http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04MNf1YdNxI&
They deadass had like 10 cops just to shut down a lemonade stand.
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04MNf1YdNxI&
They deadass had like 10 cops just to shut down a lemonade stand.
Sorry I couldn't take this seriously after the guy yelled "THAT'S ASSAULT!!" when the female cop gently pushed the video camera out of her face...
The cops were courteous, non-aggressive and doing their job.
Yes, fending off the dangerous Lemonade Stand Rebels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Pushing away cameras and arresting people for selling lemonade is hardly being "courteous" or "non-aggressive."
This is pretty ridiculous, this could have obviously been handled by one or two cops.
But at the same time, this law does sort of make sense. The place is basically a tourist attraction(as well as a government facility). It would be obnoxious if there were vendors all over the place and if it wasn't illegal there would be.
Also considering the video has Adam Kokesh's name on it they were probably doing it to get arrested then acting surprised when that happened. Which is dumb and counter productive.
But this reminds me of this.
Which is just pure 100% bullshit.
The entire point of these set-ups (where a group will go out, deliberately break a law, and eventually get arrested) is to show how ridiculous certain laws are. Despite the obviously fake reactions by the protesters, they definitely do show how some of these laws are ridiculous. Can't dance at the Jefferson Monument or sell lemonade on public property?
I dare anyone to call the US government a representative one with a straight face.
The law exists for a reason, and by virtue of fairness, does not make exceptions. These lemonade vendors were there to get arrested and cause a scene, not sell lemonade. It's like saying "don't step over this line"; even if you have a good reason, someone will inevitably step over it for the sole purpose of defying you. Would you prefer the law not be enforced? If you don't agree with the law, then challenge it with legislators, not law enforcement... or at least don't be surprised with their reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
Given the methods and tools at the cops' disposable, their method of dealing with these non-compliant individuals was stern but extremely non-aggressive. They used no more force than they had to.
I have to disagree with that. If you can't arrest people who are selling lemonade without getting pissed you shouldn't be a cop. I really think anger issues are common in american police. Also dominance issues. A lot of them are on power trips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
But my main complaint is that the cops made a big deal out of. Tell them they can't do what they are doing, arrest them if they don't stop. That takes 2 people, not 10+. Waste of tax money, plus it's exactly what the salesmen wanted.
Evidently they were there to sell lemonade judging by the actual sale of lemonade we saw in the video. Another goal was to show, as I stated previously, how ridiculous it is that one cannot sell lemonade of all things without permission from the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
And defy that rule they should. Ludicrous laws should be broken.Quote:
It's like saying "don't step over this line"; even if you have a good reason, someone will inevitably step over it for the sole purpose of defying you.
It's more of a publicity stunt. Surely the vendors aren't surprised themselves; the video starts with a guy saying "Let's go liberate some lemons." Rather, the people buying the lemonade are the ones who should be surprised. It's a way of raising consciousness about things like this. Can't sell lemonade in the "land of the free?" Something is wrong.Quote:
Would you prefer the law not be enforced? If you don't agree with the law, then challenge it with legislators, not law enforcement... or at least don't be surprised with their reaction.
You hold an odd definition of "non-aggressive."Quote:
Given the methods and tools at the cops' disposable, their method of dealing with these non-compliant individuals was stern but extremely non-aggressive. They used no more force than they had to.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
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.
You know as well as I do that they did not set out that day to make a small profit by selling lemonade.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
The law isn't that they can't sell lemonade, it's that you need a permit to run a business on public land. Do you think it's ludicrous to require a permit to run a business on public land? Can you think of no valid reason as to why this law could have come to be?Quote:
And defy that rule they should. Ludicrous laws should be broken.
Yes, it's sensationalist propaganda for those who can't see past their nose. Can these people not see the repercussions of this law beyond simple lemonade sale?Quote:
It's more of a publicity stunt. Surely the vendors aren't surprised themselves; the video starts with a guy saying "Let's go liberate some lemons." Rather, the people buying the lemonade are the ones who should be surprised. It's a way of raising consciousness about things like this. Can't sell lemonade in the "land of the free?" Something is wrong.
I'm sure you've seen various footage of police arrests. How could the cops have handled the situation any more peacefully without neglecting their duty?Quote:
You hold an odd definition of "non-aggressive."
I rewatched it. You may have a point, but 2 of the cops overreacted a bit. But it wasn't as bad as I thought it was from first glance.
Actually spart, if you read the text on the youtube page it says they were protesting cops harassing children who set up lemonade stands in their own yard. This I can support, though kokesh is still an asshat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Although if you're gonna protest on the capital lawn, do it right and get 1000 people to come set up a tent city. If you build it, they will come.Quote:
In response to a recent wave of lemonade stand shut downs and harassment of children over such petty regulations as are used to shut them down, several activist gathered at the west lawn of the capitol in Washington, DC to sell lemonade and were arrested. While the officers were technically on solid "legal" ground in shutting down the stand, they behaved inappropriately by any standard numerous times, using intimidation tactics on protestors and observers, and harassing members of the professional media. The willingness with which children and tourists participated by purchasing lemonade in disobedience of the police instructions is an indicator of how little respect the general public has for government in general, and specifically police when enforcing unjust laws. Gives me hope for America. For those who are complaining about the public property not being used for its intended purpose, part of the point of this that the government should not be using public property for the glorification of government when it could be better used to serve public interests. Excessive vending at the capitol (or without a permit in any public space) would surely be preferable to 22.5% unemployment. Free the economy!
Different issue that I have insufficient info to argue about.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
Even if that may be the case, it doesn't excuse the protesters' conduct or make the Washington cops any less obligated to carry out their duty.
Again, evidently, they did set out to sell lemonade. Another goal was to show, as I stated previously, how ridiculous it is that one cannot sell lemonade of all things without permission from the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
If they can't run a business on public land, they can't sell lemonade. I think it's ludicrous to require a permit for anyone to run a business anywhere.Quote:
The law isn't that they can't sell lemonade, it's that you need a permit to run a business on public land. Do you think it's ludicrous to require a permit to run a business on public land? Can you think of no valid reason as to why this law could have come to be?
Meg McLain (one of the vendors) answers your last question:
These permits are “required” by local governments, using excuses of ‘health and safety’; and can cost hundreds, even thousands of dollars. But, should the permitted vendor cause health or safety issues, the government that issued the permit is not liable for permitting a dangerous business. Bureaucrats face no consequences. So what is the purpose of these expensive permits? To gain more money for local governments; to force compliance and subservience to government “authorities”; and for larger businesses to cut out their competition… even if that competition is a couple of kids with a lemonade stand.
Again, Meg McLain:Quote:
Yes, it's sensationalist propaganda for those who can't see past their nose. Can these people not see the repercussions of this law beyond simple lemonade sale?
I'm sure you've seen various footage of police arrests. How could the cops have handled the situation any more peacefully without neglecting their duty?
After several hours of friendly, yet inappropriate questioning, I finally asked, “Where is your line in the sand? At what point do you say, ‘No. That goes too far, and I’m not willing to do that to peaceful people’? Because if you don’t know where that line is, you’re gonna blindly cross it one day, and regret it for the rest of your life.”
As I said: perversion of the law.
Apparently the government thinks these folks are terrorists:
After a couple of hours, a man in jeans and a blue shirt came into my room with a notepad and paper. While I don’t remember the name of his job title (Capitol Criminal Investigator or something like that), he basically explained that he investigated organizations that the government believed to be potential terrorist, and the “Lemonade Liberation” had become their newest big threat.
I don't disagree. THat's why I called the protestors dumb and kokesh an asshat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The video I posted up there is an example of these lemonade crackdowns. I've seen at least 2 others.
I would argue that this was their main, if not only goal. They knew all along that their actions would lead to their arrest and it's quite hypocritical of them to be outraged when it actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
So if 1000 business crowded the capitol lawn, you'd be cool with that? What about establishments that sell alcohol or firearms or dangerous chemicals without permits?Quote:
If they can't run a business on public land, they can't sell lemonade. I think it's ludicrous to require a permit for anyone to run a business anywhere.
That sounds like an awful lot of conjecture.Quote:
Meg McLain (one of the vendors) answers your last question:
These permits are “required” by local governments, using excuses of ‘health and safety’; and can cost hundreds, even thousands of dollars. But, should the permitted vendor cause health or safety issues, the government that issued the permit is not liable for permitting a dangerous business. Bureaucrats face no consequences. So what is the purpose of these expensive permits? To gain more money for local governments; to force compliance and subservience to government “authorities”; and for larger businesses to cut out their competition… even if that competition is a couple of kids with a lemonade stand.
What was the cop's answer? My understanding of police matters is that officers have a strict set of guidelines on how to deal with offenses of different severity, similar to Rules of Engagement in the military. Where the "line" is isn't up to the individual officer.Quote:
Again, Meg McLain:
After several hours of friendly, yet inappropriate questioning, I finally asked, “Where is your line in the sand? At what point do you say, ‘No. That goes too far, and I’m not willing to do that to peaceful people’? Because if you don’t know where that line is, you’re gonna blindly cross it one day, and regret it for the rest of your life.”
As I said: perversion of the law.
It really is, it's counter productive. It makes them look stupid. But I wonder sometimes if kokesh actually cares. It seems like he just wants to shock people and improve his ratings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Yes to all so long as they weren't hurting anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
The more relevant parts stop before "To gain more money for local governments; to force compliance and subservience to government “authorities”; and for larger businesses to cut out their competition… even if that competition is a couple of kids with a lemonade stand."Quote:
That sounds like an awful lot of conjecture.
McLain says he didn't answer. And obviously she isn't interested in what the officer's guidelines are if she's asking him, personally, to draw a line somewhere.Quote:
What was the cop's answer? My understanding of police matters is that officers have a strict set of guidelines on how to deal with offenses of different severity, similar to Rules of Engagement in the military. Where the "line" is isn't up to the individual officer.
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.
A meth lab is a good example of a business without a permit.Quote:
Originally Posted by BLUELINE976
They are not known for their safety.
The beginning of the video actually looks a bit like a meth lab!!
The issue with the kids is really an issue of the over regulation the country has with businesses. As for the original post I know they have the same laws were I live where all the casinos are(live in Nevada). It is probably for the same reason because there are tons of tourist, and if you let people sell stuff on the street then it blocks traffic and causes all sorts of problems.
The kids just look like a bunch of petulant losers. Even if they do have a message, they're not going to convince anybody by being belligerent and ostentatious.
One should have a permit to give candy away on Halloween too.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somii
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
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.
Giving away gifts and selling products through a business aren't the same thing and fall under different legislation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somii
So if 1000 lemonade stands crowded the Capitol lawn, you'd be cool with that?Quote:
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.
How is this at all the same thing?Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
Response to - http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/when-l...8/#post1728957 - seeing how the acquirement of a permit may come with inspection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Why does it matter that I be cool with it? Should I hit people with silly jokes?Quote:
So if 1000 lemonade stands crowded the Capitol lawn, you'd be cool with that?
People accept gifts at their own risk. When you exchange money for a product or service however, the consumer should be protected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Somii
Answer my question. Do you think it would be a good idea?Quote:
Why does it matter that I be cool with it? Should I hit people with silly jokes?
Just leave it be if you don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
IQuote:
Answer my question. Do you think it would be a good idea?
don't care if it's a good idea or not.
Been drinking tonight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Somii
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
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.
What an awesome debating tactic. Simply pretend the counterargument doesn't exist. It's impenetrable! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Somii
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.
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 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
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.
I would agree with you, except that inspection and liscences these days are a joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
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. :cheeky:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
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.
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
This whole thread just :cackle:
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.
So you'd be OK if there were 1000 lemonade stands set-up on the Capitol lawn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evolventity
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
> Implying this conversation is actually just about lemonade stands.
-.- 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
when life gives you lemonade, throw it in trash and get your own.
But there'd be no room left for protesters!Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
okQuote:
Originally Posted by 420Dreamer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
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 :whyme:.
lol right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
:popcorn:
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by StonedApe
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.
So you want a reactionary system where businesses are punished only after they've made people sick (or dead)...Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGames
It does kill two birds with one stone though - brings down overpopulation and weeds out the stupid and trusting fools at the same time... :evil:
</sarcasm mode>
man ya trippin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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?
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
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.
> Implying this conversation is actually just about lemonade stands.Quote:
And now they're flipping over lemonade?
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.
Wouldn't a proactive system where nobody has to die in the first place be better? That's what regulations are all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGames
The law is not purely reactionary. Who have you hurt when you are caught speeding?
Obviously if someone's in a situation where you can reasonably say they're an immediate danger to other people's right to life, then they should be stopped. It's only in these cases where we have to use precautionary laws. The free trade of food is not reasonably dangerous to the public. Also, going back to the lemonade stand example, if somebody poisons your food then that's simply attempted murder, not the result of having a free market. And if people start dying after buying food from sketchy merchants on the side of the road, guess what will happen? People will stop buying food from them. The idiots who keep on taking candy from strangers deserve to get weeded out anyway; I know it's blunt, but the rest of civilization doesn't have an obligation to babysit them just because they can't take care of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
You're also forgetting about the fact that if the free market wants health and safety regulations, it can set up those regulations on its own without resorting to increasing the size of government. I'm sure a free market version of the FDA would do a much better job than a government FDA, since the survival of a free market version is directly subjected to the satisfaction of the consumer, and it would be subjected to competition as well.
Seriously? How many deaths do you think some contaminated food processing equipment could cause?Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGames
Lets use another example, how would you feel if airlines weren't subject to safety regulations? When you sit down and put your seatbelt on, do you really want to be rolling the dice as to whether or not you're going to be the lucky guy who gets to sway the opinion of the free market?
To answer your question, I bet it could cause quite a few deaths, and it's happened in the past. I'm sure that the free market would have more incentive to make sure that their equipment is sterilized when their primary concern is making sure their product is superior to their competition's, as opposed to satisfying arbitrary regulations put in place by the government. You're also forgetting that the free market could set up their own health and safety regulation organizations.
Also, if the free market wants safety regulations for airlines, then the free market will answer that call. Otherwise, airlines will go out of business from the lack of business. It's actually really simple; the free market regulates itself, through its democratic nature. Consumers vote with their dollars.
A company's primary concern is maximum profit, not making a superior product. Trust me when I say that many businesses have no qualms in sacrificing safety or quality to achieve that goal, especially if the consumer would be unaware. The regulations are rarely arbitrary, they usually come to be after an incident to prevent similar incidents in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGames
The free market regulates itself after the fact. It's a stupid system that would cause unnecessary suffering, injury or death.
How can a company maximize revenue in the free market other than by providing a superior product or service? I'd hardly say that getting sued over providing customers with unsafe food is a successful business model. If consumers want a low quality product, (aka "Taco Bell") then why shouldn't they be able to get it? It's their money, right?
In the end, whatever the consumers demand, in a pure free market, they will get it, since corporations can only maximize revenue by satisfying their customers. If the customers demand to know what's in their food, or if they demand certain health and quality standards be put in place, corporations will have to meet those demands or else lose their business to the competition that does satisfy these demands.
Government regulations only discourage people from starting up their own businesses, thus providing less competition for consumers to choose from, and therefore lower quality products and services. Not to mention the fact that they take money from everyone whether they like it or not.
Also, calling a system "stupid" is hardly a valid argument.
Ah okay, so the FDA is a superior organization for this reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Wait wut?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
How do IKEA or chinese toy manufacturers outperform small businesses that usually show superior craftsmanship? Price point, marketing... Businesses have every right to put out a cheaper product until the point of where it compromises public safety or confidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by MindGames
How do you know that the plane you're flying on has been maintained properly? The airline could be slacking off on safety and you'd never know about it. How do you know if your food's been prepared in sanitary conditions... until you get sick? Businesses can cut corners and operate in a risky manner (and save money) and no one would suspect a thing until their luck runs out. Regulators would shut these places down before anybody is harmed.Quote:
In the end, whatever the consumers demand, in a pure free market, they will get it, since corporations can only maximize revenue by satisfying their customers. If the customers demand to know what's in their food, or if they demand certain health and quality standards be put in place, corporations will have to meet those demands or else lose their business to the competition that does satisfy these demands.
A proper regulatory body discourages unsafe or dishonest business practises. Is more competition in the interest of public safety if there's no overseer? Maybe some regulators have become bloated and inefficient, but that's a call to reengineer them, not abandon them.Quote:
Government regulations only discourage people from starting up their own businesses, thus providing less competition for consumers to choose from, and therefore lower quality products and services. Not to mention the fact that they take money from everyone whether they like it or not.
It is if you explain why.Quote:
Also, calling a system "stupid" is hardly a valid argument.
I don't know what your hard-on with the FDA is but technology and business practises in every industry whether it be food, transportation, engineering or what have you, are constantly evolving. If issues with these new methods are only discovered after an incident has occurred, then at least regulators are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen again. Do you think they found these regulations in a glass bottle that washed ashore?Quote:
Ah okay, so the FDA is a superior organization for this reason.
*Plane crashes* "I won't fly with that airline"Quote:
Wait wut?
*Tainted meat goes out and kills a dozen people* "I won't buy from that company"
*Investment firm defrauds thousands* "I won't invest with them"
People are harmed before any corrective action is taken, that's a reactionary system. The whole point of regulations is to prevent harm in the first place, doesn't that sound more appealing?
And this creates a superior product for the price it's sold at. Otherwise, consumers wouldn't buy it. Right? There's nothing wrong with this. If consumers want a lower quality product for a cheaper price, then by all means, let them. I have no problem with McDonalds, Walmart, or any other company that uses this approach. Companies still have to compete with others to provide the highest quality products possible. Who's to say another IKEA won't come along and offer toys at the same price point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
How do you currently know you're flying on a safe plane? Because regulations are put in place, correct? Haven't I already stated multiple times that the free market is capable of putting these regulations into place? Sure, companies don't have to follow these regulations, but if consumers see that an airline doesn't abide by safety regulations, then they should be able to choose an alternate airline that does.Quote:
How do you know that the plane you're flying on has been maintained properly? The airline could be slacking off on safety and you'd never know about it. How do you know if your food's been prepared in sanitary conditions... until you get sick? Businesses can cut corners and operate in a risky manner (and save money) and no one would suspect a thing until their luck runs out. Regulators would shut these places down before anybody is harmed.
And what a better way to re-engineer these regulators than having them work directly for the free market? Let the free market decide what regulations it wants put into place.Quote:
A proper regulatory body discourages unsafe or dishonest business practises. Is more competition in the interest of public safety if there's no overseer? Maybe some regulators have become bloated and inefficient, but that's a call to reengineer them, not abandon them.
I was mainly referring to the FDA because they're the main organization that relates to the topic. Although I'd have to say that I'm not the one with a hard on for federal regulations here.Quote:
I don't know what your hard-on with the FDA is but technology and business practises in every industry whether it be food, transportation, engineering or what have you, are constantly evolving. If issues with these new methods are only discovered after an incident has occurred, then at least regulators are in a position to make sure it doesn't happen again. Do you think they found these regulations in a glass bottle that washed ashore?
I mainly pointed this out to show that you yourself stated that the free market updates its regulations exactly the same way that government-mandated regulations are put into place. I wasn't asserting that regulations are updated through some other means.
You seem completely oblivious to the fact that I've repeatedly pointed out that the free market is capable of regulating itself. All that needs to happen is for someone to capitalize on an organization that enforces regulations for the members of its organization. If the free market decides it wants these regulations, these organizations would have to compete just like any other company would have to compete. We would eventually end up with a much safer system with better regulations that doesn't have to leech off the tax dollars of the public.Quote:
*Plane crashes* "I won't fly with that airline"
*Tainted meat goes out and kills a dozen people* "I won't buy from that company"
*Investment firm defrauds thousands* "I won't invest with them"
People are harmed before any corrective action is taken, that's a reactionary system. The whole point of regulations is to prevent harm in the first place, doesn't that sound more appealing?
Also, I hate having to respond to posts piece by piece. Screw you.
Ok personally I'd be happy with any regulatory committee - doesn't have to be governmental. As long as it works. I know what we have now is far from perfect but I'm still glad we have it. If a better committee could be created that doesn't run on tax dollars, that might be even better.
A causes bad thing. Therefore, measures ought to be taken to prevent A from causing bad thing. Sounds reasonable, though, having to do so would restrict our permitted code of conduct, and for some people that don't like to be controlled or see it as an inconvenience, are unlikely to accept such measures. Even so, in a ironic sense, such people may practice these preventative measures they dislike so much only to prevent the possible consequences that could happen if not followed. So, for some people at least, I think that preventative measures being a rational or good thing shouldn't be sold to them, for it's something they may already understand, but instead, they should be persuaded as to why a particular measure ought to be taken, in a different sense, even when they consider it to be intolerable.
-INFORMATION SET-
Now, debators, entertain me MORE!!!
How would you feel about having private(or public I suppose) certification that was not mandatory? That way people who want to be sure they are getting a safe product or safe airfare can have it and those who don't care can also have what they want.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartiate
Not sure if this has been brought up, I haven't read all of this.
Spart, libertarians are not anarchists. If a company is endangering lives, they are breaking the law and will be dealt with.
They can be. See Murray Rothbard and the like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm pretty sure Xei meant libertarianism doesn't equate to anarchism, although some libertarians can be anarchists, and vice versa.