only refusing service to customers who DO behave in such a manner.
Of course, there are exceptions. If your business cannot make reasonable accommodations for certain people, or if your business has limitations by other laws, like an age limit, then that's fine.
Than you don't own your business if the government can force you to serve people you may not want to.
What if you're a Jewish store owner and a neo-nazi wants to come in and buy something? Should you have a right to refuse service to him, or would that be discrimination?
Yes, you would still own the business. You take the money, you make the rules. They just can't be any rules you could dream up.
Of course the neo-nazi should get service from a jew. As long as the neo-nazi behaves like a regular customer and adheres to store policies (like, the owner could forbid the wearing of swastikas inside their establishment if it were a big enough problem in every day life).
Read my comments to "TimeWarp66" and "alc99". Not that the reporter did an awesome job, but my comments go into why Stossel is wrong and full of phail.
@smaakjeks I'm honestly not seeing what's so wrong about "letting" a business discriminate. Do you seriously think the only type of regulation exists at the point of bayonet?
The alternative is regulation by popular vote. Majority opinion is not always the one that ensures equality among citizens. I'll quote myself from another comment in this video comment section: "What if, say, in Texas businesses refused to serve atheists or communists. You think all of those businesses would go broke or lose serious business? Heck, many would probably GAIN money for being wholesome christian capitalist stores of freedom and awesomeness."
It's their way of not having to deal with ideas. If they label you a racist, anything you say can be easily dismissed. That's their game plan for November against Rand Paul.
Well, it's not racist. But it sure is stupid. It makes society's laws regarding customer treatment contingent upon customers majority opinion. Majority opinion is not always the best in terms of equality. What if, say, in Texas businesses refused to serve atheists or communists. You think all of those businesses would go broke or lose serious business? Heck, many would probably GAIN money for being wholesome christian capitalist stores of freedom and awesomeness.
Who says the service will be bad? They may be just great at their service. Everybody wins, right? Oh, right. Except for those few atheists and communists out there. Ah well.
stossel is usually just as bad as every person on t.v.... BUT HE IS DEAD RIGHT ABOUT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS... I don't need to government to tell me "DON'T BE RACIST"
paco757 1 month ago in playlist Liberty
Wow. I actually agree with Megyn...
"Government" is just people. Businesses are people. There are some things that "government" decides "businisses" can't do. "We" decides that "we" can't do some things.
Azakhiel 3 months ago
So I should be able to benefit from the public transportation system (roads, publicly funded projects, signs and traffic lights), have my property protected with tax money from everyone, including "those people" and should be able to benefit from being connected to publicly subsidized utilities and be able to discriminate? Here's an idea. If you want to discriminate your business should be isolated in the woods. You pay for the road, protection, etc.
srhanna 9 months ago
@srhanna If the govt decides to get involved through funding and ownership then you yourself should benefit and that should really be counted as public.
unknownunknowns 9 months ago
If I ask a woman out and she declines, then she is a bigot and has discriminated against me. Or if I cannot afford a hotel room I can sleep in someone's nice hotel and they put me out, they are bigots. If one doesn't own their property, then who does?
razerfish 9 months ago
This will light the litmus paper because libertarianism is a philosophy of freedom and hence freedom means people have the right to discriminate. I don't agree but that is the philosophy; it takes individualism is taken to an extreme. In the USA discrimination was bad and government intervened. My view go by Christian tradition - that is my philosophy. I'm speechless.
modomnoc1010 10 months ago
You don't need to correct me. You need to learn to read. I haven't mentioned the freedom of speech once, you've brought it up twice.
There's more to the First Amendment than the freedom of speech.
mpc91 10 months ago
To remind everyone, as an owner, he or she has worked to attain/maintain his/her private property and does not want it to be wrecked. And to do this, it's just a matter of whom you TRUST.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
(cont.) When you invite a person in your car, you are RISKING your LIFE so by choosing the white person, the driver reduces his CHANCES of becoming a victim. So by discriminating, the driver is forcing black customers to force other blacks to not commit crimes, which can explain all of these 'black' cites, like Compton, CA. Thus, this repeal may lower the CRIME RATE and race relations can improve. So, using Woodrow Wilson's adage "War to end all wars", I say RACISM TO END ALL RACISM.
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
I used to think that racism was just plain wrong but I find it maybe a pragmatic tool, depending on the circumstances. For example, if you were a white taxi driver in the Big Apple, and there were two customers, one white and the other black. Under that law you can't discriminate but with the repeal you can. As for the reason, that driver may know that statistically blacks commit more crimes than whites. Yes, not all blacks commit crimes but do you KNOW that PARTICULAR person? (cont.)
unknownunknowns 11 months ago
"you should let businesses decide for themselves whether they're going to be racist, or not racist, because once the government gets involved its a slippery slope".
I'm sorry, but i heard that one time and had to replay it to make sure my mind wasn't playing tricks on me.
Oh megyn, megyn ,megyn, megyn, you stupid, deplorably ignorant excuse for a newscaster. Do you think before you speak? Or does stupidity come natural to you? Racism in ANY institution is harmful to society, no matter the spin
drpeppa2357 11 months ago
@drpeppa2357 it's also harmful to the people that practice it. How does this magically invalidate freedom of association?
Houshalter 11 months ago
Are you just a total idiot and Stoessel, you too.
progressivegrannie 1 year ago
@progressivegrannie ad hominem is the best form of argument.
Houshalter 11 months ago
Stossel is absolutely correct. If you're only going to listen to one person on all of Fox News, let it be him.
4gl2u 1 year ago 2
The law is already there. Why is this a big deal anyway, is it necessary to remove a law that prohibits racism? Laws should be made to make society better not to make way for hate. If the law is removed, a lot of America's nasty past will bear its ugly head & give way to civil unrest
terryliver 1 year ago
@terryliver
Incorrect. In no way shape or form is social policy and/or law a power of the Federal Government. Read the Constitution. Laws regarding social activities should not be in the hands of any government entity because of simply put, regardless of party or whether George Soros has paid for it, it is not Constitutional. Therefore, it's gotta be progressive crap.
metalgate 1 year ago
@terryliver if a business banned black, it's excluding about 20% of it's potential customers plus anyone like me that is willing to boycott places like that.
And no, laws do not and can not make society better. All they can do is impose values onto others by force.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter I agree with the first part of what u have to say, but I must respectfully disagree with the statement about laws. A society without laws is total chaos. Laws bring order & stability to any society. Laws are not perfect but it is necessary. Its simple Don't KILL, Don't RAPE, Don't STEAL aren't you glad these laws are there to protect u & your family. Should these laws not "force" a murderer to not Kill or "force" a thief not to steal.
terryliver 1 year ago
@terryliver "A society without laws is total chaos." History says otherwise.
Killing, raping, stealing, are all property rights violations. Those are not laws, those are rights.
The government can not protect your property by taking half of it first, it can't protect your freedom by creating endless lists of things you aren't allowed to do, it can't stop violence by initiating massive wars and genocides, it can't protect the poor by destroying the economy every other decade, etc.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter I must say again that i disagree.When u infringe on someones human rights isn't that "Breaking the Law"? If I Rape or Kill isn't that breaking the law?Then why are murderers & thieves in Jail? I would think that it's because they have broken a Law.
And Yes we still have problems even when the law is there, we all know that it will be much worse if there was no Law at all.
terryliver 1 year ago
@terryliver if the law didn't exist, it wouldn't make murder right. Likewise, just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong.
Maybe some degree of "law" is necessary, but in the vast majority of situations people think it is, it really isn't, and when it is, it should be done on a competitive basis rather then a single monopoly that people are forced to pay for and use against their will. If you want a war on drugs, pay for it yourself.
Houshalter 1 year ago
Comment removed
agent1up 1 year ago
...But when employers argue for priveleges and special treatment because they "create jobs", then a certain amount of compromise should be expected. Those favors SHOULD come with conditions, or that favoritism should be denied. In an age of monopolistic megacorporations, free market competition is often not a factor, and the bad P.R. that comes from such racist behavior will have no recriprocal backlash from irate consumers, because they can't simply go to the competitors instead.
JonasPlanck 1 year ago
Note to Stossel and Rand Paul--it was done your way for years--it brought us civil rights marches, rampant discrimination based on race, and Southern Democrats becoming Republicans. You remember the Southern Democrats--the ones who were for "separate but equal".
exsinor 1 year ago
@exsinor John Stossel and Rand paul are not advocating the "separate but equal" idea, or any other form of state-endorsed racism. All they are saying is that private business owners should be allowed to be racist.
xoy71 1 year ago
@xoy71 Balderdash If it is allowed, it is endorsed. As long as it is a business open to the public, racism is not to be allowed. If they want to practice racism, they should become a private dues paying club or organization.
exsinor 1 year ago
@exsinor I support the right of free speech. Does that mean I endorse everything everything that can possibly be said? Of course not, so how is supporting freedom of association endorsing racists?
Houshalter 1 year ago
Stossel is right. An open mind and critical thinking is the only way to approach something so sensitive, and freedom of association has always been a freedom in this country.
scott04la 1 year ago
Idiotic.
lkdsjflskdfj 1 year ago
people who watch fox news need to be pitied not chastised.what they hear they actually believe is the truth
101shitkid 1 year ago
I agree 100% with John Stossel.
I also maintain that the FOX anchor is still a moron, as previously noted.
bhxinfected 1 year ago
@bhxinfected tragic. The private businesses in question were run by people who were unequally benefited from slavery and discrimination. The institution that allowed them to get those businesses. It was necessary to fix the problem that the inequality created. And the anchor made a great point with respect to murder.
cdog4100 1 year ago
@cdog4100 The rights of private ownership and murder seem to be two very different issues
broggi007 1 year ago
@broggi007 True, but they aren't different with respect to the private acts taken by private business open to the public. Claiming that private businesses open to the public should be able to act racistly the market will punish those that perform poorly ignores the fact that we allow the government to impose other restrictions on private businesses (that the market would also punish). Murder being one of them, serving poisonous food is another, false advertisement, breaching contract, etc. etc.
cdog4100 1 year ago
So according to the example of Murder provided... Private club leaders should be allowed to commit murder within their organization? They are currently allowed to discriminate based on race so they should be allowed to murder right?
broggi007 1 year ago
@cdog4100 And no one is arguing against complete government regulation on business... It is needed in some instances. But physical harm like murder and poisonous food vs hurt feelings like racial discrimination are two completely different animals... if they appear synonymous to you then OK.
broggi007 1 year ago
@broggi007 You have made an an attempt at distinguishing when government's should intervene (apparently at the level of immediate physical harm). Rand did not. But when the public accommodation cases came down, blacks LITERALLY had to sleep in their cars, or next animals, etc. You'll no doubt concede that this is more than an issue of hurt feelings. This is an issue of where to draw the line, not that no line need be drawn. Exactly the point that the anchor was making (perhaps poorly).
cdog4100 1 year ago
@cdog4100 You are right in that blacks were severely mistreated during the times before the civil rights act. In the northern states there wasn't much of an issue for blacks trying to find establishments that will cater to them. There were restaurants and establishments in the South that catered to black people during that time but they tended to be hard to find or get to. Should everyone have the RIGHT to have a place that will cater to them within a reasonable distance/reach? Perhaps...
broggi007 1 year ago
@cdog4100 Say that I agree with you in that there was perhaps a need for this law back in the day... is it still relevant today? Laws in this country are destined to be amended and change as the needs change. Do we still need it? Prohibition came and went...
broggi007 1 year ago
@broggi007 Hey man, I am all for you or Rand Paul making arguments that are something like "Racism does not cause sufficient enough harm such that we should allow the government to intervene." I think your wrong, but that at least is consistent with how we decide what laws are appropriate. That is not the argument Rand Paul makes. Paul says that government has no place regulating race in private business because it infringes liberty - but, as I said early, every law does.
cdog4100 1 year ago
@cdog4100 I agree with you wholeheartedly that laws infringe upon liberties but it is important to have them in many instances. There will always be people on both sides of the aisle and my reason for replying to you wasn't to try and convert you! It was to call into question this sort of comparison between infringing on someone's "right" to have coffee in a privately owned establishment and someone's pretty obvious right to life (ie.not be murdered)
broggi007 1 year ago
@broggi007 Well, then we are at a point of agreement. I was never making the argument that there is no difference between murder and having a cup of coffee, but making the argument that proscribing those actions is inherently liberty infringing, and I think that that Rand Paul makes a vapid argument when he suggests that merely because a law infringes liberty it is invalid. And it is one that Stossel enthusiastically embraces. That is what I meant by "the Anchor was making a good point about M"
cdog4100 1 year ago
@cdog4100 anything that infringes on people's rights is invalid. To say otherwise would be a complete contradiction of terms. How can you even acknowledge right's exist when you admit it is ok to infringe on them?
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter I do not acknowledge that an absolute right to liberty exists, nor do I suggest that it is ok to infringe on rights. Your question presumes that liberty is an absolute right. It is not. When the Gov't jails murderers it does not infringe on their rights, even thought it deprives them of their liberty. I hope I've cleared up your confusion.
cdog4100 1 year ago
@cdog4100 look up "the philosophy of liberty".
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter completely inapposite to the issue. Liberty is not an absolute right in our system of government. Look up the due process clause of the 5th amendment. I've answered the question you've asked. Let's move on.
cdog4100 1 year ago
@cdog4100 why does the government get to decide what is right and what is wrong? Couldn't you justify anything that way?
Houshalter 1 year ago
@cdog4100 - You cite the fifth amendment, while ignoring the first, ninth, and tenth amendments. The rights of the people are to be considered before the rights of the government. The entire document is written to establish a government, and limit that government's powers to those enumerated in the document. The liberty of the individual against the power of government is a running theme.
mpc91 10 months ago
@mpc91 I am not ignoring any of the constitution. Your comments truthfulness is only matched by its irrelevancy. The government can, should, and does act to regulate private behavior. Civil rights act is such a law. There is no absolute right to "liberty." And to your First Amendment argument, there is no absolute right to "free speech." Government can regulate the time manner and place of speech. True threats are not protected, even though they constitute "speech" in the strictest sense.
cdog4100 10 months ago
@cdog4100 - Wrong part of the first amendment, I was referring to the freedom of association.
And you are ignoring the ninth and tenth amendment which specify that the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
That you put liberty in quotation marks shows that while you may have read the Constitution, you certainly don't understand it. It is meant to protect the people from overreaching government, and we've lost that.
mpc91 10 months ago
@mpc91 I need to correct you first, free speech is not the wrong part of the Constitution to look toward when looking for evidence of protections against an overreaching government. Second, you continue to bring up points that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. If your trying to make an argument, do it. Typing "you don't understand the [Const.]" does not an argument make. Again, nothing you've said undercuts anything I have previously stated.
cdog4100 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cdog4100 - You don't need to correct me. You need to learn to read. I haven't mentioned the freedom of speech once, you've brought it up twice.
There's more to the First Amendment than the freedom of speech.
mpc91 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cdog4100 - You don't need to correct me. You need to learn to read. I haven't mentioned the freedom of speech once, you've brought it up twice.
There's more to the First Amendment than the freedom of speech.
mpc91 10 months ago
Stossel how do you know when you come to a place thats Discriminates? I know you could have different days of the week were only one group can come in. Or run it like the flavor of the day or the soup of the day. And what if short redhead midgets is the flavor of the day. that means most people get in, Right? LOL
95tahoe1 1 year ago
Stossel and Paul are right. If someone wants to be a racist in their own home and not let certain people in, no one would dispute it is their right, however repugnant it is. Why should it be any different for a business? It's still privately owned. The owner should be able to set their own rules.
Any business that practiced descrimination today would be boycotted and picketed out of existance in weeks. The issue would be solved without government involvement.
TheStapleGunKid 1 year ago
This dumb blonde asks, "How do you know that they would have integrated voluntarily?" I wish John would have said, "Because a law was required to prevent them from doing so." Jim Crow laws punished business owners and operators who tried to integrate. Simply repealing Jim Crow laws though wouldn't have fit with statists agenda to create laws which dictate behavior. Less bad laws is never going to be as good as new laws with high sounding names.
j1a2r34 1 year ago
EVERYTHING SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY!!! REPEAL TITLE II OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT!!! ABOLISH THE STATE!!!
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
lol megyn kelly is a total camwhore....and john stossel is a mustache pedophile lol im a big troll lulz
luisakanaruto 1 year ago 2
@luisakanaruto #1 yes, #2 no, #3 definitely.
bhxinfected 1 year ago
this blonde needs to get off the self reiches rant pills
Internettroll1 1 year ago 2
amen rand
kommon12Cents 1 year ago 2
lol but they have nothing against blondes or mustaches. it was blacks and it was very horrific to do.
ryler05 1 year ago
Media Matters is so full of ignorant hate and divisiveness. They are Pro Democrat establishment.
GovernmentSham912 1 year ago
With Freedom Watch and Stossel, it's so ironic how Fox news has become the only watchable network on TV. How hilarious is that? Just think about a few years go, when the Fox network was considered the most unreliable among people in the know. Democracy Now with Amy Goodman was the only objective news source. What the hell is going on? My favorite shows with Stewart and Colbert are becoming worse and worse. There's a huge paradigm shift going on and it scares the shit out of me.
chicapees 1 year ago
@chicapees dont worry. the democrats and republicans are on the same team. When the democrats are in power, the republicans represent the will of the people as opposed to the will of the establishment. When the republicans are in power, the democrats voice the will of the people. The pendulum game. It gives the less than 20% who are interested in whats going on the illusion thats its a fight between the two sides (limits).
ColdCypher 1 year ago
if they want to tackle an issue like this, they should have used smoking as an example. Why should the government be able to tell a private establishment whether they can be smoking or non-smoking?
Discrimination is a slippery slope, and although one should not be allowed to discriminate in a public area, on the same hand, someone shouldn't be told whether they are allowed to discriminate or not.
djkhaless 1 year ago 2
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." H.L. Mencken
studentofsmith 1 year ago 2
In a way, they kinda have a point about the private business stuff, but it's really not as big of a deal as they're making it out to be. I mean, is it really that bad if the government says "Hey. You gotta let black people eat at your restaurant."?
shelbycobra131 1 year ago
yes, its like the government telling you to let a military man stay at your place in the time of war . if i owe a bar i want to be able to serve who i want whenever i want i do not want the government regulating what sort of people i have in my establishment that goes for workers, consumers etc. it just gives the government more power then it should.
scienceatheism 1 year ago
...has anybody noticed this woman's nostrils.....?
itsgreek2u 1 year ago
Hahaha, wow this is so scripted, it's painful to watch. :) Faux News is so fucking ridiculous, haha. :)
fearguis 1 year ago 2
@fearguis Awwe come'mon
You just can't handle their market shaRE.
If being insignificant makes a news broadcaster more "real"..... we know who you tune into.
59Gretsch 1 year ago
@59Gretsch Uhm the demographic of Faux News is in fact the minority. That's why they are fighting so hard to smear the current president. Sorry, mate, but you lost. :)
fearguis 1 year ago
@fearguis Name just one contender that has higher ratings?
59Gretsch 1 year ago
@59Gretsch I'm not talking about ratings. I'm talking about their demographic, which is the Republican party. You know, that party that disappeared in disgrace a few years ago?
fearguis 1 year ago
@fearguis
1. If you think the Republican party has disappeared, stick around for a few more months.
2. if you think FOX watchers consist only of republicans again you are way off track.... in fact their ratings are so dominate... I don't know how you could imagine the GOP is dead???
The coffee if brewing, why cant you smell it?
59Gretsch 1 year ago
@59Gretsch My original comment was the Faux News is ridiculous. You started talking about ratings, which has nothing to do with my comment. Faux News is ridiculous, and is Republican propoganda.
The fact that it has high ratings is beside the point. Jersey Shore has high ratings also, because most Americans are fucking idiots. Take a look in the mirror if you'd like to see an example. :)
fearguis 1 year ago
Go Stossel, you outclassed her. Great argument.
" like murder" ok lady your kind of dumb.
RyanR3volution 1 year ago
The Gay softball assc DOES accept straight people too.
elviolette 1 year ago
Stossel knocks it out of the park again.
After all if it is so wrong for one hotel to discriminate in a town how do we now let all these private organizations do it.
We are on the slippery slope for sure and freedom of association is now in the cross hairs.
59Gretsch 1 year ago
@59Gretsch lol is has been law since the 60s...not sure how we are sliding down at this point.
astupid16yearold 1 year ago
@astupid16yearold Don't be silly, one law like this naturally leads to the "next step".
By the way, when was the "Americans w/ disabilities" act passed?
Sounds noble enough but the costs are unbelievable. but the Gov has the right to make your small biz comply even though no one but you has access to thaT BATHROOM.
59Gretsch 1 year ago
@59Gretsch oh you mean the disabilities act of 1990 passed by former president george bush senior with a provision that requires businesses to setup layout in such a way possible that handicap people have access to the bathroom? Not really sure how that is related to preventing racial discrimination when selling to customers, and how that could lead to a "slippery slope with freedom in the cross hairs". Do you think we shouldn't care about handicap people and their access to our businesses?
astupid16yearold 1 year ago
@astupid16yearold I can see your knowledge of the "peoples with disability act" is limited so no use to further proceed.
Small hint..... Just because something might be a "Good idea" doesn't mean it's the federal gov's place to impose it across the land... because when they do, it does only lead to the next "good idea".
59Gretsch 1 year ago
Arguing that parts of the law are no longer necessary due to social progress, and do not need to be enforced with as much vigor is a feasible position, and arguably true. Any business that panders to racists would be severely harmed.
Arguing that the Civil Rights Act should be repealed, on the other hand, is definitely not smart, and seems almost like you are pandering to certain groups.
Dacadvid 1 year ago
Bump, set, spike... throughout the interview... ugh to these closet racists...
liven2hit 1 year ago
Stossel & Paul are idiots if they think market forces would have ended racial discrimination in places of public accomodation.
QuisletEsq 1 year ago
Would Stossel prefer to eat at a "racist" restaurant in spite of what he says? Probably.
tricharlie 1 year ago 2
this debate is vast and complex, i don't blame rand paul for saying it for the simple reason that he seems to hold individual rights over civil rights that is the mark of libertarians. i also think that Rand Paul didn't think enough to give an actual response instead going the way of talking points, which i blame about 80% on fox for trying to simplify complex issues to news bites. but you can't blame the left for going after rand because of my issue above.
nailo1 1 year ago
but don't get me wrong my comment is about the simplification of complex issues dumbing down the country then trying to show the depth when it bites them in the ass. if you want to respond to me about anything in the civil rights issue message me i have not said one thing about my side and jumping the gun will put you on the same level as fox is.
nailo1 1 year ago
Rans Paul isn't a racist, but he sure is a fucking idiot with a 'liberty' stick up his ass.
unhallowed45 1 year ago
this is why i dont vote libertarian or republican.
Mr1700 1 year ago
@Mr1700 No you vote statist. I am sure.
mkloppel 1 year ago
@mkloppel
no i just dont vote for people who dont have my best interest at hand.
Mr1700 1 year ago 2
didnt vince tell one of his wrestlers to bitch slap him?
espinoza2110 1 year ago
Wow hes starting to loose his mind , that slap from the 1980's coming back to haunt him?
sclf 1 year ago
its a public vs. private issue.
cavanaugh2440 1 year ago
Stfu Stossel.
popatire23 1 year ago
MAN SHE'S HOT
jjmdirector 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have lost all respect for Mr. Common Sense.
Top40ModernRockPlay 1 year ago
I have lost all respect for Mr. Common Sense.
Top40ModernRockPlay 1 year ago
stossel has a really flimsy argument. meghan kelly is the voice of reason here - that's scary.
poop121 1 year ago
@poop121 Hardly. The free market eliminates discrimination.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
I don't buy into this notion at all. Sometimes government intervention is needed and it can play a role in changing society for the better. I really doubt the average Southerner would have agitated to change the existing system on any meaningful or timely scale.
poop121 1 year ago
@poop121 Except they did. Private businesses were already non-discriminatory, it was the coercive State that tried to enforce black codes.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
i didn't hear many average white southerners objecting to this alleged "state coercion" at all at the time. do you have any evidence to the contrary? it wasn't just "state coercion" driving discriminatory attitudes - the kkk was not and is not a government bureau for example.
poop121 1 year ago 2
The KKK? That was a case of Government policies(Such as Jim Crow laws) giving birth to movements. This has happened multiple times since(Pro-life pro-choice, for one).
Oh, and as I said, the government was simply late to the party and took all the credit from businesses voluntarily de-segregating.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK "Oh, and as I said, the government was simply late to the party and took all the credit from businesses voluntarily de-segregating."
What evidence or information that supports that conclusion?
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses Businesses in the South during "Evil Jim Crow Segregation", of course. Look it up, son.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK "Look it up, "
That is without doubt the hallmark of those who cannot support their argument.
FAIL.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses That's a rather childish assertion by somebody who can't back up their words. If you bothered in the slightest to do as I recommended, you'd see that I am right.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I find it ironic you should mention "debate", considering you apparently have no idea how one is conducted. A debater doesn't prove their case by saying "look it up". -yawn-
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses I find it comforting that you've obviously given up, and are attempting to save face. Why else would you resort to ad hominems?
We're done here, kid. :)
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You wrongly accuse me of resorting to an ad hominem attack for calling you out because you can't support your "argument" with facts, and then you end your post by calling me a "kid"? Too funny, I think my cat knows more about conducting a debate than do you. "Look it up".... Perhaps you should look up the term ad hominem to see what it really means, intstead of what you think it means.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses No, I'm well-aware of what it means. One of its definitions is "Ignoring the substance of the debate through attacking the speaker".
Mind telling me why businesses cannot discriminate? I'm all ears.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Which is something I have not done and you have. Mind providing evidence to back your assertions instead of telling me to "look it up"? You won't, and I won't waste anymore time dealing with someone who lacks the integrity to actually back up what they say.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses This is pretty hilarious. You've done nothing but troll, and then try to claim the higher ground by bailing out. Later, little dude. :)
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK What complete a utter bullshit. You made a claim and when challenged to back it up you replied with "look it up". That, you mindless little prick is the epitome of trolling. I know it, and what's even better is that YOU know it. Now go play in the street.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You're every bit as misinformed as Stossel. Neither of you have any grasp of what happened in the South. Megyn is right on the spot here.
kaysandesses 1 year ago
@kaysandesses Nice personal attack with no basis in discussion you got there. Mind giving up if you can't offer a constructive debate?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@poop121 Hate to tell you but the government was 4 years late in integrating the lunch counters at woolworths. you know what did? people, free people using non violent protest hurt the bottom line and that's REALLY all businesses care about STOSSEL FTW!
jjmdirector 1 year ago
Another Soros funded witch hunt. God forbid someone defend the Constitution.
jeffmagic32 1 year ago
awesome:D I Love this guy :) In to my house i can invite who i want but in my restuarant not.
rdk89 1 year ago
Stossel's right. Free market rules.
Screw the whiners.
EAU2007 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Media Matters? Aren't you guys run by George Soros money? YES. Is media matters a progressive organization? YES. What are progressives? Socialists and Communists! Keep fighting fools, America is on to you and Maobama, 1 and done 2012!!!!
mnewman9 1 year ago
He's an idiot. Liberatarians are nut jobs.
adrya1983 1 year ago
Rand Paul is not Raciest. He is very clear on this point. I don't agree with his stance on this particular issue but overall I think he is good for America.
bcbobbie 1 year ago
Hats off to Megan of Fox for being right on this issue.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
Rand Paul can get none of the 200+ Republicans to come to his aid.
He is a racist & out of touch with mainstream America.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Yes, it's wonderful to rely on others for help when we need it. It's vitally important to make connections with others, to help others, and to seek out help when you need it.
The issue, of course, is choice. What if I don't want to be a part of a society? Why should I be able to count on the help of people I have never met, even people who might not like me because I have hurt or injured them in the past?
Peaceful society is based on voluntary cooperation and relations.
zyodei 1 year ago
@zyodei
If you don't want to be part of society, you shouldn't live where society exists. I'm not a fan of the phrase "if you don't like it, then get out". It's often used as an annoying and bullying tactic to coerce acceptance by dissenters. But really, if society is exactly what one doesn't want to take part in, then one has to move out of town. Or am I misunderstanding your comment?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Please tell me where exactly I can "get out of society". Virtually every square inch of soil on this planet has some armed government lording over it...
zyodei 1 year ago
@zyodei
There are thousands of square miles of open wilderness on every continent where no one will care about you or demand anything from you. I think you would likely get lonely, starved or ill at some point, though.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks And yet, if I walk out of them, into a small town, and trade some beaver skins I've gathered for supplies..even if I don't use any aspects of civilization, not even roads..someone will give me a hard time.
And what if I want to go with, say, a few hundred friends and set up a self-sufficient community?
I promise you, SOMEONE will have a problem, virtually every square inch of the world
zyodei 1 year ago
@zyodei
I thought you said you didn't want to live in a society? Now you're talking about trading beaver skins and bringing a few hundred people somewhere to live. In any case, you're wrong. There are examples of self sufficient communities out in the middle of nowhere that you could join. As long as you pick a spot that has little potential economic or political value, no western government will give a monkey's if you set up a yurt and live off the land.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks You've lost track of the original point.
My point was that we are forced to live under the yolk of some government, or we will die.
If I and a group of friends want to live somewhere where we will provide our own social services independent of government, it will be very difficult.
What if we grow and prosper? What if we become a small, fully independent town? Sooner or later, someone will come and shut us down.
The freedom to starve to death alone is no freedom.
zyodei 1 year ago
@zyodei
"My point was that we are forced to live under the yolk of some government, or we will die."
If you want to live with other people, there will be some form of governance to maintain stability. Whether it be an existing one, or if a new one emerges from the group of people you drag into the wilderness with you.
"The freedom to starve to death alone is no freedom."
What can I say? Pick the lesser of two evils. Live lonely and free, or with others in varying degrees of forced cooperation.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
Is that really so? Since when is cooperation 'forced'? I have cooperated with many different people in my life. In no instance was anything 'forced.' People cooperate because they have a mutual gain from cooperating, and will lose if they don't. Government can be defined by the monopoly of violence. I don't see anything inherent about this state of affairs.
Do you think humans are incapable of devising a way to maintain order without any party having a monopoly of violence? If so, I disagree.
zyodei 1 year ago
@zyodei
"Since when is cooperation 'forced'?"
Humans engage in a tit-for-tat game of reciprocal altruism. That game has rules.
"I have cooperated with many different people in my life. In no instance was anything 'forced.'"
That's because you do cooperate. By the same token, I've never met a government employee who forced me to comply with anything, because I stick to the rules.
"If so, I disagree."
What's the alternative and how can it remain stable and beneficial for most?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
We need laws that prevent people from discriminating when they have different viewpoints.
Crystallas 1 year ago
So then, Mr. Stossel--if a business were to say NO JEWS--you'd be OK with that? What fucking bullshit!
Jimmibear13 1 year ago
@Jimmibear13
Yes, he would be okay with that.
He would speak against them, he would encourage protest against them, but he would NOT have the government force them to serve people they do not want too. That is tyranny.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@adiostraitorobama There is no mistake in what I'm saying. All along, I've only spoken of a sight-unseen customer. There are many aspects of being a store owner. You could have a tourist shop, a fast food shop in a minority part of town, a barber shop in the high end of town, etc. There are too many avenues in which to conclude that one way of saying something will not include another unconsidered scenario. It's splitting hairs to even talk about this subject.
Thilindel 1 year ago
There are many people that have low opinions against young, obese, ugly, or obnoxious people but businesses serve these customers anyway even though these are not protected categories. Will the political correctness people want to pass anti-discrimination laws for these folks? Anti-discrimination laws are a form of thought control. Glad we have Stossel on TV!
alc99 1 year ago
@alc99
No, you can be as racist or discriminating against people you want. No one can take away your right to hate anyone with every fiber of your being. But, if you own a store you have to take their money. How is that thought control?
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks These laws are intended by the gov't to social engineer our thoughts and beliefs. And if a store refuses to serve some unruly customers, the gov't will prosecute the owner for the what he must have been thinking.
alc99 1 year ago
@alc99
Nonsense. Customers who don't abide by store policy can and do get refused service. You just simply cannot refuse service on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation etc. That's it. If there are douchebags in your establishment and they happen to be of a minority, for example, you can still toss them out on their ass like everyone else. That is not social engineering.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks So do you think we need laws to prevent discrimination against obese or young people too? We must need that because businesses are free to discriminate against them, right? I think discriminating against the obese or young is wrong but the gov't doesn't. And how exactly does the gov't define someone's race? Or prove that a store owner refused service because he didn't like them vs. their race. The right answer is that our gov't needs to stop dividing us into groups with labels
alc99 1 year ago
@alc99
In principle it's quite simple. You should not be able to refuse someone service for who/what they are (fat, young, women, gays), as long as they don't behave in a disorderly or disruptive manner. You demonstrate that by only refusing service to customers who DO behave in such a manner.
Of course, there are exceptions. If your business cannot make reasonable accommodations for certain people, or if your business has limitations by other laws, like an age limit, then that's fine.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks
Than you don't own your business if the government can force you to serve people you may not want to.
What if you're a Jewish store owner and a neo-nazi wants to come in and buy something? Should you have a right to refuse service to him, or would that be discrimination?
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66
Yes, you would still own the business. You take the money, you make the rules. They just can't be any rules you could dream up.
Of course the neo-nazi should get service from a jew. As long as the neo-nazi behaves like a regular customer and adheres to store policies (like, the owner could forbid the wearing of swastikas inside their establishment if it were a big enough problem in every day life).
smaakjeks 1 year ago
Hats off to Megan - she put Stossel over the barrel for his racist views.
DillonDee1 1 year ago
@DillonDee1 What racism?
frednoname1 1 year ago
I'm honestly not sure what the problem is with Stossel's position. How, exactly, did she "School" him? Mind "enlightening" me, leftists and rightys?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
Read my comments to "TimeWarp66" and "alc99". Not that the reporter did an awesome job, but my comments go into why Stossel is wrong and full of phail.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks I'm honestly not seeing what's so wrong about "letting" a business discriminate. Do you seriously think the only type of regulation exists at the point of bayonet?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
The alternative is regulation by popular vote. Majority opinion is not always the one that ensures equality among citizens. I'll quote myself from another comment in this video comment section: "What if, say, in Texas businesses refused to serve atheists or communists. You think all of those businesses would go broke or lose serious business? Heck, many would probably GAIN money for being wholesome christian capitalist stores of freedom and awesomeness."
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@shawn12ification Nahh, most of them are like this blond bimbo.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
Stossel is the one of my heroes.
Anyone that thinks this is advocacy of racism is a damned retard. who probably has a problem counting past 4.
mkloppel 1 year ago
@mkloppel The left just labels anything not dirrectly from whitehouse press releases racist these days.
frednoname1 1 year ago
@frednoname1
hahahahhaha
so true.
It's their way of not having to deal with ideas. If they label you a racist, anything you say can be easily dismissed. That's their game plan for November against Rand Paul.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
@TimeWarp66
Well, it's not racist. But it sure is stupid. It makes society's laws regarding customer treatment contingent upon customers majority opinion. Majority opinion is not always the best in terms of equality. What if, say, in Texas businesses refused to serve atheists or communists. You think all of those businesses would go broke or lose serious business? Heck, many would probably GAIN money for being wholesome christian capitalist stores of freedom and awesomeness.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
@smaakjeks Then the customers lose out when they get bad service from a "Good Christian". Seems fair to me.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
Who says the service will be bad? They may be just great at their service. Everybody wins, right? Oh, right. Except for those few atheists and communists out there. Ah well.
smaakjeks 1 year ago