rights are not collective....if so then the founders would have created democracy.
the founders did not create DEMOCRACY, BE IT DIRECT OR REPRESENTATIVE, there is no will of the people...thats false.....they created republican government article 4 section 4 , rights of the individual citizens, ...are not at the mercy of a collective body.
you quoted rights are unalienable........well they sure are......... meaning they cannot be taken away by man or government, the bill of rights does not grant or give rights, it only affirms them, rights which existed before the constitution was ever written.
Then it all comes down to the most basic question; What if our founders were wrong?
I'm not going to act like they were idiots, or wrong on every account, but they were just farmers from 200 years ago. If our founders had lived today and never in their own time, they would have written a different document, affirming different rights.
The states are not limited by the constitution. It doesn't work that way; statutory laws provide increasingly higher restrictions as you get more and more local. That's how it works. A local law can't give you more rights, but they can give you less. The idea that no law should restrict your rights, is ridiculous; that's what a law is.question: why is it you think and others who feel like you do, can take away rights of people who have committed no crime........by what authority in the constitution are you and other people given this power?
Yup, "individual", not "business".rights are based on the individual, his life, his liberty and his property.
More words from a man I don't respect as anything more than one of countless philosophers of his day. I think his ideas are short sighted, he couldn't have foresaw our state of corporatism. He made a nice beer, though.Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.-- samuel adams
All of those rights are individual rights. I have no problem with bigots saying what they believe. I have no problem with porn, or abortion, or any other moral debate. If you don't like porn, don't buy it. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like bigots, don't hang out with them. But, that doesn't apply to businesses; In modern society, people are dependent on public accommodation type businesses, in a way that our founding fathers could never have foreseen. We have already created new laws to reflect these changes, the civil rights act is one of them. It's not the nannystate, it doesn't protect you from your own bigotry, it protects you from the discrimination of others.your argument is based on...you dont like what a citizen is doing, even though its not a crime, so you want to use the power to government to stop a citizen from exercising his rights,-------> based on your dislike.
if such legal authority existed, their would be no porn industry, becuase the majority would have shut it down.
abortion, would have never been made legal in the 1970's.......if we can take away OTHER people's rights based on our own morality.
again this all comes down to:"i dont like what he is doing and i want it stopped!"
when a citizen violates the rights of another citizen, that person is committing a crime.
when a citizen enters the property of another citizen, he has NO exercisable rights.........zero, meaning he has no right to free speech, bare a firearm, assembly, secure in his person or property if the owner believes you have stolen his property.
the property owner grants the citizen / patron a privilege of being served, or he may allowed the person to exercise a privilege.... he denies other patrons, becuase it is his property.
no where in constitutions be they state of federal government does it give authority to government or to people to take away rights of individual citizens, who have committed no crime, but just becuase how the citizens exercise his rights is not like by the people.......their is no mob rule..of who gets to do what.
First of all, you didn't actually acknowledge any of my question. Why should we care about the constitution? What makes it correct?
The states are not limited by the constitution. It doesn't work that way; statutory laws provide increasingly higher restrictions as you get more and more local. That's how it works. A local law can't give you more rights, but they can give you less. The idea that no law should restrict your rights, is ridiculous; that's what a law is.
Yup, "individual", not "business".
More words from a man I don't respect as anything more than one of countless philosophers of his day. I think his ideas are short sighted, he couldn't have foresaw our state of corporatism. He made a nice beer, though.
All of those rights are individual rights. I have no problem with bigots saying what they believe. I have no problem with porn, or abortion, or any other moral debate. If you don't like porn, don't buy it. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If you don't like bigots, don't hang out with them. But, that doesn't apply to businesses; In modern society, people are dependent on public accommodation type businesses, in a way that our founding fathers could never have foreseen. We have already created new laws to reflect these changes, the civil rights act is one of them. It's not the nannystate, it doesn't protect you from your own bigotry, it protects you from the discrimination of others.
Whether it's in the constitution is besides the point; it's not a holy scripture or divinely inspired. As libertarians, we need to attack the nannystate, to promote individual rights, not more rights for the businesses (who are not individuals). Do you seriously think that abolishing the civil rights act will promote individual rights?
I agree on all counts, for individuals. I support your right to throw people out of your small business for any reason, including racism, but not if you are a public accommodation. If you're a business, of a size and type that is relevant to this debate, your business decisions are no longer individual decisions. That's the issue, not whether an individual has a right to their property, but whether a business is an individual. They aren't.
Let's be HONEST about this part since we've already been through this. The opening line of that subchapter of US Code specifically states:even the federal government states a business is a person.......us code 29 152.
so your saying when you enter business public laws, .....take away your rights to association, property......when did laws, have the power over rights of citizens who have committed no crime.
Let's be HONEST about this part since we've already been through this. The opening line of that subchapter of US Code specifically states:
"When used in this subchapter -
(1) The term "person" includes ..."
So, that term is ONLY APPLICABLE TO THAT SUB-CHAPTER OF US CODE!
I don't know why you have such a difficult time getting that simple fact through your head. :screwy
The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail. Show me where I can deduct my "business expenses", like rent, utilities, food, etc, etc, from my income.tell me why do you not accept the fact government has made business/ corporations...persons
Mr. ernst barkmann, I'm going to have to end our debate on a "agree to disagree".
We're getting nowhere here, we don't even define our rights the same way.
I've been a big proponent of the legalization of Marijuana, mostly because its prohibition was unconstitutional in the first place. But if I toke it up in front of the cops, no quoting of the constitution is going to stop them from throwing me in prison. I think we can agree that the nannystate is ridiculous, and we should fight it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's already here. The best route to fight the nannystate is peaceful protest and democracy; quoting the constitution isn't going to make them follow it.
In the end, your right to life won't stop a murderer, your right to property won't stop a thief, your right to liberty won't stop a government. Quoting your rights won't protect them.
The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail.
The government doesn't except them as persons - not like you keep trying to use the term. Want proof? Show me a "business" that's in jail. Show me where I can deduct my "business expenses", like rent, utilities, food, etc, etc, from my income.
Which has nothing to do with your continuing misuse of "person" from your US Code reference.that is not the meaning of person, he means the business , can act has a person towards government, a corporation can go to Washington as a person and petition the government just as you and I can...however because they have money, they will get the voice heard quicker then you or I will.
Which has nothing to do with your continuing misuse of "person" from your US Code reference.
Just because an entity of some kind has some similarities to another entity does not let you expand those similarities to include everything about them. Businesses are not persons.
You want another example of how persons and businesses are different? A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself.can a business go to Washington and stand in line like a citizen can at the door of a senator of congressman.....yes they can, and they pay people to do it for them.
there are people who provide a service, it is to stand in line for business in Washington, until there time to speak to their representative.
how can you arrest a business which is composed of many people?.....only if a select individual has been accused of crime can one be arrested .
the business can be charged with a crime, and made to pay a fine.
this is a prime example of why constitutional violations do not apply to people or business, only crimes do.
and constitutional violations are place against government only..... and not crimes, how can government fine themselves, or go to jail.
Not unless you're specifically talking about laws in that sub-chapter of the US Code, which deals with the National Labor Relations Board, IIRC. We've been through this and you're flat-out wrong. IO suggest you get more experience with laws and legal documents because it's obvious you don't have any more of a clue now than you did 10 pages ago. :roll:whether you want to admit it or not, using code 29 ....a business is considered a person by the government.
You want another example of how persons and businesses are different? A person cannot be compelled to testify against himself.
When the Constution has "artificial person" written into it we can talk. Until then your continued use of that document as the only basis for your arguments will continue to hinder you.Courts use a legal fiction of treating corporations as artificial persons in order to allow the law to apply to corporations as a whole. This concept actually began with ancient Rome, where a business was considered to be a single, non-human body made up of many people. In the United States, being treated as an artificial person means that corporations have many of the same duties, responsibilities and protections as real people.
Read more: Why Is a Corporation Considered an Artificial Person Under the Law? | eHow
Not unless you're specifically talking about laws in that sub-chapter of the US Code, which deals with the National Labor Relations Board, IIRC. We've been through this and you're flat-out wrong. IO suggest you get more experience with laws and legal documents because it's obvious you don't have any more of a clue now than you did 10 pages ago. :roll:
I'm done reading your miles-long replies. If you can't make it succinct then it's probably garbage, since most of your other replies like this have also been garbage.<snip - preaching>
I'm done reading your miles-long replies. If you can't make it succinct then it's probably garbage, since most of your other replies like this have also been garbage.
I've already answered this, three posts ago. You continue in circles. Get a clue.can a business petition the government?...as a citizen does?
can it be heard as a citizen is? is a business never charged with a constitutional violation or a crime, as a person is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?