Thread: When life gives you lemons, better get a permit

Originally Posted by Xei

It is public property, and the public, embodied by the government and the laws they pass, has decided that they want to keep private businesses off of their national heritage sites.

What if Macdonalds set up a huge tent on that lawn?

Do you see how stupid this argument is now?

Jeez, I had thought from then - http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/life-i...4/#post1565324 - that you'd know what an argument was by now. How can I find an argument where there is none? As for my statements, Xei, can you find any fault in them?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Same thing happened to a woman who had planted her garden of veggies in the FRONT yard. She thought it would be nice to share with the neighbors, so they could come by and help garden when she wasn't in the garden. But apparently you have to have grass in your front yard where she lives, not vegetable plants.

This sounds more like the work of the local chapter of Satanists For The Eradication of Individuality a.k.a. the local "homeowners association". Many properties come with a requirement that the "owner" of them abide by their decisions.

She was actually arrested for her "offences" and they almost sentenced her to a month in prison. The charges were dropped when enough people spoke out about how much they liked her garden. Almost ALL of the community loved the garden, as most of the children participated in gardening with her.

I should have probably been more thorough in what I meant about it. It was a pretty sad case, though, because you are allowed to have plants that are "common" but the police took the word "common" as not vegetable plants, although the rest of the community considered a garden common.

Originally Posted by Somii

One should have a permit to give candy away on Halloween too.

Giving away gifts and selling products through a business aren't the same thing and fall under different legislation.

Many people are missing the point - restriction against our basic freedoms on public property such as selling lemonade is evident that there are restrictions on our rights. Whatever purpose the lemonade was being sold for should be irrelevant to our permitted code of conduct. This is, at least, how things should be. However, if only we lived in a should world.

So if 1000 lemonade stands crowded the Capitol lawn, you'd be cool with that?

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Same thing happened to a woman who had planted her garden of veggies in the FRONT yard. She thought it would be nice to share with the neighbors, so they could come by and help garden when she wasn't in the garden. But apparently you have to have grass in your front yard where she lives, not vegetable plants.

How is this at all the same thing?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

How is this at all the same thing?

Technically she didn't have authority to plant garden plants, according to the police, in her front yard. It's not "permit" related, but she was arrested for having vegetable plants in her front yard.

I guess I should have said "similar" not "same."

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Technically she didn't have authority to plant garden plants, according to the police, in her front yard. It's not "permit" related, but she was arrested for having vegetable plants in her front yard.

I guess I should have said "similar" not "same."

I think the whole point of the vid in the OP was what people can and can't do on public land. And this story sounds a little fishy, do you have an article with more facts?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Giving away gifts and selling products through a business aren't the same thing and fall under different legislation.

Response to - http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/when-l...8/#post1728957 - seeing how the acquirement of a permit may come with inspection.

So if 1000 lemonade stands crowded the Capitol lawn, you'd be cool with that?

Why does it matter that I be cool with it? Should I hit people with silly jokes?

Originally Posted by Somii

Response to - http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/when-l...8/#post1728957 - seeing how the acquirement of a permit may come with inspection.

People accept gifts at their own risk. When you exchange money for a product or service however, the consumer should be protected.

Why does it matter that I be cool with it? Should I hit people with silly jokes?

Answer my question. Do you think it would be a good idea?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

People accept gifts at their own risk. When you exchange money for a product or service however, the consumer should be protected.

Just leave it be if you don't understand.

Answer my question. Do you think it would be a good idea?

I
don't care if it's a good idea or not.

Originally Posted by Somii

Just leave it be if you don't understand.




I
don't care if it's a good idea or not.

Been drinking tonight?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I think the whole point of the vid in the OP was what people can and can't do on public land. And this story sounds a little fishy, do you have an article with more facts?

Well people also can't sell lemonade on their PRIVATE land... Lemonade Day was about children being told they couldn't sell lemonade because they didn't have a permit.

BBCW: Michigan Woman Arrested and Jailed for Growing Organic Vegetables in her Front Yard I couldn't find the official article that I found before, but this one has the information behind it.

Originally Posted by Somii

Jeez, I had thought from then - http://www.dreamviews.com/f22/life-i...4/#post1565324 - that you'd know what an argument was by now. How can I find an argument where there is none? As for my statements, Xei, can you find any fault in them? Can you refute them or prove them stupid?

Xei, your constant display of stupidity is becoming a nuisance now. When will you ever be right? Continuation of such is unacceptable.

What an awesome debating tactic. Simply pretend the counterargument doesn't exist. It's impenetrable!

You haven't provided an argument. You said that not being able to set up private businesses on a public monument is a 'restriction of rights', and that's basically all you said. It's semantic nonsense. You haven't defined 'rights'. Implicitly you're defining a right as the ability to do anything you want. In reality many rights are actually defined by the inability of others to do certain things. This is obvious.

I'd like to hear what Philosopher and Blueline have to say.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Been drinking tonight?

Hah, I can see why you may have thought that, but no, I wasn't - just stressed. Such behavior isn't likened to me, and for that, I have retracted any negativity towards Xei, and shall give a proper response to you. It's the least I could do

Xei, your problem probably arises from my gamble of the terms 'permitted code of conduct'. When typing this I was well aware of the gamble of using it, for our code of conduct isn't permitted if the laws enacted restricted certain rights, as can be inferred from the enforcement of such probable laws seen in the video. However, in the case that such enforcement was out of regulation, then, such code of conduct may have been permissible.

Spartiate, my point was that my idea about whether or not I considered it a good idea, shouldn't matter, for I respect the rights of other people to carry out what freedoms they may have, without anyone restricting them. Good or bad, deciding one, while unaware of the many factors that are involved, couldn't be well thought out. Besides, the answer probably wouldn't be of both extremes.

This is about as much of an assault on our freedoms as not letting pedestrians roam inside the White House is.

Whooo, sense.

Were Ten cops a little bit more than necessary to shut down a lemonade stand? Perhaps. Were they overly aggressive or rude? In my opinion, not at all. Sites like the one in the video are the property and the heritage of all Americans. Historical sites belong to all of us, because of this, majority must rule. I do agree that stupid laws are made to be broken, but IMO this isn't a stupid law at all. These places have sentimental value to millions of people, and these people would be deeply upset if other historical sites like this one were turned into a bazaar. I think that the emotional well being of this group of people, and the dignity of the capitol of America, trumps the rights of a few greedy people to sell things. It would be different if they were protesting or striving for something valuable and worthwhile, but it is simply a lemonade stand, even if it isn't intended to be JUST a lemonade stand by the people who put it their.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

The police did make a good point.. there's no way to know how the lemonade is being made or what's going into it. Above and beyond the possibility of poison or drugs, kids do some crazy shit. They might drop the spoon on the floor and then just pick it up and stir away without washing it, or who knows what? Make it in the toilet. Decide lemonade would be good with some cough syrup in it... hey, cough syrup tastes good, right? We've always depended on parental supervision to ensure the lemonade gets made right, but these days, is that enough? Seems many parents don't care what their kids do.

If it's ok to sell lemonade on the street in front of your house, then is it ok for people to sell food that way too? How about on street corners and in parks? When does it reach a point that inspections and licenses do become needed? While government might get money from requiring licenses, it also ensures that at least the establishment passes periodical inspections and the food handlers are certified.

I would agree with you, except that inspection and liscences these days are a joke.

Big beefy fast food chains were putting Styrofoam in their burgers. STYROFOAM! Where was the oversight for this product? There was none. It takes an outside investigator to find this out.

Well sure, the system isn't perfect... but to let people sell food without requiring inspections and licenses is hardly a better alternative.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well sure, the system isn't perfect... but to let people sell food without requiring inspections and licenses is hardly a better alternative.

Actually the way the system is set up is that it benefits large corporations and squashes entrepreneurship. Being an entrepreneur of any kind is extremely difficult these days because you need thousands of dollars to pay the city just to sell your product. On top of that, banks loan out less and less and less to entrepreneurs. Meaning, its just too damn expensive to carry on that American entrepreneurship spirit.

As individuals, there's no reason why you can't bake some cookies at home and sell them to raise money for school!! The law should be so much more laxed for an individual or even a tiny group of people versus a corporation or company. If you run into legal issues trying to sell cookies you baked at home, then this country is screwed up! In this case, and with the lemons, the only thing an individual should be required to do is to show that their food has been made in facility that hasn't been inspected, and that consumers eat at their own risk granted the law hasn't actually been broken.

That might scare a lot of people.

But you would be surprised how many people don't care who made it or where, so long as it looks and smells good they'll try it!

If we let people sell what ever they'd like to without paying a penny, so long as its legal, in a public space, then you create a true free market! I think that's kind of exciting. Every city in Texas looks the same. I haven't been to Houston in years and I don't remember what it looks like. But I don't have to. I can make a very accurate prediction of what businesses are there.

I would trust a strangers food more than I would trust something the FDA stamps as safe.

Yes, all true. I don't deny any of that.

But a bit off topic.

The original purpose of licenses and inspections wasn't to line the pockets of big business and shut out upstarts - it was to try to ensure quality and safety in product. And that's still 'supposed to be' it's main purpose. What you mentioned is a later addition due to corruption. And while occasionally some restaurant chain or food manufacturer does let something terrible get through, it's still the exception to the rule.

Almost every meal I've ever eaten in my life has come from either a restaurant or a store... this is true for most of us except for people who grow their own food or don't buy it from large stores. And as far as I know, I've never eaten styrofoam or rats or fingers or any other similar contamination. It's possible I have and it was something that didn't make me terribly ill or kill me (well duh!) but still I'd say by far the vast majority of food I've consumed has been perfectly safe. Is this true in 3rd world countries where there's no regulation and no licensing? Though to be fair of course, they have other issues to contend with as well that complicate matters.

I still say, in spite of the occasional slip-ups and deliberate lapses I'd still rather eat food that's been processed through regulated facilities than trusting to the good will of strangers who aren't regulated at all.

People who haven't been trained in food poisoning for example might not understand the necessity for cleaning and sterilizing utensils that have been used to handle raw chicken before using them for anything else, and unknowingly poison hundreds of people. Requiring licensing at least ensures that the people in charge know these facts. Also regulations require that all products be kept in clearly labeled containers. Without this regulation, people in a kitchen have a tendency to think everyone else will just know what they know, and that nobody will pick up the jar labeled Cooking Oil that they've filled with degreaser and use it as cooking oil. This type of thing can happen a lot if regulations aren't followed.

In fact, in the instances where contaminants got into food and were served, it's always because the restaurant was operating in violation of regulations - sometimes knowingly sometimes not.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I didn't even see the cops get pissed, hell they even threw the cuffs on while they were standing, shows how non-threatening the whole situation was...

As for the 10+ cops, I've been to downtown Washington and the security is intense. That's probably only a small proportion of the total police force present. If the others had nothing else to do, then why not see what the commotion was all about and try to lend a hand? The protesters were non-violent, but there were quite a few of them. If things got more heated, then I'm sure the cops would have appreciated the extra muscle.

Fun fact: if a police officer puts you in handcuffs unneccessarily when you are not a danger to yourself or others or resisting in anyway, then it is considered unreasonable seizure under the 4th amendment and is illegal. (source)

This whole thread just

Okay. The way I think of it: I'm assuming it's against the law to set up lemonade stands and such as a pre-cautious measure. (8 year old boys and girls are commonly known for spending hundreds of dollars on crystal meth to spike your drink at a low cost.) However; who says you have to buy the lemonade? If you don't think people should set up stands to sell whatever they want, don't buy from them. As for the cops that arrest them...I suggest they spend their time arresting real problematic people. You know, like the ones who sold the kids the crystal meth in the first place.

The thread isn't as much of a joke as it is pointing out how silly some of our laws are. They could go a step further and point out how 2 million non-violent "offenders" are imprisoned for using or possessing drugs that the federal government determines illegal. Pretty silly when alcohol and car accidents kill thousands a year, but someone who did nothing wrong other than possess plant matter and/or burn it goes to prison.

Originally Posted by Evolventity

This whole thread just

Okay. The way I think of it: I'm assuming it's against the law to set up lemonade stands and such as a pre-cautious measure. (8 year old boys and girls are commonly known for spending hundreds of dollars on crystal meth to spike your drink at a low cost.) However; who says you have to buy the lemonade? If you don't think people should set up stands to sell whatever they want, don't buy from them. As for the cops that arrest them...I suggest they spend their time arresting real problematic people. You know, like the ones who sold the kids the crystal meth in the first place.

So you'd be OK if there were 1000 lemonade stands set-up on the Capitol lawn?