Refusing Service to Someone Is NOT a Crime

I realize I am on the fringe in my beliefs, but I feel very strongly that as individuals our rights should trump that of society. I am not saying that some form of society should not exist, but I believe by and large what is generally accepted as 'breaking the law' in the world today is wrong.

I believe that unless a crime against person or property occurs that no crime has been committed and that no punishment should be enforced by society. This does not mean that there are no consequences to actions, but that in legal terms, no crime has been committed. Now, do I believe this to the extreme? Well in most cases I do. Because if people do the wrong thing they will end up harming person or property and then society could legitimately deal with the result of their actions.

This means that if I am speeding there is no crime, however, if I kill someone due to my negligence or even simply damage someone's property then I am breaking the law. For property damage there can be insurance and/or restitution made and for manslaughter there can be jail time or some other punishment. Similarly, owning a gun in and of itself is not a crime. What someone does with a gun can be a crime if it harms person or property.

I realize there are some logical flaws in my argument, but by and large people can do what they want when it doesn't commit harm to person or property. Getting your feelings hurt by someone because they don't want to do business with you is NOT A CRIME. It may piss you off or make you go home and cry, but there is no crime.

People have the right to the security of their person and property. Beyond that I don't agree with laws. Am I an extremist? Yes I probably am, but I have the right to my beliefs. When I argue with others on ATS it is from this perspective that there is no valid law which restricts my behavior (or yours) that doesn't harm others or their property.

Under my system war is by definition a crime against person or property (except in defense). Border breaches are trespassing. Child abuse is a crime because physical harm is coming to another human being. Being gay, Christian, black or green is not a crime. Being in a partnership with another human being or multiple human beings is not a crime. Drugs are legal. What you do to and with your body is your business. It really does cover most of the basics of society without infringing on individual liberty.

What form of 'Government' do I support? Only a minimal form which includes a locally elected constable or sheriff and a locally elected judge who is bound to enforce a common penal code that stems only from crimes against person and property. Unless a 'victim' can be found then there is no crime and the state cannot be a victim and by victim I do not mean you got your feelings hurt. Only quantifiable damages to person or property can be considered.

A minimum of regional and national Governments can provide for common defense against other nations (or regions), but no wars of aggression. Military service can only be voluntary thus unpopular wars of aggression would be nearly impossible while defense of homeland would see an up-swell of support.

Infrastructure taxes can be built into corporate trade and commerce, but no taxes will be levied on individuals or their sole proprietorship or partnership. Thus, the little guy has a significant competitive advantage over corporations which are taxed to provide the needed infrastructure for a modern society. I have NO PROBLEM with corporations being forced to serve all people. Corporations are NOT people in my world and do not have protections that individuals do. Individuals can do business with whomever they wish. They are now TRULY free men (and women).

I am more or less an anarchist, but strongly value individual liberty, safety and security.

Any other aspects of society are superfluous and I oppose.

a reply to: Metallicus

Unless it is used as a tool of institutionalized oppression, then, really it is a crime of both morality and liberty.

a reply to: Metallicus

There should be no consideration for the deeply flawed concept of victimless crime.

Law enforcement is forbidden to prevent crime. It can only apprehend and prosecute suspected criminals.

Holding individuals responsible for their actions is all that is necessary.

In the day.." Management reserve's the right to refuse service to anyone." was posted on signs in many cafes and bars.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
In the day.." Management reserve's the right to refuse service to anyone." was posted on signs in many cafes and bars.

Which would be legal for individual ownership, but NOT for corporations. An individual has rights a corporation does not.

ETA: I realize that individual ownership would have to be capped at some number of employees or revenue to ensure that people do not take advantage of the law. Otherwise corporations could simply have a 'owner'. People would have the right to a certain size of business to provide for themselves and extended family without becoming 'public' and being taxed and subject to 'corporate' rules.

Border breaches are trespassing.

In your belief system, does that mean it's a crime. And if so, how does trespassing adversely affect a person or property?

-dex

a reply to: greencmp

That might work. But you would have to severely punish lawbreakers in order to provide a sufficient deterrent.

I watch a lot of old westerns on tv. Hanging at the end of a rope seems to work pretty well in that regard.



-dex

a reply to: Metallicus

I am of the same opinion, in simpler terms, my rights end where yours begin, do no harm except in defense of person or property and try to always leave things better than you found them.

In regards to law, you're talking about common law which we all used to have, as opposed to statutory law which the banks forced on us. Common law requires a victim, which can be a person or a person through their property, in any event there must be physical harm or damage. Statutory law allows for nebulous situations, victimless judgements, this is where things like the requirements for licenses, speeding tickets, jaywalking, etc. come into play. Statutory jurisdiction allows governments to just make sh*t up to both enrich themselves and their programs as well as oppress and condition the population. It allows governments the ability to apply taxes where none were present before and change the definitions of words to justify their actions. But it also requires contracts, so next time someone wants to charge you with a victimless crime and they tout a "social contract," ask to see the original and where you signed it ;-)

Cheers - Dave

I actually agree with you.

But for me, I guess it all comes down to who you want to be in this life? A good person who respects there fellow man, or a lowlife bitter form of life.

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
In the day.." Management reserve's the right to refuse service to anyone." was posted on signs in many cafes and bars.

Which would be legal for individual ownership, but NOT for corporations. An individual has rights a corporation does not.

ETA: I realize that individual ownership would have to be capped at some number of employees or revenue to ensure that people do not take advantage of the law. Otherwise corporations could simply have a 'owner'. People would have the right to a certain size of business to provide for themselves and extended family without becoming 'public' and being taxed and subject to 'corporate' rules.

That's a tough one that I am still struggling with.

I just don't know enough about the difference between publicly traded corporations and wholly privately held ones.

I certainly can't accept any arguments for the curtailment of free speech. If they pay taxes, they should have representation.

It is the same argument for why unions must be allowed to participate in the political process.

Refusing service based on someone's color, religion or sexual orientation and is discrimination. Which May not be a crime but it does make you a scumbag. If someone is drunk and enters a bar ordering a drink and is refused service, that isn't discrimination. If a couple women walk into a cafe holding hands and based on that are refused service, that is discrimination. I think the only time service should be refused is if someone is a threat to themselves or others. If they are causing a disturbance. Or if they can't pay for aforementioned services. Really other than that no one should be denied service in 2015. This isn't the 1800s and people should really get over themselves.

Peace!

a reply to: PorteurDeMort

Or if they aren't wearing a shirt and shoes.

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: nwtrucker
In the day.." Management reserve's the right to refuse service to anyone." was posted on signs in many cafes and bars.

Which would be legal for individual ownership, but NOT for corporations. An individual has rights a corporation does not.

ETA: I realize that individual ownership would have to be capped at some number of employees or revenue to ensure that people do not take advantage of the law. Otherwise corporations could simply have a 'owner'. People would have the right to a certain size of business to provide for themselves and extended family without becoming 'public' and being taxed and subject to 'corporate' rules.

It is the same argument for why unions must be allowed to participate in the political process.

Wait a second here... A union should be NO MORE than the sum of it's members. Each member has a right to political expression and to participate in the political process. To say the union has a right, gives the union an unfair advantage, since the union then becomes MORE than the sum of its members.

If unions or corporations are to be given the same rights of expression as people, then somebody better figure out a way to jail or execute the bastards in control and/or wind up the union or company when they commit felonies and/or crimes against humanity. If they want the rights, they should have the consequences as well.

Cheers - Dave

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.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: PorteurDeMort

Or if they aren't wearing a shirt and shoes.

Well yeah, that is a sanitation issue. Although topless women get the best service. Just saying.

a reply to: Metallicus

Though I can see what you are saying,and in its basic tenet,it sounds fair. I can not see letting a drunk driver,drive home time and time again,because he did it without having a wreck,and then finally one day he hits and kills someone's kid. There are some preventive laws,and they are there for a reason. Yes they infringe somewhat on people's rights.But you don't have the right to kill someone because you decided to try once more to drive your car drunk. A child has no say so ,if its parents are so negligent as to not insist the child wear a seatbelt to protect it. I have been hit with a bottle rocket that exploded by my ear,because someone didn't follow the law and not have fire crackers in St.Louis. The problem is that when people decide not to follow the law,they DO end up hurting others 9 times out of 10. I don't want to lose my life or be maimed because someone else felt they could do whatever they wanted.

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.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: Metallicus
The problem is that when people decide not to follow the law,they DO end up hurting others 9 times out of 10. I don't want to lose my life or be maimed because someone else felt they could do whatever they wanted.

Not true, I can think of 3 pages worth of things where people can break petty stupid laws that don't hurt anyone, 10 times out of 10. But it's not really what the threads about.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I'm all for equality. But when it comes to being discriminated against and not being served. There is the logic of why you would want to give them your business in the first place. I'd rather just tell them to get stuffed, go write a very negative review on the internet about them, then just be down with it. But that's just me.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa
What if there is no or limited choice? If you live in a small town and the only doctor refuses you treatment based on skin colour /sexuality/religion?

a reply to: Metallicus

AM I missing something?

Where IS IT the law that one must serve someone??


Of course If I ever see you not serve someone, I won't be coming back to your #hole..


And it's people like you who would probably also complain about the service they are getting/not getting... .


But I agree.. There is no need, to serve.. That's kind of like a form of slavery in a way.. Problem is in our society now, it's just easy if you own a business and want to make money without getting destroyed on facebook... The CUSTOMER is right. It is of course your freedom to screw your business into the ground.


Btw do you own a business I would like to know the name.


Know how to get out of Slavery???? Get out of Civilization... dun dun dun.... We like cells in a body are forming a bigger organization.. You can't all be cancer.. We don't have enough T cells yet.