STILL think government isn't too intrusive?

[shanek]

Cops shut down little girl’s lemonade stand

"We had to take down our lemonade stand,” said Abagail.

Abagail did not have a temporary business permit, which is technically a city violation.

In the past, children who set up lemonade stands learned about running a business and the value of money. Now, it seems, they're learning something equally important: GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!

Unless, you think it's a good thing the government's protecting us from rogue lemonade stands...

(What happened to the link? I swear it was there yesterday! Oh, well, here it is again)

http://www.nbc-2.com/News/stories/061803-lemonade_stand.shtml

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

It sounds more like the kid's neighbor was the intrusive one:

http://www.naplesnews.com/03/06/naples/d945350a.htm Her mother, K.C. Shaw, said the lemonade stand was shut down because a neighbor complained.

"The police officers were really embarrassed about it," Shaw said. "One of them even bought some lemonade."

Officials with both the city and county said the only way a lemonade stand would be shut down is if someone complained.

"No one goes around looking for lemonade stands to shut down," said Lisa Koehler, a Collier County community development spokeswoman. "But if someone complains, you have no choice but to take action."


Hey, maybe the neighbor works for the government. :p

[a_unique_person]

Haven't you ever seen "Problem Child"?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by shanek
In the past, children who set up lemonade stands learned about running a business and the value of money. Now, it seems, they're learning something equally important: GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!

It sounds to me like they were learning about breaking the law.

[DavidJames]

I support laws like this, assuming they are crafted properly and enforced correctly. A similar law forced the "Soda Girl" off the street in my town. The cute little girl was breaking the same laws as the greasy slimey street vendors.

[Akots]

Should one consider a 6 year old girl and a "greasy slimy street vendor" in the same category? The girl decided to adhere to the law by offering the lemonade for free, and asking for willing donations in return, at the discretion of the customers. When she learned the law, she changed her business to fit it. A "greasy slimey street vendor" would probably not be so accomodating. Though I could be wrong.

Man... some lemonade would be pretty darn good right now... it's like a boiler room outside.

[DavidJames]

"The cute little girl was breaking the same laws as the greasy slimey street vendors."

Suggesting I was comparing the two is quite a stretch. What I said was very clear.

I was simply sharing on my opinion of such laws and how they need to be applied equally. Furthermore, I was referring to the situation in my town. I guess that wasn't clear.

[Akots]

Um... I guess it wasn't clear at all to me. They are the same laws. They are not the same situations.

[DavidJames]

Yup - we have one set of laws, not one for young girls and another for older males who aren't "cute". Everyone must play by the same set of rules. Sounds fair to me, no?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by DavidJames
Suggesting I was comparing the two is quite a stretch. What I said was very clear.

I understood, but I had to read it twice.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by shanek
Cops shut down little girl’s lemonade stand



In the past, children who set up lemonade stands learned about running a business and the value of money. Now, it seems, they're learning something equally important: GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!

Unless, you think it's a good thing the government's protecting us from rogue lemonade stands...

Amazing! You and JK on the same side of an argument! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

:D :D :D

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by shanek
Cops shut down little girl’s lemonade stand



In the past, children who set up lemonade stands learned about running a business and the value of money. Now, it seems, they're learning something equally important: GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!

Unless, you think it's a good thing the government's protecting us from rogue lemonade stands...

Personally, I blame the neighbor. What's his/her problem?

Last year on our "Neighborhood Garage Sale" day, some of the kids were selling lemonade/kool-aid. I bought some from each one of them.

Why was the neighbor complaining? Was the kid cutting in on their action?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek
Cops shut down little girl’s lemonade stand



In the past, children who set up lemonade stands learned about running a business and the value of money. Now, it seems, they're learning something equally important: GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!

Unless, you think it's a good thing the government's protecting us from rogue lemonade stands...

It is unfortunate you didn't link something to support this assertion. Upon reading Mahatma Kane Jeeves' link, I think the children learned their city government has a heart. They got a $35 permit for free.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
It sounds more like the kid's neighbor was the intrusive one:

The neighbor would not have been able to do anything about the lemonade stand if he didn't have the backing of government.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
The cute little girl was breaking the same laws as the greasy slimey street vendors.

I'm curious: What are "greasy, slimey street vendors" and what are they doing other than offering a voluntary exchange of cash for goods and services?

[shanek]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Personally, I blame the neighbor. What's his/her problem?

I've been wondering that myself. But whatever his problem was, he would not have been able to do anything (short of resorting to criminal means) to stop her selling lemonade if he hadn't had the full force of government behind him.

And the attitudes of the law enforcement officials makes it clear: An intrusive government harms, even if it is run by good people.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.


It is unfortunate you didn't link something to support this assertion. Upon reading Mahatma Kane Jeeves' link, I think the children learned their city government has a heart. They got a $35 permit for free.

The point is, they shouldn't have the power to do it in the first place!

Okay, I hereby declare ownership of the air around you and charge you $35 to breath my air. Oh, wait, I'm suddenly feeling generous—I'm going to let you have that air around you for nothing! You get $35 air for free! Isn't that wonderfully generous of me? :rolleyes:

[WooBot]

Originally posted by shanek


The point is, they shouldn't have the power to do it in the first place!

Okay, I hereby declare ownership of the air around you and charge you $35 to breath my air. Oh, wait, I'm suddenly feeling generous—I'm going to let you have that air around you for nothing! You get $35 air for free! Isn't that wonderfully generous of me? :rolleyes:

You don't think the government ought to be able to regulate street vendors? Is this seriously your point?

I took away exactly the opposite sentiment: Neighbor tries to use a good law to harass the innocent, common sense prevails, the city winks and looks the other way. A case of HEART in city government. You seem to want to turn the facts on their head to make a point.

Just my opinion.

[Thanz]

shanek -

I'm a little surprised at your debate tactics in making this thread. Some neighbour using a good law to harass a six year old, something the law never intended, does not prove anything about the intrusiveness of government. I find it especially shocking considering some of you comments on gun control threads, where gun control advocates point to some tragedy to support their cause. For example: [shanek]But it's downright despicable to see people sieze upon such a tragedy as an excuse to further their own political agenda,

Now, shutting down a lemonade stand is of course nowhere close to the tragedy you were commenting on. But you are still seizing on an outrageous event to further your own political agenda. The underlying logic of the argument seems to be the same.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


The point is, they shouldn't have the power to do it in the first place!

Okay, I hereby declare ownership of the air around you and charge you $35 to breath my air. Oh, wait, I'm suddenly feeling generous—I'm going to let you have that air around you for nothing! You get $35 air for free! Isn't that wonderfully generous of me? :rolleyes:

I second what WooBot and Thanz had to say to this.

Does Eminent Domain mean anything to you, shanek? The government really does own the air around us.

Laws are primarily meant to protect us. Sometimes I think your anger is misdirected. The law that was used by the neighbor against the little girl wouldn't even be necessary were it not for those who would turn our roadsides into a bigger mess than they already are. There is where your anger should be directed. The government actually showed excellent prudence in this case. But you can almost hear some "civil libertarian" suing for equal treatment for all street vendors somewhere, can't you?

Should I be mad at insurance companies for the cost of theft insurance, or mad at the thieves who make it a near necessity?

[Skeptic]

I don't know why this is seen as some sort of "evil government interference".

It isn't as if the police was raiding lemonade stands to cut down on the "crime" of six-year-olds operating a "business" without a license. It isn't as if there was some government beurocrat who asked the police to make sure the law against illegal lemondate stands is not violated, so that the government's authority would remain intact and people remain in a proper state of fear.

It was a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL who ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE called the police and DEMANDED FROM A RELUCTANT POLICE FORCE that the law be obeyed to the letter. Does this sound like "government interference", or more like "neighbor's vendetta"?

Now, wen a citizen calls the police and tells them a law is being violated, and it is, they have little choice: they must stop it. This lack of discretion, while it has its downside as in this sill ycase, is generally a good thing: in the "good old days", when police had a lot of discretion about whether or not to obey laws they didn't like, it effectively made policemen judge and jury, so that--for example--"unimportant" manners like a black man asking from protection against a lynch mob, or a wife asking for help against an abusive husband, would be dismissed and the victims left to fend for themselves.

If there was no police or other government involved here, as Shanek suggests, then the only difference would have been that the neighbor would have went DIRECTLY to the six-year-old and stopped her from continuing on her "crime spree" on his own, instead of having to go through the police.

It would not have made things better for the little girl--but worse. Instead of dealing with polite and embarrased cops, she'd would have had to deal with the pissed--off neighbor who for some reason bears a grudge against her (or her parents, more likely.)

So what's the big deal, exactly?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz
I'm a little surprised at your debate tactics in making this thread. Some neighbour using a good law to harass a six year old, something the law never intended, does not prove anything about the intrusiveness of government. I find it especially shocking considering some of you comments on gun control threads, where gun control advocates point to some tragedy to support their cause. For example:

Now, shutting down a lemonade stand is of course nowhere close to the tragedy you were commenting on. But you are still seizing on an outrageous event to further your own political agenda. The underlying logic of the argument seems to be the same.

That is one of the most desperate and despicable comparisons I have ever seen anyone make!

For all of the BS, for all of the handwaving, for all of the smoke and mirrors in this thread, the FACT remains that government is big enough to stop a little girl from running a lemonade stand. The fact that people intervened on her behalf, were willing to look the other way, etc., has to do with the goodness of humanity, not government, which clearly labelled her a criminal!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Does Eminent Domain mean anything to you, shanek?

It means one more thing the government shouldn't be able to do.

Laws are primarily meant to protect us.

How were we protected at all by that law? And why has no one answered my questions about the "greasy, slimey street vendors"?

Should I be mad at insurance companies for the cost of theft insurance, or mad at the thieves who make it a near necessity?

The difference is, theft insurance is a voluntary service you purchase. That's far from being able to tell someone they can't sell legal products on their own property.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It was a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL who ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE called the police and DEMANDED FROM A RELUCTANT POLICE FORCE that the law be obeyed to the letter. Does this sound like "government interference", or more like "neighbor's vendetta"?

I've already responded to this point. Check what the article said:

Shaw said the police officers who shut down the stand felt terrible, but they had to do their job.[/b]

They had to do their job! Their job was shuttong down a kid's lemonade stand! IT DOESN'T FSCKING MATTER WHAT THE NEIGHBOR DID!!! In a free society, the neighbor shouldn't have been able to do ANYTHING!!!! If this truly were a free society, and the neighbor called and complained, the response would have been, "So? She's not hurting anyone. Let her sell the lemonade."

That is NOT what happened!!!!

If you're not hurting anyone—and she wasn't—she should be left alone.

If there was no police or other government involved here, as Shanek suggests, then the only difference would have been that the neighbor would have went DIRECTLY to the six-year-old and stopped her from continuing on her "crime spree" on his own, instead of having to go through the police.

How could he have stopped her, other than by criminal violence?

No, this is simply what happens when you pass laws against activities that don't harm a single person.

[Skeptic]

If this truly were a free society, and the neighbor called and complained, the response would have been, "So? She's not hurting anyone. Let her sell the lemonade."

That was tried before, Shanek.

When police officers DID have the discretion (in practice) of not obeying laws they felt were silly, the response to the neighbor about the six-year-old selling lemonade would undoubtably have been just this.

However--and you deliberately ignored this point in my reply--in those "good old days", the reply to someone who called and said he saw the neighbor bear up his wife would have been, "So? She probably had it coming. We don't interfere with domestic quarrels".

Also, the reply to someone who would have called and said that he saw a mob running after a black man would probably have been, "So? The ni--er shouldn't be in that white neighborhood at this time. They're just protecting their women."

THAT is the reality of a police that is not strongly forced to ensure equal protection under law, and is given a wide choice in what "silly" laws they don't need to enforce if they don't feel like it. Not your ideal libertarian paradise.

(You mean there's actually a LAW that black people have a right to walk in white neighborhoods unmolested? Who ever heard of such a silly thing? You don't expect me to ENFORCE that, do you?)

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by shanek


I'm curious: What are "greasy, slimey street vendors" and what are they doing other than offering a voluntary exchange of cash for goods and services?

Get your neighborhood overrun by street vendors sellign hot dogs and boiled penuts and you might change your mind ;)

Now that he mentioned it that make sense, because in that area of flrorida there is a lot fo stuff like that.

The thing id that people don't like poor people vending in tther neighborhood so they make laws like this.

"Government is horrible!"

Umm... these laws all come from the community. I'm betting lots of people went to city hall and said they wanted to keep bums out of the neighdborhood. Blame the people.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Skeptic
That was tried before, Shanek.

No, it wasn't. You have yet again completely miscontrued what I'm naying, and I'm really getting tired of you doing it.

I'm not saying the officers should ignore this law...I'm saying the law SHOULDN'T BE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

However--and you deliberately ignored this point in my reply--in those "good old days", the reply to someone who called and said he saw the neighbor bear up his wife would have been, "So? She probably had it coming. We don't interfere with domestic quarrels".

Except that I'm not advocating repealing the laws against domestic violence.

Also, the reply to someone who would have called and said that he saw a mob running after a black man would probably have been, "So? The ni--er shouldn't be in that white neighborhood at this time. They're just protecting their women."

Except that I'm not advocating repealing laws against mob violence.

But there was no violence here. Why don't people get that?

THAT is the reality of a police that is not strongly forced to ensure equal protection under law,

I agree 100%—the police should be forced to give equal protection under the law. That's why these stupid, intrusive laws shouldn't exist in the first place!
\

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Get your neighborhood overrun by street vendors sellign hot dogs and boiled penuts and you might change your mind ;)

Overrun by street vendors????

Who owns the property, Malachi? We aren't talking about people coming in from out of town and setting up shop on the public highway or someone else's property. We're talking about people selling legal products on their own property, which is exactly what happened here!

What's next, banning yard sales?

The thing id that people don't like poor people vending in tther neighborhood so they make laws like this.

If it's their property, then they're members of the neighborhood. If it's not, then they have no right to be there in the first place.

This kid was running a lemonade stand on her own property (well, OK, her parent's property). How is that more like street vendors and less like yard sales?

If it's their property, let 'em sell. If it's not, they have to get permission from the property owner. If it's public property, then getting a permit is all well and good. But why on Earth should someone be forced to purchase a permit to sell legal products on their own property????

Why does no one want to answer that question???

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
That is one of the most desperate and despicable comparisons I have ever seen anyone make!

For all of the BS, for all of the handwaving, for all of the smoke and mirrors in this thread, the FACT remains that government is big enough to stop a little girl from running a lemonade stand. The fact that people intervened on her behalf, were willing to look the other way, etc., has to do with the goodness of humanity, not government, which clearly labelled her a criminal!
It was neither desperate nor despicable. It is a direct comparison. In both cases, someone is using an extreme situation to further a political agenda.

I don't understand how you can look at this situation in its entirety and say that the government is labelling a six year old as a criminal. It seems that when the government does something nice, it is because of "humanity" but when they do something mean, they somehow morph into the monolithic "GOVERNMENT" that you love to rail against.

The simple fact here is that the girl got caught by a law designed to regulate the activities of street vendors. It was not aimed at little girls and lemonade stands. Cops would probably walk past a hundred times and not think at all of shutting her down. The action here was the result of a busybody neighbour complaining about a six year old. Once it is shown to the police that she was breaking the law, they have to act. And then the officials in charge simply granted her a permit, further evidence that the law is not designed to stop little girls from selling lemonade.

If you want to debate the law in question, fine. But the fact that it may be misapplied, for one weekend, to a lemonade stand does not mean that we need to get rid of the whole law. If you thinkthe law is unjust, debate it on its real merits - not on some outlandish example. Extreme cases make bad law.

[DavidJames]

"What are "greasy, slimy street vendors"

I used that term as a contrast to your "litter girl" street vendor. Street vendors are shut down all the time for various reasons including the same reason as the "little girl", along with health and safety violations. But they don't get the press that the "little girl's lemonade stand" did. I believe you are using the "little girl" as a sympathetic symbol to make your agenda more appealing. If the story were about a dirty disheveled, unkempt, older vendor, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

"what are they doing other than offering a voluntary exchange of cash for goods and services?"

I don't know, what they are doing "other than" is irrelevant, it's their main line of business that's under discussion here.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Thanz

It was neither desperate nor despicable. It is a direct comparison. In both cases, someone is using an extreme situation to further a political agenda.

I don't understand how you can look at this situation in its entirety and say that the government is labelling a six year old as a criminal. It seems that when the government does something nice, it is because of "humanity" but when they do something mean, they somehow morph into the monolithic "GOVERNMENT" that you love to rail against.

The simple fact here is that the girl got caught by a law designed to regulate the activities of street vendors. It was not aimed at little girls and lemonade stands. Cops would probably walk past a hundred times and not think at all of shutting her down. The action here was the result of a busybody neighbour complaining about a six year old. Once it is shown to the police that she was breaking the law, they have to act. And then the officials in charge simply granted her a permit, further evidence that the law is not designed to stop little girls from selling lemonade.

If you want to debate the law in question, fine. But the fact that it may be misapplied, for one weekend, to a lemonade stand does not mean that we need to get rid of the whole law. If you thinkthe law is unjust, debate it on its real merits - not on some outlandish example. Extreme cases make bad law.

Exactly, and I'll add here, to make this subject just a little more divisive ;) that this is an example of "right-wing" (didn't we all agree not to use that term?) rhetoric. This is an example of how the public is learning from leaders. You see "right-wingers" like Rush Limbaugh and Pat O'Reilly, and of course even mainstream politicans like Reagan and the Bushes use these types of tactics, so their followers and worshipers resorts to the same learned behavior.

Look at George Bush's campaign against estate taxes, which focused on how estate taxes hurt small business owners and family farms, when in fact small busineses and family farms rarely pay estate taxes, and when they do its often a very low amount. The campaign went on and on about how estate taxes force people to sell family farms, but proveded no evidence whatsoever, and in fact the estate tax does not put family farms out of business there are protections agaisnt that, and the Democrats proposed even strogner protections agaisnt it, yet the extreme case of "FAMILY farms", the working men and women that carry on our counties great traditions and provide us all with much needed food from their hard work and long tradtions, etc, was used to rally support against a tax that mainly taxes multi-billion dollar estates from real estate tycoons, and industrialists, bankers, and oil tycoons.

[WooBot]

As someone who very often agrees with you, shanek, it pains me to feel pretty much exactly the opposite of what you feel on this issue.

You insist on depicting this as The Man putting laws in place to harass little girls. How would you feel if that same little girl later that day bought a burrito from a street vendor that turned out to be made of catmeat? Don't laugh; it happened in my hometown, before street vendors were regulated.

Visit Mexico sometime and tell me if you'd feel safe eating from a street vendor there. Contrast this with the U.S., where you can buy without fear from a hot dog vendor, because there are laws protecting you.

Maybe this is just a philosophical thing - you don't seem to see the need for ANY laws. To me it's obvious that in a modern city mechanisms have to be in place to protect basic things like the public health.

To keep depicting this as evidence that The Man is out of control is ludicrous to me. I agree that The Man is out of control, but I really don't see this as evidence of it.

[Malachi151]

I agree 100%—the police should be forced to give equal protection under the law. That's why these stupid, intrusive laws shouldn't exist in the first place!

So you are saying that democracy is not a good idea?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shanek


Overrun by street vendors????

Who owns the property, Malachi? We aren't talking about people coming in from out of town and setting up shop on the public highway or someone else's property. We're talking about people selling legal products on their own property, which is exactly what happened here!

What's next, banning yard sales?



If it's their property, then they're members of the neighborhood. If it's not, then they have no right to be there in the first place.

This kid was running a lemonade stand on her own property (well, OK, her parent's property). How is that more like street vendors and less like yard sales?

If it's their property, let 'em sell. If it's not, they have to get permission from the property owner. If it's public property, then getting a permit is all well and good. But why on Earth should someone be forced to purchase a permit to sell legal products on their own property????

Why does no one want to answer that question???

Okay. That is a really good point about selling legal products on your own property. Not the same as a street vendor.

As for the yard sale comparison, I hate to split hairs, but lemonade is a food product. However, the government voided the difference by granting the little girl an open-ended, free permit. :)

It is quite possible the police did not take the point you made about street vendors and private property into account when they got the call from the ugly neighbor. That is probably one of the things that makes being a cop these days so difficult. You have to practically be a lawyer as well as a cop.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Amazing! You and JK on the same side of an argument! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

:D :D :D

Ah, but Shanek is using it to illustrate his case that big government is a bad thing, whereas JK is using it to support his claim about the matriarachal totalitarian communist feminazi conspiracy.

Interesting how you can have two completely different interpretations of the same situation...

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by BillyTK


Ah, but Shanek is using it to illustrate his case that big government is a bad thing, whereas JK is using it to support his claim about the matriarachal totalitarian communist feminazi conspiracy.

Interesting how you can have two completely different interpretations of the same situation...

The obvious problem with all this is that this is obviously a local law, and therefore not even a part of "big gobmnt".

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by WooBot

You insist on depicting this as The Man putting laws in place to harass little girls. How would you feel if that same little girl later that day bought a burrito from a street vendor that turned out to be made of catmeat? Don't laugh; it happened in my hometown, before street vendors were regulated.

Visit Mexico sometime and tell me if you'd feel safe eating from a street vendor there. Contrast this with the U.S., where you can buy without fear from a hot dog vendor, because there are laws protecting you.
ith you, shanek, it pains me to feel pretty much exactly the opposite of what you feel on this issue.

Catmeat burritos? That vendor won't be doing much business. Cats taste what they smell like.

Next time you're in Mexico try sampling something from a street vendor who is so busy taking care of his customers he/she barely has time to rest. Not too many bacteria gathering on a chopping block continually in use and spattered with limes. People aren't eating there because the food is lousy.

I do not, however, recommend tacos de cabeza. They taste too much like hot dogs.

[WooBot]

Originally posted by Frank Newgent

Catmeat burritos? That vendor won't be doing much business. Cats taste what they smell like.

Next time you're in Mexico try sampling something from a street vendor who is so busy taking care of his customers he/she barely has time to rest. Not too many bacteria gathering on a chopping block continually in use and spattered with limes. People aren't eating there because the food is lousy.

I do not, however, recommend tacos de cabeza. They taste too much like hot dogs.

I will defer to your knowledge of that particular delicacy, but the story is true.

I am in Mexico quite often. I'll pass on the street vendors, thank you.

[Frank Newgent]

Stayed with some friends in the state of Sinaloa who had a bobcat going after their chickens. The promise and mystique of bobcat tamales was invoked each morning when we checked the leg trap.

Almost twenty years ago now and my Spanish was awful. I couldn't have protested effectively so I didn't say a word when we found a gato montes with his front foot caught. Clubbed him and skinned him and cured that with fireplace ash.

The time finally came for the bobcat tamales. My plate had 5 or 6 while eveyone else's had two. And I choked them all down with I don't remember how many Cokes.

Would have been better with a lemonade.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

It was neither desperate nor despicable. It is a direct comparison. In both cases, someone is using an extreme situation to further a political agenda.

You really don't see the difference? You're really that deluded?

I don't understand how you can look at this situation in its entirety and say that the government is labelling a six year old as a criminal.

Maybe because she broke the law? The law saw her as a criminal, even if those who enforce it decided to be lenient.

It seems that when the government does something nice,

GOVERNMENT didn't do something nice! That's what you refuse to understand! GOVERNMENT labelled her a criminal! GOVERNMENT shut her down! It was the charitiable acts of HUMAN BEINGS who got her lemonade stand back up again! You can't weasel out of it just because some of them happened to be government agents! They weren't acting in that capacity!

The simple fact here is that the girl got caught by a law designed to regulate the activities of street vendors.

Which means that that law is overreaching and intrusive. It affects those who harm no one.

Once it is shown to the police that she was breaking the law, they have to act.

That is exactly MY point!

And then the officials in charge simply granted her a permit,

You're avoiding the question—why should she need a permit AT ALL????

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
I used that term as a contrast to your "litter girl" street vendor. Street vendors are shut down all the time for various reasons including the same reason as the "little girl", along with health and safety violations. But they don't get the press that the "little girl's lemonade stand" did.

How about some examples of "greasy, slimey street vendors"?

I believe you are using the "little girl" as a sympathetic symbol to make your agenda more appealing.

I'm using it as an example of the extremes the law goes to. It seems every time someone proposes a law, and someone points out how it could be misused, they say, "Oh, that'll never happen"—but sure enough, sooner or later, it always does!

"what are they doing other than offering a voluntary exchange of cash for goods and services?"

I don't know, what they are doing "other than" is irrelevant, it's their main line of business that's under discussion here.

Answer the question. And answer another question: Who are they harming?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Exactly, and I'll add here, to make this subject just a little more divisive ;) that this is an example of "right-wing" (didn't we all agree not to use that term?) rhetoric.

:rolleyes:

With that comment, you may as well wave around a sign that says "I don't have a clue what I'm talking about!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by WooBot
How would you feel if that same little girl later that day bought a burrito from a street vendor that turned out to be made of catmeat?

I would feel that the vendor broke the law and should be punished. But the law he broke would not be running a business. The law would be selling faulty or tainted goods. If the law were drafted thusly, with the direct harm of others in mind, it would not have applied to a little girl's lemonade stand.

Maybe this is just a philosophical thing - you don't seem to see the need for ANY laws.

Absolutely untrue, and I'm really getting tired of having to combat this strawman and false dichotomy.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
So you are saying that democracy is not a good idea?

No, it isn't. It's just a tyranny with a large number of tyrants.

Now a Constitutional Republic—which is what this country is supposed to be—that's much, much better.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Okay. That is a really good point about selling legal products on your own property. Not the same as a street vendor.

It apparently is, because the girl's lemonade stand was on her parents' property.

As for the yard sale comparison, I hate to split hairs, but lemonade is a food product. However, the government voided the difference by granting the little girl an open-ended, free permit. :)

I think that really places the nay-sayes like Thanz and Malachi in a problematic position. They are claiming:

1) Laws must be applied without exception, or there would be anarchy; and
2) The law made an exception for this little girl.

And they wonder why my head's spinning...

You have to practically be a lawyer as well as a cop.

Well, that's one of the biggest problems we face: Those who are expected to obey the law, and those who are supposed to enforce it, don't have a hope of actually understanding what the law is.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The obvious problem with all this is that this is obviously a local law, and therefore not even a part of "big gobmnt".

Local governments can be big governments. If you don't believe me, come to Charlotte sometime. You can't weasel out of it that way.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
You really don't see the difference? You're really that deluded?
Let's be clear here. I am not saying that a boy committing suicide with his father's guns is equivalent to shutting down a lemonade stand. I am saying that the argument style that comes from that is the same.

In one case, people point to the gun tragedy and say - see? guns bad! and then you (and others) say -this is an extreme example! it doesn't show what the majority of gun owners do - you are using it to push your agenda!

In this case, you point to putting the squeeze on the lemonade stand and say - see? Government bad! To which I say - this is an extreme example! It doesn't show what the law is really about and you are using it to push your agenda!

Get it?

Maybe because she broke the law? The law saw her as a criminal, even if those who enforce it decided to be lenient.
Not everyone who breaks any law is a criminal. You have to commit a crime to be a criminal. She failed to follow a regulation. Big difference, and using "criminal" rhetoric is misleading at best.

GOVERNMENT didn't do something nice! That's what you refuse to understand! GOVERNMENT labelled her a criminal! GOVERNMENT shut her down! It was the charitiable acts of HUMAN BEINGS who got her lemonade stand back up again! You can't weasel out of it just because some of them happened to be government agents! They weren't acting in that capacity!
No weaseling here. OF COURSE they were acting in their capacity as government agents. They have to be - otherwise they cannot issue the freakin permit. This is an obvious point.

With this paragraph you are only emphasizing my point regarding your attitude toward "government" and when we can attribute actions to them.

Which means that that law is overreaching and intrusive. It affects those who harm no one.
For one weekend. When a busybody complains. Doesn't seem to cry out for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You're avoiding the question—why should she need a permit AT ALL????
Well, because she was running a temporary business, I suppose. That is what I gather from the articles linked to. If someone has easy access to the by-law, I'd like to see it.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by shanek
I think that really places the nay-sayes like Thanz and Malachi in a problematic position. They are claiming:

1) Laws must be applied without exception, or there would be anarchy; and
2) The law made an exception for this little girl.

And they wonder why my head's spinning...

I didn't say this at all. Show me where I said anything about anarchy.

All I said was that the police had an obligation to investigate a complaint. And then, once the family was aware of the need for a permit, they went to the proper authorities to get one, who issued the permit and waived the fee because, well, it's a freaking lemonade stand. None of it would have happened without the pain in the @$$ neighbour.

Maybe in the future they will amend the law to take out lemonade stands run by little girls. I don't know. But with a law like this it is sometimes impossible to foresee, in advance, all of the possible situations it will cover unintentionally. When they come up, they are dealt with on an individaul basis. I don't see why this would be a problem.

I haven't seen the law, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that it exempts yard sales provided that they are not done as some sort of business (like every week). That is the kind of event that would be foreseen. Having some busybody sic the cops on a six year old is not foreseen.

[Malachi151]

Now a Constitutional Republic—which is what this country is supposed to be—that's much, much better.

LOL, yeah, cause we all know this would NEVER happen in a Republic :p

Dude you are just an idiot, sorry, but it has to be said.

GOVERNMENT didn't do something nice! That's what you refuse to understand! GOVERNMENT labelled her a criminal! GOVERNMENT shut her down! It was the charitiable acts of HUMAN BEINGS who got her lemonade stand back up again! You can't weasel out of it just because some of them happened to be government agents! They weren't acting in that capacity![

What the hell are you talking about? She was not labeled a criminal. She was not shut down. The government is made up of human beings, the same human beings who granted her the free permit.

What is it that you are calling the govenrment, laws?

She was in violation of a law, which was put into place with the consent of the people. What is the issue. Maybe the law was not written with lemonaide stands in mind, and maybe now they will change the law. How were they not acting in their capacity as government agents? According to you anything good that is done is by definition not the act of a government agent.

If they do something good, its humanity, if they do something bad, its BIG GOBMNT! Moronic.

Are there laws on the books that are poorly written or stupid? Up bet, plenty of them. All laws are created by people, the people are the ones to blame. All laws are enforced by people, again.

If you make laws subjective then they are useless.

I bet the girl gets rich off the whole ordeal anyway, now she probably has a 10 minute waiting line every day for lemonaid :p

What I want to know is how did the press get on the scene so fast to take pictures? I guess they listen in on police radio.

[Bentspoon]

It is all very clear what went on here.

There was a bitchy old neighbor next door and he/she didn't like kids so he/she gave them a hard time. Like so many clever people, he/she found a way to use the laws to his/her unintended benefit.

As far as I can see, thats what we have here.

Government intrusion? Too much government?

This thread is utterly ridiculous. I will move on to others.

Bentspoon

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

Let's be clear here. I am not saying that a boy committing suicide with his father's guns is equivalent to shutting down a lemonade stand. I am saying that the argument style that comes from that is the same.

In one case, people point to the gun tragedy and say - see? guns bad! and then you (and others) say -this is an extreme example! it doesn't show what the majority of gun owners do - you are using it to push your agenda!

In this case, you point to putting the squeeze on the lemonade stand and say - see? Government bad! To which I say - this is an extreme example! It doesn't show what the law is really about and you are using it to push your agenda!

Get it?

I get it; you don't. As I already stated above, any law will get taken to the extremes sooner or later. No law stays put, doing just what it was intended to do. And yes, this is an excellent example of this. Even though everyone knew the law was never intended to shut down lemonade stands, even though everyone (except, apparently, the @$$hole neighbor) knew it was wrong, they had no choice but to follow the law anyway.

The other reason why the two are not remotely comparable comes down to the issue of responsibility. In the thread about the kid committing suicide, the anti-gun types were trying to put the responsibility everywhere except where it belongs: On the kid. They were his deliberate actions. Something went wrong in his mind. It isn't the fault of his father, or the guns.

In this case, yes, the neighbor bears responsibility, but so does the government that allowed him to harass this little girl in the first place. As I said so many times in this thread, if this truly were a free society the little girl would not have been breking any laws. Her actions did not harm, defraud, or endanger anyone.

Not everyone who breaks any law is a criminal. You have to commit a crime to be a criminal. She failed to follow a regulation. Big difference, and using "criminal" rhetoric is misleading at best.

Okay, maybe I should have said "lawbreaker" instead of "criminal," but the point still stands.

No weaseling here. OF COURSE they were acting in their capacity as government agents. They have to be - otherwise they cannot issue the freakin permit. This is an obvious point.

No, it isn't. Anyone can go and purchase a permit for someone; this is exactly what they did. In fact, recall that the mother was going to do exactly that!

For one weekend. When a busybody complains. Doesn't seem to cry out for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Even if it's Rosemary's baby?


Well, because she was running a temporary business, I suppose.

Nice go at avoiding the question...

Me: Why did she need a permit?

Thanz: Because the law said so.

Geez!!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Dude you are just an idiot, sorry, but it has to be said.

This sentence says much more about you than it does me.

She was not shut down.

Yes, she was! She was completely shut down until the mother went to go get the permit!

From the article:

The police arrived and shut her down.

"We had to take down our lemonade stand,” said Avigayil.

Abagail did not have a temporary business permit, which is technically a city violation.

"So we had to do something else to play,” said Avigayil.

The government is made up of human beings, the same human beings who granted her the free permit.

I've already addressed this point several times in this thread. I would question your resding comprehension, but in light of your above statement it's obviously just pigheadedness.

She was in violation of a law, which was put into place with the consent of the people. What is the issue.

The issue is, there are some laws that just shouldn't be passed, no matter how many people consent to them. If no one is being harmed, endangered, or defrauded, they should be left alone. That's the essence of our Constitution.

How were they not acting in their capacity as government agents? According to you anything good that is done is by definition not the act of a government agent.

You're exposing your bias again. I've already explained this. The government still forbade her to run a stand without a permit. The fact that the people in charge decided to be charitable and chip in to get her one doesn't invalidate the fact that she needed one to begin with!

If they do something good, its humanity, if they do something bad, its BIG GOBMNT! Moronic.

Strawman. Learn to read.

If you make laws subjective then they are useless.

Agreed. Now show me where I advocated doing this.

What I want to know is how did the press get on the scene so fast to take pictures? I guess they listen in on police radio.

Geez...and you call ME a moron! :rolleyes:

I suppose it didn't occur to you at all that they went down there AFTER the lemonade stand was put back up?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Bentspoon
It is all very clear what went on here.

There was a bitchy old neighbor next door and he/she didn't like kids so he/she gave them a hard time. Like so many clever people, he/she found a way to use the laws to his/her unintended benefit.

The issue here, as I have stated in this thread numerous times, is that the government supported his actions.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Thanz

I didn't say this at all. Show me where I said anything about anarchy.

I was paraphrasing.

None of it would have happened without the pain in the @$$ neighbour.

Yet again, the difference is that without the government the only way he could have done anything against the little girl would have put him on the wrong side of the law. The law enabled his behavior, and let him get away with it. What's to stop him from being a pain in the @$$ again?

But with a law like this it is sometimes impossible to foresee, in advance, all of the possible situations it will cover unintentionally.

That is precisely why laws shouldn't be made to cover anything other than the direct harm people cause to others!

Those defending the law in this thread keep bringing up street vendors. On the rare occasion they actually responded to my request about what's so wrong about them, I showed that their actual complaint regarded fraud, or the harm or endangerment of others.

This is exactly the problem with making such broad, sweeping laws. You punish not only the ones you want, but innocent people as well. It is inevitable.

I haven't seen the law, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out that it exempts yard sales

That's not the question. The question was, what in principle is the difference between a lemonade stand and a yard sale? I know a lot of people who'd be really p!$$3d off if they were forbidden to run a yard sale.

[Malachi151]

shanek

Okay, this is my last reply to you ever, becuase you are obviously a wackjob. Hopefully you won't go on a mass murder rampage or anything, though you seem like the type.

Yes, she was! She was completely shut down until the mother went to go get the permit!

Yeah, temporarily. Dude, its a lemonaid stand, who cares.

"We had to take down our lemonade stand,” said Avigayil.

OMG! I assume they take it down every night that they ever run it. A lemonaid stand is like a hobby, its not like the girl is being put out on the street to rot in a dumpster. She has to stop collecting quarters for (how long, a few hours, a day?)

The issue is, there are some laws that just shouldn't be passed, no matter how many people consent to them. If no one is being harmed, endangered, or defrauded, they should be left alone.

Okay, how do you define laws that harm, endanger, or defraud? In fact that is the whole purose behind the very laws that she was violating. Thats part of the point of business permits, to regulate business to help ensure that people are not being harmed, or defrauded. I also don't agree that people should not be able to regulate their community. If people don't want hotdog vendors in their community then they should be able to pas laws against hotdog vendors.

Thats the whole deal with government. If you don't allow people to pass laws to regulate the situation, and you also don't allow them to regulate it themselves, then the people become powerless. Without government everything is self regulated. Having a government though requires that things be government regulated, we can't have people patroling thier own streets and just deciding for themselves who they do and don't want to let do business. That always ends up being highly unfair and leads to extortion and situations like with mobs running everything.

Trust me, with no government the girl probably would have had to pay even more money to some crime boss to vend, or in fact she may have been selling cigaretts on the street for fat cat merchants, like they do in 3rd world countries. Ever been out of the country? I've been to Europe, the caribbean, and Central America, and there is far less government interaction in many of those places, and when the people take matters into their own hands its no better I can tell you.

You seem to think that w/o government that individuals would have so much more control over their own lives, which has been proven time and time again to be the opposite of the case, and why people have opted repeatedly to form governments. And just so you know, there were plenty of laws governing business on the books immediately as soon as the counrty was formed.

In fact it cased a big stir and lots of anti-Federalist sentament because they were so pro-big business, they wrote in many laws fvoring thier own trades and businesses, while many farmers felt they had been left out.

Part of the role of government is ensuring equality and fairness of treatment. Without that society becomes completly "Might makes Right" and the power of the gun is the only law that matters, things decent into rampant violence with mobs and corrupt militias ruling society. Its happend over, and over, and over, again.

I suppose it didn't occur to you at all that they went down there AFTER the lemonade stand was put back up?

Yeah it did, I just didn't think the police would go down just to do a photo shoot.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Okay, this is my last reply to you ever, becuase you are obviously a wackjob.

I'm crying my eyes out. Really I am.

Hopefully you won't go on a mass murder rampage or anything, though you seem like the type.

:rolleyes:

Nope...I won't miss your insane ramblings at all.

I just made up a new expression: You can tell the measure of a man by those who put him on ignore. :D

Yeah, temporarily.

Until they got the permit. They had to get the permit first. No permit, no lemonade stand. That's the point you keep ignoring.

A lemonaid stand is like a hobby, its not like the girl is being put out on the street to rot in a dumpster.

So? Running a lemonade stand, while fun, is also a big learning experience for a child. I remember hearing Billy Joel talk about how he used to go digging for clams and selling them at local markets at his home in Long Island and getting some spending money. It helped him learn the value of work and money. Nowadays, they can't do that, because of whiners like you who were claiming the Big Evil Companies were exploiting the labor of innocent children.

Okay, how do you define laws that harm, endanger, or defraud?

If they affect anyone who doesn't do any of those things, it isn't one of those laws. Duh.

In fact that is the whole purose behind the very laws that she was violating.

If that were the case, she wouldn't have been in violation, because she was harming no one.

Thats part of the point of business permits, to regulate business to help ensure that people are not being harmed, or defrauded.

The difference is whether you punish everyone or just the ones that harm others.

I also don't agree that people should not be able to regulate their community. If people don't want hotdog vendors in their community then they should be able to pas laws against hotdog vendors.

Here's the question: Whose property is it?

Besides, if no one wants the hot dog stand, then there won't be one, because it wouldn't make any money. If the hot dog stand is there, it's because enough people want it to make it profitable. So it's really not about what the people want; it's about some people forcing others to live as they want.

Thats the whole deal with government. If you don't allow people to pass laws to regulate the situation, and you also don't allow them to regulate it themselves, then the people become powerless.

No, exactly the opposite is true. When you set people free, they then have power over their lives. By taking away their freedom, you take their power from them.

Without government everything is self regulated. Having a government though requires that things be government regulated, we can't have people patroling thier own streets and just deciding for themselves who they do and don't want to let do business. That always ends up being highly unfair and leads to extortion and situations like with mobs running everything.

Sigh....Mobs can only run in activities that government restricts, like gambling and prostitution. You really don't know a thing about this, do you?


You seem to think that w/o government that individuals would have so much more control over their own lives, which has been proven time and time again to be the opposite of the case,

No, it hasn't, and you've proven quite well that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Why do mobsters only work in areas restricted by government? Why is there only a black market for items restricted by government? Answer me that.

Oh, that's right, you won't, because you're just going to stick your head in the sand and not deal with anything that is at odds with your precious delusions.