It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Refusing Service to Someone Is NOT a Crime

page: 3
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Except that the business owner pays taxes as much as everyone else, more because he pays business taxes on top of his own personal ones.

It's not like being a business owner makes him some kind of special snowflake in terms of the benefits he derives that no one else does. And you must be of the "you didn't build that camp." Well, if businesses only exist because of society as a collective, then no one should ever open their own businesses again. Everyone should go Gault. How long do you think it will take for businesses to spontaneously combust out of the collective society?

Also, you confuse public and private. A private business owned by a private owner is not a publically held good providing a publically held service. We have those things, they are completely funded by public monies in the form of our taxes, and you are correct in saying the no one should be denied access to those. However if I provided the time and investment to start the enterprise, it's mine. I may provide services to the public, but I should be able to do so on my terms, not yours or the governments. This is only a small part of why Jim Crow was wrong. It dictated how the private business had to do business, and we have no end of similar laws today.

Everyone thinks they know better how to run someone's business better then the business owner without whose own time, money, effort and risk, the establishment would NOT exist for you to boss around.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Metallicus

Refusing to do business with someone fits the definition of a crime you provided because it does, in fact, harm that person. You are assuming that the person could go find that service somewhere else, but this is not always the case.

Here is an example: an electric company refuses to provide services to atheists, Christians, gays, whoever. That person is then without power. They try to use another electric company, but that company either doesn't exist or has the same policy.

The person in the example was harmed because of denial of service.


There are laws against monopolies.

And the law in question today only allows a person recourse to the court for attempt to defend their actions on the grounds of religious defense.

You might want to note that the case of the photographer was in New Mexico which had its own version of the EXACT SAME LAW. They got their day in court ... and they lost.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Those are some of the caveats that I am still wrestling with.

All associations are made up of citizens (except foreign ones where they are not).

It isn't pretty but, I cannot convince myself that a company or union should be prevented from making donations to a campaign or from engaging in public discourse.

After much deliberation, I have come to the tentative conclusion that unions and corporations can be executed in the very same way that they can be born. I am not pretending that this is correct or the final answer but, it is what I am working with as a premise for the moment.

I would be interested in a dissenting opinion on this.

The major exception is that public sector unions must be euthanized.


LOL the above line!

The problem with corporations and unions is they are controlled by people, so if the decision is made, say for dumping toxic waste in a river, then the people who made the decision should be charged and fined or jailed, it's simple. If the crime is even more heinous like providing a drug that is supposed to help people but kills many of them due to fudged reports and paid-off FDA, well, fraud, collusion, conspiracy, murder, etc. charges should be applied to those who make the decisions, jail or death, depends on the extent of the crime. If we were doing this, CEO's would have a lot tighter reign on the corporations they control, since they would be responsible for criminal activity. Corporations and unions are not people and they should not have status as people. Governments, townships and towns are now corporations as well, and again there should be the same level of accountability and responsibility with politicians except because they are also public servants, transparency.

Corporations are primarily fascist/totalitarian organizations and unions are generally are cross between democratic and socialist/communist. Since both corporations and unions are made up of individual people, each individual has the right to vote, therefore adding another vote in the form of a corporation or union would be a little ridiculous. As far as campaign contributions, I don't think corporations or unions should be allowed to contribute. Lobbying, or legalized bribery is part of the problem NOT part of the solution.

Central banks have to go the way of the dinosaurs, except like yesterday! Central banks like the FED and the BOC (and all the rest) are milking the population of billions of dollars per year, and for what? Nothing. There is no product or service they provide that couldn't be supplied directly by government through divisions under treasury.

And on laws, we should have common law for people and corporate/mercantile/UCC law for corporations. It would make things a lot simpler as taxation would fall under purely corporate law and people wouldn't have to deal with all the ridiculous statutory law issues of victimless crimes. It would also limit government size and interference, as well as promote business that operates ethically and hopefully morally.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 4/1.2015 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: johnwick

I think it boils down to whether an accident was the result of negligent behavior or not. If negligent behavior wasn't evident, then the accident would be processed as just that: an accident. However, if extremely negligent behavior, such as intoxicated driving, were involved then some form of punishment would be indicated.

If a legal system is in place that doesn't attempt to prevent these types of events, then a more extensive punishment mechanism would have to be implemented. The theory is that rather than constructing some complex system of prevention, the onus of proper behavior is on the citizens themselves. A proper eye-for-an-eye type of punishment should discourage citizens from taking risks that would endanger the lives of others.

-dex



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: DAVID64

Well that's a pretty harsh example, but I get the point. I suppose in the case of extreme negligence such a punishment would be proper. It would have to be up to the judge to determine the level of recklessness on the part of the negligent driver, and an appropriate punishment applied.



"Law enforcement" is nothing more than slang for "generating revenue". The more laws, the more reasons for them to get money from you.

Unfortunately in this day and age that's the case more often than not. More and more, laws are enacted with the alleged purpose of community tranquility. But the end result is more revenue being generated for local law enforcement purposes with little to show for more "community tranquility."


-dex



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Dimithae
Exactly, taken to its logical extreme the concept of no victimless crimes means you have a home made nuclear bomb in a city and until you set it off you have done nothing wrong.



Maybe in 1985 you can get plutonium at the corner store but here in 1955 it's a little harder to come by.Doc. Back to the Future.



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Those are some of the caveats that I am still wrestling with.

All associations are made up of citizens (except foreign ones where they are not).

It isn't pretty but, I cannot convince myself that a company or union should be prevented from making donations to a campaign or from engaging in public discourse.

After much deliberation, I have come to the tentative conclusion that unions and corporations can be executed in the very same way that they can be born. I am not pretending that this is correct or the final answer but, it is what I am working with as a premise for the moment.

I would be interested in a dissenting opinion on this.

The major exception is that public sector unions must be euthanized.


LOL the above line!

The problem with corporations and unions is they are controlled by people, so if the decision is made, say for dumping toxic waste in a river, then the people who made the decision should be charged and fined or jailed, it's simple. If the crime is even more heinous like providing a drug that is supposed to help people but kills many of them due to fudged reports and paid-off FDA, well, fraud, collusion, conspiracy, murder, etc. charges should be applied to those who make the decisions, jail or death, depends on the extent of the crime. If we were doing this, CEO's would have a lot tighter reign on the corporations they control, since they would be responsible for criminal activity. Corporations and unions are not people and they should not have status as people. Governments, townships and towns are now corporations as well, and again there should be the same level of accountability and responsibility with politicians except because they are also public servants, transparency.

Corporations are primarily fascist/totalitarian organizations and unions are generally are cross between democratic and socialist/communist. Since both corporations and unions are made up of individual people, each individual has the right to vote, therefore adding another vote in the form of a corporation or union would be a little ridiculous. As far as campaign contributions, I don't think corporations or unions should be allowed to contribute. Lobbying, or legalized bribery is part of the problem NOT part of the solution.

Central banks have to go the way of the dinosaurs, except like yesterday! Central banks like the FED and the BOC (and all the rest) are milking the population of billions of dollars per year, and for what? Nothing. There is no product or service they provide that couldn't be supplied directly by government through divisions under treasury.

And on laws, we should have common law for people and corporate/mercantile/UCC law for corporations. It would make things a lot simpler as taxation would fall under purely corporate law and people wouldn't have to deal with all the ridiculous statutory law issues of victimless crimes. It would also limit government size and interference, as well as promote business that operates ethically and hopefully morally.

Cheers - Dave


Yes, the big problem with corporations isn't their ability to participate in the political process, it is this limitation of liability which insulates the individuals involved from accountability.

While lobbying is certainly where much of the cronyist legislation originates, banning lobbying is impossible because it would block everybody from access to their representatives including innocuous citizens associations and individuals as well.

I have a lot to learn about the subject but, I am certain that limiting the power of government to interfere reduces the negative effects across the board.




posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: DAVID64

Well that's a pretty harsh example, but I get the point. I suppose in the case of extreme negligence such a punishment would be proper. It would have to be up to the judge to determine the level of recklessness on the part of the negligent driver, and an appropriate punishment applied.



"Law enforcement" is nothing more than slang for "generating revenue". The more laws, the more reasons for them to get money from you.

Unfortunately in this day and age that's the case more often than not. More and more, laws are enacted with the alleged purpose of community tranquility. But the end result is more revenue being generated for local law enforcement purposes with little to show for more "community tranquility."

-dex


I am not sure how this is exactly relevant to this other than that, even in our existing highly governed society, vengeance has its place as a disincentive to be reckless.

Jury acquits father in shooting death of drunken driver who killed his sons



posted on Apr, 1 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Good point. Thanks for the clarification.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

That's an interesting case. I remember hearing about this a couple of years ago just after it happened. From reading the article, it appears that the father of the victims was found innocent because the prosecution did not present an airtight case, and there was sufficient "reasonable doubt" for the jury to acquit him. However, I suspect that he did in fact exact vengeance on the drunk driver for his negligence in killing his sons.

A few years ago, my wife's best friend was killed in an automobile accident that was caused by a young man who was intoxicated and using a variety of drugs at the time. The drunk driver's car was still mobile and he left the scene of the accident, only to stop on the side of the road a few miles away, where he was arrested. The victim of the accident, my wife's friend, was killed instantly. Her bodily injuries necessitated a closed-coffin funeral.

When the case came to trial, the young man was found guilty of vehicular manslaughter. He served two years in prison. That's it. Just two years! So, I can see why some street justice may be necessary in some cases. Our current legal system is so broken that an anarchist type judicial process may be more effective.

BTW, An earlier comment of yours is priceless:


The major exception is that public sector unions must be euthanized.
I've never heard is put in better terms. I completely agree.


-dex



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join