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

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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

Do you think the market could bear that kind of competition? Cause otherwise it would just select the ten best vendors or so. The capital lawn might as well be a monument to the capitalist spirit, no?

> Implying this conversation is actually just about lemonade stands.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

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

-.- sign. IF YOU DID HAD THE MONEY AND THE KNOW HOW, putting up 1000 lemonade stand wouldn't be a problem at all. simple as that..and if the government wanna stop ya? will you can't do shit about it. tough. simple as that.

when life gives you lemonade, throw it in trash and get your own.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Do you think the market could bear that kind of competition? Cause otherwise it would just select the ten best vendors or so. The capital lawn might as well be a monument to the capitalist spirit, no?

But there'd be no room left for protesters!

Originally Posted by 420Dreamer

-.- sign. IF YOU DID HAD THE MONEY AND THE KNOW HOW, putting up 1000 lemonade stand wouldn't be a problem at all. simple as that..and if the government wanna stop ya? will you can't do shit about it. tough. simple as that.

when life gives you lemonade, throw it in trash and get your own.

ok

Originally Posted by Spartiate

But there'd be no room left for protesters!



ok

haha you cant say nothing, because you know im right.

To be blunt, I have no clue what you're trying to say or what it has to do with what I said .

Originally Posted by Spartiate

To be blunt, I have no clue what you're trying to say or what it has to do with what I said .

lol right.

Originally Posted by snoop

Don't sell them on public property? As far as I know there is nothing preventing someone from selling anything that is legal to sell (i.e. not drugs, etc.) so long as it is not on public property. Your or another person's place of residence or the internet would probably be more appropriate. If it is illegal to sell legal things on the internet or your home then I apologize for being wrong, but I don't seem to see what the big deal is assuming I am right (or even if I'm just wrong about the internet).

Ever bought ice cream from an ice cream cart? If you have, chances are you have purchased goods that were sold on public property (the sidewalk). Are you advocating that all ice cream carts be shut down as well?

Are you advocating that businesses can build on the Capitol lawn?

Define build. I don't think there would be any issue with ice cream carts around the capitol lawn, or lemonade carts. There was a time in our history in which it would probably be okay to graze your livestock on the capitol lawn.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Ever bought ice cream from an ice cream cart? If you have, chances are you have purchased goods that were sold on public property (the sidewalk). Are you advocating that all ice cream carts be shut down as well?

No, I've never bought ice cream from an ice cream cart. And to top it off, I never said in anyway that I thought that nothing should be sold on public property. I was really just pointing out a flaw in juroara's argument, or at least in her example. There's also a big difference between someone who is selling something for an extra buck and someone who is doing it as a livelihood. Someone trying to make a living or at least part of a living is much more likely to follow some sort of standard whereas someone trying to make a quick buck is trying to do just that--they don't need customers to return in the future. I'd appreciate if you didn't project what my opinions are based on nothing. Juroara said that you can't bake cookies and sell them to raise money for school anymore (or even something similar), but the truth is you can, just don't do it on the sidewalk. I guess I just don't see what the big deal is with not being able to set up a lemonade stand when its against the law and the law has good reason for being put in place--namely safety. I mean seriously, you're arguing that we should give up safety so people can sell ice cream or lemonade without a permit. Why is it even worth it? No one would make that much profit anyway, and if they did they could afford a permit.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Define build. I don't think there would be any issue with ice cream carts around the capitol lawn, or lemonade carts. There was a time in our history in which it would probably be okay to graze your livestock on the capitol lawn.

There was a time you could bring guns to school and no one could expect to get shot either, wasn't there? Times are changing.

Originally Posted by Xei

> Implying this conversation is actually just about lemonade stands.

Why is raising the spector of 1000 lemonade stands not implying that the conversation is just about lemonade stands but pointing out that that's not a real problem isn't?

The point is that if people who care about the capitol lawn enough to visit want vendors there then they'll support the vendors and if they don't then they won't. What's the issue?

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

Why is raising the spector of 1000 lemonade stands not implying that the conversation is just about lemonade stands but pointing out that that's not a real problem isn't?

The point is that if people who care about the capitol lawn enough to visit want vendors there then they'll support the vendors and if they don't then they won't. What's the issue?

A lot of people don't, but some people do(could be more or less, I have no clue and it doesn't matter). So the stands would go up and the people who don't want them there can't do anything. Except pass a law.

I could really care less either way. I don't see any problem with selling things on some areas of public property. But some other areas, like national parks(those are public property right?) shouldn't have vendors everywhere. It'd ruin the place. The government has made the capital building into a tourist attraction, having lemonade stands isn't going to change much.

But that's not really the point of this demonstration. I think people have been missing the point that this was about police shutting down lemonade stands run by little kids, not about lemonade stands at the capital building.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

A lot of people don't, but some people do(could be more or less, I have no clue and it doesn't matter). So the stands would go up and the people who don't want them there can't do anything. Except pass a law.

They could protest it. They could present their point. It could be accepted or rejected and people would vote with their wallets for the right choice.

That's how capitalism works, isn't it? I mean, that's kinda what the capital building is all about right? Where the senators get bought and sold?

And now they're flipping over lemonade?

Originally Posted by StonedApe

But that's not really the point of this demonstration. I think people have been missing the point that this was about police shutting down lemonade stands run by little kids, not about lemonade stands at the capital building.

Well then the demonstation was pointless. All that should happen is that parents should sack up and beat the shit out of anybody that tries to fuck with their kids be it a cop or otherwise. Sooner or later people will get the idea not to fuck with people's kids.


And why is it worse for a stand run by a little kid to get shut down? What if a retiree or somebody that was laid off wanted to open a stand? Is the lemonade made by children more pure or something?

Not usually. The kids usually opt for the powder crap instead of fresh squeezed.

For anyone arguing that people shouldn't be able to sell their own food and drinks just because they haven't been inspected by some agency, think about this:

Let's say we lived in a world where anybody could sell whatever the fuck they wanted, be it lemonade, bagels, or whatever (I'll only focus on foods for the purpose of the discussion), without any permits or regulation. How long do you think it would take for the free market to realize that you shouldn't buy food from sketchy ass strangers on the side of the road? If people get sick or start being poisoned from eating the food they bought from these vendors, then first of all, no shit, who would have ever thought that you might not be getting the best quality product from some unknown vendor without a reputation? Once people start to realize that they have to look out for themselves, these types of vendors will go out of business anyway since they can't be trusted, especially when there are better, more reputable options to choose from (which there should be plenty of in a pure free market).

Also, I'd like to point out that if a vendor tried to spike your lemonade or poison you, then that's the type of shit that police should be handling, not fining and arresting innocent kids for selling lemonade on the side of the road.

Originally Posted by MindGames

For anyone arguing that people shouldn't be able to sell their own food and drinks just because they haven't been inspected by some agency, think about this:

Let's say we lived in a world where anybody could sell whatever the fuck they wanted, be it lemonade, bagels, or whatever (I'll only focus on foods for the purpose of the discussion), without any permits or regulation. How long do you think it would take for the free market to realize that you shouldn't buy food from sketchy ass strangers on the side of the road? If people get sick or start being poisoned from eating the food they bought from these vendors, then first of all, no shit, who would have ever thought that you might not be getting the best quality product from some unknown vendor without a reputation? Once people start to realize that they have to look out for themselves, these types of vendors will go out of business anyway since they can't be trusted, especially when there are better, more reputable options to choose from (which there should be plenty of in a pure free market).

So you want a reactionary system where businesses are punished only after they've made people sick (or dead)...

It does kill two birds with one stone though - brings down overpopulation and weeds out the stupid and trusting fools at the same time...
</sarcasm mode>

man ya trippin

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So you want a reactionary system where businesses are punished only after they've made people sick (or dead)...

Yes, a reactionary system just like when any person breaks the law. The solution isn't for the government to get up in everyone's business to see if they're doing anything wrong; people should simply be punished if they're proven guilty of harming other people. Businesses are in fact run by people, after all. If businesses kill their customers, the owners should be tried in court like any other individual would be. If they make their customers sick, the customers could sue that business. Obviously it's in the business' best interests not to kill their customers. I would even make a compromise and say the states should make their own laws concerning businesses. If states do their own regulating (as opposed to federal regulations), at least the citizens have more control over what laws get passed since their representatives are closer to home.

The idea behind a pure free market is that it regulates itself. If a restaurant serves tainted food and gets sued, people will obviously stop going to that restaurant. If the restaurant doesn't serve its customers well, customers will simply choose the competition. Eventually, you'll end up with a market dominated by the businesses that serve the best quality products. You'll even start to see people creating organizations which ensure quality and safety standards for the customer.


A free market can't mature however, if the government tries to control and regulate everything in it. I bet if people could sell products and services without having to hire a lawyer to tell them how to set everything up, what not to do and what paperwork to sign, we would have much more market activity and a healthier economy.

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

They could protest it. They could present their point. It could be accepted or rejected and people would vote with their wallets for the right choice.

I suppose, but people aren't going to get organized over something like this. There's things of actual importance going on, like the war on drugs, huge debt, fiat currency, the fact that we spend something like 10 times as much money on the military as on education.

Personally I'd really like to see an end to billboards. They're ugly and a distraction to drivers. But the few people who want them gone are vastly outnumbered by the people who are so caught up in their own little world that they can't even think about what's going on around them enough to give a damn. Even enough to realize that there could be something beautiful there and instead you have a fucking mcdonalds ad. Many people don;t even think about more important issues like the ones I listed above.

So basically I agree with you in principle, I just don't think things will work like that right now. We have a very sick and demented culture.

Well then the demonstation was pointless. All that should happen is that parents should sack up and beat the shit out of anybody that tries to fuck with their kids be it a cop or otherwise. Sooner or later people will get the idea not to fuck with people's kids.

Maybe in a better world that'd work, but if you did that you'd just get thrown in jail and lose custody of your kids.

And why is it worse for a stand run by a little kid to get shut down? What if a retiree or somebody that was laid off wanted to open a stand? Is the lemonade made by children more pure or something?

No, but it's usually done for fun rather than for profit. Or if it is done for profit it's done temporarily. It's also a kind of learning experience. This is very different than an adult making their living selling lemonade at a tourist attraction.

To me it's mainly a matter of permanence. You can't just set up a permanent business wherever you like. It disrupts the community and environment. Many people would rather not have a restaurant in the middle of their neighborhood. In my opinion it's up to the community. So for the capital building it would be up to the people who work there to decide. Like I said I don't really care that much, it's kind of trivial.

But little kids should be able to have lemonade stands, it's a benign learning experience. Cops who waste time and money shutting down lemonade stands should be laid off. Apparently the don't have anything important to do.[note the video was of cops shutting down a protest, not kids selling lemonade]

"It is not the fault of the smith who forged the blade nor is the blade itself at fault. It is the hand that swings it."

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

They could protest it. They could present their point. It could be accepted or rejected and people would vote with their wallets for the right choice.

That's how capitalism works, isn't it? I mean, that's kinda what the capital building is all about right? Where the senators get bought and sold?

90% of people don't want private businesses on publicly owned national monuments. 10% do, and pay for them. Result: Capitol lawn covered in private businesses.

Can't work out if you were being rhetorical or not. But as with any binary decision, it's most fairly made by polling those who own it; in this case, the American public.

And now they're flipping over lemonade?

> Implying this conversation is actually just about lemonade stands.

That's like the belligerent kid in class who retorts with 'what, all I did was drop by textbook on the floor' when asked to leave, after spending the lesson chucking his stuff around.