Abbot says he will sign OC bill.

[Mexican_Hippie]

All due respect (I forgot that part)

 

[TheDan]

However, if all gas stations in a town wouldn't do business with black people, I see that as a problem. So then I think that perhaps necessities, energy, transportation, food, should be "protected commodities," etc. I'm not totally set on it, but just thinking.

Well then you get lost in debates of degrees. "Yeah that's a great idea and we need to add this, and protect that, and regulate those," ad infinitum...

The only valid role of government is to protect people's rights. Any expansion beyond that it does the opposite.

 

[breakingcontact]

Well then you get lost in debates of degrees. "Yeah that's a great idea and we need to add this, and protect that, and regulate those," ad infinitum...

The only valid role of government is to protect people's rights. Any expansion beyond that it does the opposite.

But...what rights do we have? Right to life? Right to property? But I need water to live so we need the EPA to make sure I have clean water. We need a fire department to make sure my property doesnt burn down and on and on.

 

[TheDan]

But...what rights do we have? Right to life? Right to property? But I need water to live so we need the EPA to make sure I have clean water. We need a fire department to make sure my property doesnt burn down and on and on.

You have the right to GTFO. This is the debate of degrees I was referring to.

 

[breakingcontact]

You have the right to GTFO. This is the debate of degrees I was referring to.

Ha!

 

[breakingcontact]

Obama sez I have rights to fast interwebz.

 

[TheDan]

Obama sez I have rights to fast interwebz.

If that shit passes, the internet is going to get a lot less free and it's going to be a pain in the ass for everyone. It's a huge power grab by the FCC.

 

[seeker_two]

You have the right to GTFO. This is the debate of degrees I was referring to.

Agreed.....if a person wants to do business with the public made of individuals with certain inalienable rights, then said businessperson should allow carry or GTFO......

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Younggun I'm a libertarian and I agree on property rights. A strong point to make is that it is my choice as to where I go shopping, which businesses I support, etc. I do wonder though, if all owners of some commodity - gasoline, groceries, etc., chose to disallow firearms on their properties, does that constitute a need for relief? For example, I basically favor striking any law that compels a business to open their doors to everyone. The property owner should be able to do business with whomever he wishes. However, if all gas stations in a town wouldn't do business with black people, I see that as a problem. So then I think that perhaps necessities, energy, transportation, food, should be "protected commodities," etc. I'm not totally set on it, but just thinking.

Yeah, that would suck. But because something sucks doesn't mean rights were violated. We don't have a right to buy gasoline or groceries.

I don't believe that town would prosper under the conditions you describe. If it did, at least the racist bastards would all be confined to one area.

As for food being a "protected commodity", on the basis of what? Morally, sure, but the government can't force morality. We don't have a right to buy something from someone if they don't want to sell it to us. That includes groceries. If there was a food shortage and you had ample supplies should you be forced to trade those supplies for other people because food is a protected commodity?

The idea that food is a protected commodity has been stretched to the point now that we are actually forced to not only sell, but to buy food for others.

That is the outcome of violating rights in the name of fairness and in the name of fairness we cheat others of their rights and steal the rewards of the efforts of others.

I believe just about every one of these situations can be sorted out by simply asking yourself "who's rights are being violated?".

 

[rushthezeppelin]

I just have to interject. YG you are one eloquent SOB when it comes to property rights. We might disagree on just how fucked up our government is but I more than agree with you on what rights really come down to and you say it alot better than I could ever hope to. /hat off

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

NM, issues with the phone

 

[ChrisX]

If that shit passes, the internet is going to get a lot less free and it's going to be a pain in the ass for everyone. It's a huge power grab by the FCC.

Since the FCC passed "that shit" in 2010, the internets have been just as free and you didn't even have a clue apparently.

 

[Koinonia]

Since the FCC passed "that shit" in 2010, the internets have been just as free and you didn't even have a clue apparently.

The FCC passed all that junk, but it never was enforced, because it did not have the authority from Congress to do it. The regulations they are trying to impose that they wrote in 2010, is the FCC 10-201.

 

[kotetu]

Thanks younggun, that helps.

 

[ChrisX]

The FCC passed all that junk, but it never was enforced, because it did not have the authority from Congress to do it. The regulations they are trying to impose that they wrote in 2010, is the FCC 10-201.

Actually, no. The FCC was enforcing it and already sanctioned Comcast for blocking web traffic which is why Comcast sued. The FCC does not now have the authority under section 706 as they'd previously claimed according to the appeals court ruling just released. That same court said however the FCC has the authority by claiming ISP's are common carriers or utilities.

Good luck doing much of anything in modern society if your internet provider can decide what content and what websites you're allowed to visit and how fast or slow they feel like letting it download. Kind of like your power company determining what brands of appliances work with their electricity and when you can or can't use it

 

[Koinonia]

Actually, no. The FCC was enforcing it and already sanctioned Comcast for blocking web traffic which is why Comcast sued. The FCC does not now have the authority under section 706 as they'd previously claimed according to the appeals court ruling just released. That same court said however the FCC has the authority by claiming ISP's are common carriers or utilities.

Good luck doing much of anything in modern society if your internet provider can decide what content and what websites you're allowed to visit and how fast or slow they feel like letting it download. Kind of like your power company determining what brands of appliances work with their electricity and when you can or can't use it

Yea, the FCC was trying to engorce it, and lost the lawsuit thay Comcast brought against it, which is why it hasnt been in effect since.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Kind of like your power company determining what brands of appliances work with their electricity and when you can or can't use it

The latter part of that is already happening with Austin and other cities using "smart" thermostats that can potentially shut off your AC when the load on the grid is high.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AustinN4]

Huge thread drift going on here. Why not start a thread on net neutrality?

 

[jordanmills]

If that shit passes, the internet is going to get a lot less free and it's going to be a pain in the ass for everyone. It's a huge power grab by the FCC.

Actually no. If you oppose net neutrality, then you don't understand how internet service works. Or you have a way to make lots of money off interfering with someone else's business.

 

[TAZ]

Huge thread drift going on here. Why not start a thread on net neutrality?

100000+. Net neutrality and the various versions of that embodiment (government's idea and our idea) should be discussed as it will have an impact on people's ability to freely communicate and make $$. It however have nothing to do with OC legislation.